Is the United Methodist Church moving towards acceptance of Homosexuals?

[iampunha]

*Originally posted by His4ever *
I do not hate homosexuals. But I won’t lie to them and tell them their lifestyle is okay either.

Someone ordered a kettle of fish? We’ve got one here, and boy how do we.

His4ever, please explain to us/me exactly what is the homosexual lifestyle:) And please bear in mind that there are those of us who are not heterosexual who also have never had sexual intercourse, or in fact had fellatio or cunnilingus or anything like that.

But, of course, if someone is robbed and killed (the perpretrator may not even have known he was gay) and just happens to be a homosexual, the gay population is going to jump right on that and use it to their advantage.

And if someone is killed because s/he is believed to be gay/bi/transgendered, or really any other number of things, you’re damn right those of us who are concerned with those issues are going to be very much on top of that. The same as you likely would if a member of your church were killed for his or her beliefs. Not for actions, mind you, but for beliefs. People are killed, you see, simply because they are gay, not for any particular “gay thing” they do.

I don’t appreciate being called homophobic or any other name just because I disagree with you and subscribe to the biblical teachings that it’s a sin.

You keep on using this (or a variation) phrase “biblical teaching” as though there’s one thing everyone agrees that the Bible says about being gay. I subscribe to what I believe to be a Bible teaching that you ought to live a good life and try to be good to others. I don’t assume I’m completely right about any particular aspect of religion except those things like “Christian doctrine says we should love God” and things like that. Things everyone can agree upon. Because the fact of the matter is that entire denominations arise because of differences in interpretation of chapters/verses/authors. To say “The Bible teaches X” seems to me to be a little overzealous given your familiarity with topics you must have run across earlier in your life…

I also see it as telling them the truth about their lifestyle in a loving manner, not sugarcoating it to make them feel comfortable in their sin.

See my previous comment re: non-hets and lifestyles and sin.

Our duty to them is the same as it is to everyone, bring them to Christ if they’ll come.

It seems to me that a more Christlike duty would be to tell them about Jesus if/when they ask, and leave it up to them, not do everything you can to get them into a church that will very likely start judging them first thing.

Jesus forgave the woman taken in adultery but also told her to go and sin no more.

She had committed an act of sin. She did not just have an orientation one way. She had done something. With gay people all that’s necessarily involved is an attraction to members of their gender. No sexual activity is even implied. And if you disagree with that, I believe we’ve got at least one consistent GDer who falls right into that camp. I was with him (though I’m bisexual) up until roughly last October. And the argument that I either am devoid of sexuality or can’t know what mine is until I’ve had a sexual experience is … well, not true. At least for me. I watched Coyote Ugly once and I knew … hehehe. Oh boy how:)

I’ve read the Scriptures over and over on this issue and sorry, I just can’t see it your way.

What do the scriptures have to say about homosexuality? Forget for a moment any “homosexual activity”. JUST the proclivity. That whole “you shall not lie with man as with woman, it is abomination” need not concern your answer.

[sub]How does one do that, anyway? Men don’t have vaginas…[/sub]

[Apos]

—How does one do that, anyway? Men don’t have vaginas…–

Hey, speak for yourself…

[Guinastasia]

there are those of us who are not heterosexual who cunnilingus or anything like that.

Bolding mine. Patrick, um, I would think that would be obvious in your case.

[Apos]

Sidenote:

“there are those of us who are not heterosexual who cunnilingus or anything like that.”

Is this the proper use of the terminology? I always thought cunnilingus was a noun, not a verb: is it actually both?

[Essured]

[hijack, but hasn’t this whole thread, anyway]

Jodi,

[/quote]
Oh, and if you want to be saved, you evil women, then have some babies; that’s a female’s road to salvation. (Timothy again.)
[/quote]

This interested me very much. Would you mind telling me where I could find this in the bible ? Thanks

[/hijack]

[Homebrew]

Goo, check out 1 Timothy 5:14

I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversar to speak reproachfully.

Of course that conflicts with his earlier comments in 1 Corinthians that men should not allow their virgin daughters to marry. However, I can see while rereading this why Jodi had such harsh things to say about Paul beforehand. In verses 11-13, Paul (if he is indeed the author of this) has some harsh things to say about young widows always learning to be idle, tattlers, busybodies and gossips. It doesn’t seem he holds women in very high regard.

[Jodi]

Goo, in addition to Homebrew’s citation, I was specifically referring to 1 Timothy 2, which says:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing–if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

1 Tim. 2:11-15.

But there are a couple of things to remember, IMO. First, the letters of Paul are not Gospel and IMO are best regarded as what they are: Trouble-shooting letters, sent to congregations (or people dealing with congregations) during Christianity’s infancy. As I have said, I read Paul as a product of his time; this actually helps me deal with some of his more mysogynistic pronouncements without dismissing his entire works out of hand. Second, there is serious debate among scholars as to whether Paul wrote some of his letters, including the two to Timothy.

For what that’s worth.

[Essured]

Thanks Jodi & Homebrew, you’ve given me some food for thought.

[iampunha]

*Originally posted by Apos *
**Sidenote:

“there are those of us who are not heterosexual who cunnilingus or anything like that.”

Is this the proper use of the terminology? I always thought cunnilingus was a noun, not a verb: is it actually both? **

Mea culpa. I was so preocccupied with spelling it that I gave no thought to proper use. My guess for its verbing (as verbing weirds language;)) is “perform cunnilingus”.

[Apos]

-begin silly digression-

I dunno, it’s a sex word, and it seems that sooner or later, all sex words become every part of speech (f**k just needs to figure out how to work as an article and preposition). I was just wondering if that had happened to this one yet.

-end silly digression-

[Polycarp]

I am both a Mod and an Admin at once, yet am still only one entity. Kind of like the whole Jesus/God thing.*

Well, Gaudere, may I quote this the next time the “the Trinity is self-contradictory” argument comes up?

Actually, His4Ever, though I’m not out to castigate you for trying to adhere to “what the Bible says,” I would welcome you saying what you think a Christian ought to do in dealing, one-on-one, with a gay person. And why that’s the answer.

Would you be at all interested (or would other “Bible-believing Christians” care to join in) in a thread analyzing various interpretations of the Scriptural passages you cited with reference to homosexuality? I know Homebrew and I have done some reading on the subject in a variety of scholars, and would welcome the opportunity to share the results. And somebody with a copy of Helminiak might have some useful data to throw in.

[SisterCoyote]

’punha - ha.

[Gaudere]

Well, Gaudere, may I quote this the next time the “the Trinity is self-contradictory” argument comes up?

You can if you want to be treated to a treatise on inappropriate analogies again.

[Mitchey]

WoW! I wish I had gotten in on this when it was going strong! Too much has gone by to directly comment on specific posts so I’ll just throw out some odds and ends.

First off, on the subject of Sodom and Gomorrah I think it has been clearly represented that in other parts of the Bible the theories that they were destroyed for homosexuality are false. Also, you should read Genesis Chapters 18 and 19. You will see that God had intended to destroy them before he sent the angles to see if there were any good people in the city. Another theory about why the people of Sodom wanted to “know” the angles was to humiliate them. It is a practice that has been done by conquering armies from the start of recorded history to present date. The people of Sodom did not like outsiders and they were furious that Lot had taken them in.

The following is a MUST READ. It demonstrates a gay relationship in the Old Testament. Further down on the page is an interesting theory of where Jesus may have addressed the subject of homosexuals in a good way.:eek:

KING DAVID SLAYS GOLIATH (and a young man’s heart)

In Matthew 19:12, Christ says “For there are eunuchs who have been born incapable of marriage, and there are eunuchs who have been made by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves incapable of marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him who is able to accept this, accept it” (Amplified Bible).

[Siege]

Mitchey, thank you for the verse, and welcome to the Boards!

CJ

[Shodan]

Hi, Mitchey -

Thanks for the article. Unfortunately, it just isn’t a useful one.

The article you cite claims that the orginal Hebrew text of 1 Samuel 20:41 says that David wept until he got an erection. Not only is this linguistically and physiologically bizarre, it is a simple misstatement of fact. The orginal Hebrew text cannot be construed in any reasonable sense to say anything of the sort.

Add to that the article’s apparent inability to understand what Saul objected to in the friendship between Jonathan and David, and their embarassing over-eagerness to misinterpret an argument over succession to the throne as Jonathan coming out of the closet to his father, and you have a fairly extreme example of either Freudian projection or simple dishonesty.

This is an example of the sort of exegetical knots into which people are willing to tie themselves. It goes far beyond “That’s your interpretation” into realms where black can mean anything you want it to, including white.

My cite is http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb if anyone wants to look up the verse for yourself.

Regards,
Shodan

[Mangetout]

*Originally posted by Gaudere *
**You can if you want to be treated to a treatise on inappropriate analogies again. **

All analogies are inappropriate to some degree.

[Guinastasia]

Mitchey, perhaps you might be reading too much into that story, no?

To claim it as absolute proof that they were gay is not a good idea. You have to study the context, the culture of the time, etc.

For example, in some cultures, people greet one another with a kiss, and there’s nothing sexual about it.

That doesn’t mean that there MAY or may not have been something more betwen David and Jonathan. However, we cannot say there was.

[bong]

*Originally posted by His4ever *
**The whole Bible is God’s word, not just the words of Jesus. The apostle Paul spoke about it in Roman’s 1. He was a follower of Christ and met Him on the road to Damascus. I think the Holy Spirit would have corrected him had he been mistaken. Also God doesn’'t change, He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrha over this sin. They even wanted to have sex with the angels who came to take Lot and his family out of the city. Seems like people want to use and twist the Scripture so they can contintue in their wrong actions. If what the Bible says about it doesn’t convince you, I doubt I can. Just because Jesus Himself doesn’t mention something specifically doesn’t mean it’s okay to do if it’s condemned elsewhere in Scripture. You are straining at gnats and swallowing camels. **

If they wanted to have sex, fine. That does NOT give anyone the right to kill and torture them. If I murdered all the gays in the world, would you think it right? Had God killed all the gays in the world simply because they were gay, it’s still as wrong as me killing the gays.

If Hitler tortured someone because they have different beliefs, he was called a nazi. If God tortures Mahatma Ghandi because he has different beliefs, it’s called justice? What is the difference between a person acting like a divisive bigot and an omnipotent being being a dvisive bigot?

[bong]

Something for you to think about:

Think of a brutal dictator

Now give him a name

Did he kill people because of their beliefs

Was his name Saddam Hussein or Hitler?

If so, you do not worship them

But if his name is God

You worship him

Why?

What is the difference between a brutal dictator of a man and a brutal dictator of a god?

Not much

Short of God being omnipotent

So there.