brutally honest
Senior Member
Clips from the conference plus an interesting comment about John Wesley at about the one minute mark.
Welcome Guest!
United Methodists repeal longstanding ban on LGBTQ clergy
- Thread starter SemperFiDawg
- Start date
Madman
Senior Member
“It is the responsibility of the Church to teach and the Bible to prove.”
Spotlite
Resident Homesteader
Woke = complete slumber.
Ok so I’m back original outside the Bible stance. Go do it but don’t they don’t need waste their time trying to convince me I’m wrong because I don’t accept it.
Artfuldodger
Senior Member
He sounds like he as a bit weird to me. His time in Savannah was not good.
"Wesley ran into trouble in Savannah when he fell in love with a local woman named Sophia Hockey. His dedication to the clerical celibacy practiced by the early Christians resulted in him not proposing to her. Instead, William Williamson proposed to her and she married him. Feeling that the zeal for her Christian faith had waned, John Wesley denied her from receiving Holy Communion. This created an uproar in the community, which he ended up fleeing in 1737, just two years after his arrival. Eventually Wesley would reconcile the zeal of his faith with the idea of matrimony, marrying Mary Vazeille in 1751."
gordon 2
Senior Member
"Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her 26to sanctify her, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,…"
Some say the horse pulls the cart, some say it pushes the cart, having their own definitions of push and pull.
Paul has been referenced in this great tread many times. Some have stated that Paul's views on how things should be with believers in their social and church organization are based on the bible, or some on Paul's understanding from the creation detail of Adam and Eve, or by referencing the old testament on social matters or from culture in general or nature in general.
When I read Paul on the subjects of love and relationship within the body of believers, the church, I find that Paul bases his teaching on his understanding of Christian love. " Just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" is the reference for Paul's order of relationships.
Just as Christ loved the church to sanctify her, cleansing her by the washing of the water through the word... so is a husband to love his wife, that is by a love equal to Christ's love for all the church, the husband sanctifies his wife. Just as the church submits to Christ's love, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything within the frame of Christ's love for the church.
In many ways Paul is also the love apostle along with John. He sees with love. He organizes himself with God's love and attempts or answer towards all relationships in the paradigm or framework he understands what God's love through Jesus Christ is all about.
Paul says somewhere in scripture that women will know of God's love through childbirth and that by this love they can be saved, ( if I understood correctly.) In other words God's supernatural love falls onto women due childbirth or just for their nature being female. Men ,on the other hand, can only know God's love frank by and through identification with Christ, by Christ crucified and by Christ raised. And everything is measured and reasoned from this perspective.
In the Christian context sex without love and for Paul love in the context of God's love for the church, is fornication or sinful. Everything that is wholesome must follow from God's love, not culture, not politics, not anything else but this love of Christ for the church.
Now Christ is termed the groom or so the husband and the church is termed the bride and love is defined within this context also, that is the love of a groom and a bride toward each other . It follows by default that spiritual relationship is a male-female relationship if the whole spiritual order is to be stable and wholesome and to just plainly make sense in the Christian context. Any other love union in the Christian context ( and in the Old Testament context) , other that male and female, is adulterous to Christ, to God. And also what makes females subject to male authority in spiritual matters is perhaps that males "must" get their sanctifying love directly from God in order that they can minister it. It is not a natural thing that can occur to males. It must be gained spiritually. It is my view that women submit to their husbands love when their husbands have this love which Paul claim that if you don't have it you don't have anything spiritually, period! . But females are not to be bound in submission to husbands that don't have it, this love in Christ, yet they are bound to love in Christ. The problem I have with LGBTQ clergy is that it defies the spiritual order or criteria for Christ's love for the church.
It is my view that this is where Paul gets his definitions from, from Christ crucified out of love and from Christ's love for the church. Paul is not prejudiced towards females, nor sinners for that matter. But I think that Paul understands that males are limited by being male as to the depth of God's love---except that they get it from God's loving order and from this males are able to be priests, pastors, shepherds and husbands. In this way a worldly love can be discerned, a wolf in a husbands jacket. For Paul everything revolves around love. And not just any love. Everything revolves on Christ's suffering and the will of his shedding of his blood due love. For Paul love is his spiritual eye. He knows to see by it and knows to see when it is active in others and when it is not. And he knows where one get's it...and where one will not get it.
Some say the horse pulls the cart, some say it pushes the cart, having their own definitions of push and pull.
Paul has been referenced in this great tread many times. Some have stated that Paul's views on how things should be with believers in their social and church organization are based on the bible, or some on Paul's understanding from the creation detail of Adam and Eve, or by referencing the old testament on social matters or from culture in general or nature in general.
When I read Paul on the subjects of love and relationship within the body of believers, the church, I find that Paul bases his teaching on his understanding of Christian love. " Just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" is the reference for Paul's order of relationships.
Just as Christ loved the church to sanctify her, cleansing her by the washing of the water through the word... so is a husband to love his wife, that is by a love equal to Christ's love for all the church, the husband sanctifies his wife. Just as the church submits to Christ's love, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything within the frame of Christ's love for the church.
In many ways Paul is also the love apostle along with John. He sees with love. He organizes himself with God's love and attempts or answer towards all relationships in the paradigm or framework he understands what God's love through Jesus Christ is all about.
Paul says somewhere in scripture that women will know of God's love through childbirth and that by this love they can be saved, ( if I understood correctly.) In other words God's supernatural love falls onto women due childbirth or just for their nature being female. Men ,on the other hand, can only know God's love frank by and through identification with Christ, by Christ crucified and by Christ raised. And everything is measured and reasoned from this perspective.
In the Christian context sex without love and for Paul love in the context of God's love for the church, is fornication or sinful. Everything that is wholesome must follow from God's love, not culture, not politics, not anything else but this love of Christ for the church.
Now Christ is termed the groom or so the husband and the church is termed the bride and love is defined within this context also, that is the love of a groom and a bride toward each other . It follows by default that spiritual relationship is a male-female relationship if the whole spiritual order is to be stable and wholesome and to just plainly make sense in the Christian context. Any other love union in the Christian context ( and in the Old Testament context) , other that male and female, is adulterous to Christ, to God. And also what makes females subject to male authority in spiritual matters is perhaps that males "must" get their sanctifying love directly from God in order that they can minister it. It is not a natural thing that can occur to males. It must be gained spiritually. It is my view that women submit to their husbands love when their husbands have this love which Paul claim that if you don't have it you don't have anything spiritually, period! . But females are not to be bound in submission to husbands that don't have it, this love in Christ, yet they are bound to love in Christ. The problem I have with LGBTQ clergy is that it defies the spiritual order or criteria for Christ's love for the church.
It is my view that this is where Paul gets his definitions from, from Christ crucified out of love and from Christ's love for the church. Paul is not prejudiced towards females, nor sinners for that matter. But I think that Paul understands that males are limited by being male as to the depth of God's love---except that they get it from God's loving order and from this males are able to be priests, pastors, shepherds and husbands. In this way a worldly love can be discerned, a wolf in a husbands jacket. For Paul everything revolves around love. And not just any love. Everything revolves on Christ's suffering and the will of his shedding of his blood due love. For Paul love is his spiritual eye. He knows to see by it and knows to see when it is active in others and when it is not. And he knows where one get's it...and where one will not get it.
Last edited:
Spotlite
Resident Homesteader
1 Timothy 2:15
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”
Artfuldodger
Senior Member
I can somewhat relate to what you are saying but I think it's more to do with the dominate persona than gender. God is over Christ, as man is over woman, as Christ is over the Church.
The Bible does use marriage a lot to show this union or submissiveness. I think you can be over or the head of something or someone without being dominate maybe? Yet can you be submissive without a dominant person or persona?
Regardless though it's not about gender. God is over Christ, Christ isn't a woman. Christ is over the Church yet his bride isn't a woman. Scripture is just using it as an example of authority.
Wives submit to Husbands and the Church submits to Christ.
For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
gordon 2
Senior Member
Well you can understand it that way if you will. It has been preached and understood as you say a million times. But my estimation is that it is not about being over anything or anyone. Rather it is about how God's love works in relationship with man, how it is foremost, and how man works by and with this love to make things spiritually real and so to man's life one of eternal life and profoundly meaningful.
According to Paul the cause of how Christians need to live is God's love.
"And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." This is the cause of our faith.
What does love look like for Paul who draws from Christ :
"Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth."
I think for Paul that love is the "word" and love in Christ is the "truth" and love in Christ is the "word of truth" Love tempers the spectacles of life with " eternal life" seeing and vision. Love in Christ is not a love of gradations-- it is sight from the profoundest life that God shares with man both male and female and so from man's life with God.
I think Paul askes the questions how best can man be when man has faith in God, in his love. He answers... God's love is better served by males this way and by females this other way--yet it is the same love. God's love works best with this kind of relationship and not this other kind. etc.
God "works" and is in relationship in human terms with humans persons male and female who like oppositely charged particles attract each other and are loving servants of each other. Perhaps this is crudely put, but I think this is what John sees by faith, which is way he will say"
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
Nevertheless Paul sees social order and spiritual order and church order as coming forth from God's love for man and God's love for the church and this ordering makes God's love active and real and wholesome for everyone concerned.
Last edited:
SemperFiDawg
Political Forum Arbiter of Truth (And Lies Too)
Uh may I be the one to point out that the "rules" haven't changed.....not unless someone has re-written the Bible. I've got about 6-7 different translations and they all say the same thing. Don't know what translation you're reading from. All said with a little sarcasm over what is patently obvious: people have changed, not the rules.
SemperFiDawg
Political Forum Arbiter of Truth (And Lies Too)
Pride as in elevating man's desires and lust over God's commands "pride?" I'm guessing they didn't go there.
SemperFiDawg
Political Forum Arbiter of Truth (And Lies Too)
Man has changed in this era. Romans 1 maps out the descent cultures take. Just listened to a great video from John McArthur. Well worth the listen. The first 5 minutes could have been spoken just for this thread.
I suppose Chic-Fil-A is the only restaurant business in the US still following the Biblical commands of keeping the Sabbath Holy. 99% of all other businesses and church members seem to have leaned towards the other Biblical statement that having "an ox in the ditch" family support emergency allows ignoring the first one.Then later into the 1970s, when most Baptist and Methodist churches had eased off on the hard line stance of boycotting any businesses open on Sundays, "You better hit the restaurant by 12:02 pm unless you want to wait in line behind all the Methodists."
(Jesus speaking to the lawyers and Pharisees in Luke 14 defending the accused man of violating the Sabbath if I am not mistaken)
Last edited:
brutally honest
Senior Member
Yeah, but even CFA has bought into a lot of woke nonsense.
Former Chick-fil-A boss Dan Cathy suggests white people shine black people’s shoes in resurfaced video
In June 2020, Cathy, who was CEO of Chick-fil-A at the time, shined the shoes of Lecrae Moore, a Christian rapper, at a church in Atlanta.
nypost.com
gordon 2
Senior Member
So what do "we" do?
"Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me."
We do like Paul in prison... we suffer in joy seems to be John McArthur's answer. There is no remedy for the worldly. There is no correction for the warriors for land, those called to the frontiers of lands ripe for the thievery? What will stop them is absence of frontiers that would offer booty? And having no land frontiers from which to pitch up their banners, a frontier people rush to sexuality frontiers, and gender identity frontiers, and to political-lawyer spins frontiers...and so a pause to developing and eventually expected new land frontiers.
So what do " we" do? We suffer with joy and wait for the heavenly land doctrine and its frontiers? Meanwhile "we" the people of light wait and fight for the land we do have now until more becomes available for us or perhaps to the next generation that inevitable on earth by the world and in heaven by God?
"We" are light's strange lovers. Our covet, our hope is in land and lands. We stand joyful in Christ until Gibeah presents again with her frontiers and then we are again the sons of Samson with the donkey's jaw in hand... and so we act from ancient memories and ancient lights until we fill it up and declare we are all joy until the next frontier presents to the living and or to the last frontier of the dead? "We" the people of light stand on the land of the Laish and we have renamed it Dan. Such is our joy that others are like the Laish and "we" will joyfully occupy their lands and rename them with glowing names?
Last edited:
SemperFiDawg
Political Forum Arbiter of Truth (And Lies Too)
When I was a boy growing up you didn't do anything on Sundays. You didn't wash clothes, cook (all the cooking for Sunday was done on Saturday), you didn't take out the trash and worse of all for me is you didn't go fishing. This was non negotiable.....and I was raised in a Baptist/Methodist community. Heck I remember a new pastor being fired because he wore a pair of shorts to a soft-ball game. Regarding that incident, I still remember a horrified church lady telling my mom, "Our daughter has never even seen her father in a pair of shorts unless he was swimming." That ain't been that long ago, or maybe it has. Looking back through a moral lens I can't say we've made any progress. The pendulum has swung off the hinge in the other direction and into the abyss. Though I enjoy an occasional Sunday fishing trip I would trade it all for people having the decency, modesty and integrity they had back then. This descent through God's judgement is difficult and it ain't even gotten bad yet. He's enough for me, but it's tough watching my children have to battle it, some getting caught up in it and stripped away. I can only pray God will bring them back. God's will be done. Blessed be the name of the Lord.
Last edited:
SemperFiDawg
Political Forum Arbiter of Truth (And Lies Too)
The only thing we can do. Hold onto God and WALK THE WALK. Has there ever been another choice that didn't lead to self-destruction? I always come back to Peter's reply when I become exasperated. "Where else can we go? You have the words of eternal life."
Last edited:
formula1
Daily Bible Verse Organizer
Yep! There is nowhere else to go! So never quit or give up! As scripture say ‘Endure’ to the end and ‘Walk by Faith’.
gordon 2
Senior Member
We walk by faith in time to the inevitable marches of the world, the worldly? "We" are swept up by the worldly commissions that promote fat and lean existence? We are but parasites of the world, we live in its belly as Jonah in the belly of the whale?
Or faith is faith into a fatality our fate that our commission has no moral directive or influence in the organ and organization of living human beings?
Peace is a temporary happy accident. There is no place to go, the world's draft notice is our lot---until Christ comes again.
Christianity is in a basket fed to Egypt and Babylon? We train with their armies when there is not longer room enough to maintain peace in our lands, we vote with the world, we buy the world's insurance, the world's medicines, we buy spin. We have no place to go? The world and Christians are so closely entwined that a stranger would Know us to be apart? And all because it is sufficient to walk by faith on the barges of the world?
This does not fit well for me. I never knew that Christians were a wondering people, here today, gone tomorrow. It just does not fit well with me.
formula1
Daily Bible Verse Organizer
All I can say is you are 1,000,000 miles away from the understanding of my words which point to scripture if wise enough to read it. So why don’t you study it for awhile. Perhaps you will understand then.
gordon 2
Senior Member
I think you have a correct point and a good one. I'm going to cloister myself and read the bible, study it, in order to someday understand your words. Perhaps, I will understand... See you back in two yrs... God willing. God bless and thank you.
