Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 3 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3
Switch to Forum Live View New Lutheran group likely to rise from gay discord
7 years ago  ::  Aug 27, 2010 - 11:27PM #21
Weepingangelofthetrees
Posts: 2,053

Aug 27, 2010 -- 10:28PM, Abner1 wrote:


Weepingangel wrote:


> I use to have a screen name years ago at a forum that included, "Goddess". You'd


> be amazed how many people still addressed me with a masculine pronoun.


Not really - many people just give up and use the masculine pronoun for everyone as a default.


  I've seen that as well. It was my error presuming the feminine noun form of "God" would translate on it's own. It's funny to have "Goddess" attached to your screen name and still be referred to as, sir!


> I'm thinking, what Goddess pictures have you looked at lately!? HA!


> Hermaphrogod/dess! That's it. Ohhh surre. Tongue out


I've met some pagans who believed in a God and a Goddess as two aspects of the same being ...  that's pretty close!



Oh certainly. Shiva as Ardha nAri Ishvarar, is one example. Interestingly enough, the Shiva myth is but one that predates but is similar and many say contributed to the compilation of the Christ myth. (Link)


"Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family."
Stephen Colbert
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Aug 29, 2010 - 9:10AM #22
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

LOTS of "Lutherans" think that they want to be The NEW "Martin Luther," bravely standing-up for "The Bible" over-against Ecclesiastical Power Run Amuck ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Sep 05, 2010 - 4:04PM #23
Merope
Posts: 14,591

This thread was moved from the Hot Topics Zone.


While a relaxed site-wide ROC standard applied to the discussion on that forum, the tighter forum-wide ROCs — and all local guidelines for this forum, including the fact that this is not a debate forum — apply to discussion from this point forward.


If the Lutheran regulars here feel this thread would be better placed on Christianity & Homosexuality, please let me know.  I will be happy to move it there.


Many thanks :-)

Merope | Beliefnet Community Manager
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 21, 2010 - 2:46AM #24
G_Erdner
Posts: 172

Sep 5, 2010 -- 4:04PM, Merope wrote:


This thread was moved from the Hot Topics Zone.


While a relaxed site-wide ROC standard applied to the discussion on that forum, the tighter forum-wide ROCs — and all local guidelines for this forum, including the fact that this is not a debate forum — apply to discussion from this point forward.


If the Lutheran regulars here feel this thread would be better placed on Christianity & Homosexuality, please let me know.  I will be happy to move it there.


Many thanks :-)




For the record, this isn't really about homosexuality. It's about whether or not the Bible is the sole source and norm of our understanding, as the Augsburg Confession and the ELCA's Constitution says it is.


There is no controversy over homosexuals being welcomed into our churches to hear God's Word and to receive God's healing gift of Grace. All sinners are welcome to be healed, to recieve the comfort of the Holy Spirit, and to be help by the Holy Spirit to come to repent their sins. No one particular group of sinners is better or worse than another, and no particular group of sinners is any more or less eligible for God's grace and love.


God did reveal certain standards of behavior as evidence of a person's suitability for the ordained ministry. They can be found in the Epistle to Timothy. God gives those He calls the gifts needed for the ministry, including the strength to resist the temptation to commit acts of sin. Heterosexuals who can resist the urge to have sex with partners other than their spouse and celibate homosexuals are eligible to be ordained.


That's the only possible interpretation of Scripture that can be made by using only Scripture as the source and norm of our understanding. If one reads the errant social statements approved by the ELCA at the 2009 CWA, one notices that conspicuous by its absence is any citation or references to anything in the Bible to support the conclusions that it is acceptable to endorse non-chaste homosexuals. It is that lack of Biblical support that is the issue, not whether or not a person is a homosexual.


Discussing this topic in a thread about homosexuality would therefore be a mistake. If it is to be moved anywhere, it should be moved to a forum about the validity and importance of Scripture as the place where we find God's Word.

Moderated by Merope on Dec 27, 2010 - 04:43AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 26, 2010 - 12:34AM #25
Antiochian
Posts: 72

So, a new denomination is being formed over this...  I don't get it.  The naysayers can always join the bigoted LCMS--whose president accuses the ELCA of heresy and apostacy--or the WELS, or some other ultra-conservative group.  I'm just amused and saddened at how easily denominations split and go their own ways, over everything from ecclesiology to the debated name of the donkey Jesus rode on Palm Sunday...


I grew up ELCA, and these days am attending an Episcopal church.  I remember all too well hating myself, and listening with horror as a youngster to the condemnations others heaped up for those like myself.  I thank God for and bless the memory of the late Pastor Berg, my minister growing up, who said there was nothing wrong with homosexuality.  Jesus SAID NOTHING about the subject.  He did have a few things to say about divorce, and I find it beyond hypocritical that churches remain more or less silent on that issue, while remaining feverishly obsessed with what we "sodomites" are up to.


As far as the 6 or 7 clobber verses in the Bible, plenty of scholars will say they have nothing to do with homosexuality as understood today (a loving relationship between two adult people), but pertain to temple prostitution or pederasty.  Also, while I find much moral guidance in scripture, I don't treat it as the infallible "Word of God," a term which applies only the Christ, the Logos.  (There are not 2 Words of God, are there?) 


I think Evangelicalism and the larger Protestant world has largely been guilty of bibliolatry.  Few Christians today condone slavery, though it's mentioned in passing in scripture, seemingly not something that concerned biblical authors.  Many would not condone the second-class status of women, either (and if you're going to be biblical, better get rid of the women pastors!).  I'm tired of people using their holy books and God to justify foolish bias.  It's time to grow up.  The Crusades and Inquisitions are over, a fact I'm sure some will be saddened to hear.  Here's an idea--how about we quit worrying about who sleeps with whom, and start focusing on Jesus Christ?

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 26, 2010 - 1:19AM #26
G_Erdner
Posts: 172

Nov 26, 2010 -- 12:34AM, Antiochian wrote:


So, a new denomination is being formed over this...  I don't get it. 



Then I'll explain it, again. A homosexual is someone who is attracted to members of the same gender for expressing physical sexuality. That is a temptation to commit an act of sin. We are all tempted to commit acts of sin. Not all of us are tempted by the same things, but we are all tempted. Sometimes, with the help of the Holy Spirit, we can resist what tempts us. Sometimes, we cannot resist. God loves us whether we try to resist or not, and whether we succeed or fail.


That doesn't mean that we are not supposed to try. And it doesn't mean that we should simply say, "The sin I'm tempted by isn't really a sin anymore because the ELCA took a vote on it."


When Jesus stopped the crowd from stoning the adulteress, He said, "Who among you is without sin?" That convinced the crowd to refrain from punishing the adulteress. But then, after forgiving her, He said to he adulteress, "Go and sin no more." Yes, He loved and forgave her. But He didn't tell her to go back and resume the sinful actions that He forgave.


There is no sin in emotional feelings of attachment and love for another person. But the Bible is clear that it is an act of sin for a man to have sexual relations with another man.


If a man feels strong urges to have sex with another man, that's a temptation to commit an act of sin that should be resisted. Not because one can earn salvation by being "good". But it should be resisted out of love and respect for God for having saved you. If God's Law says you shouldn't do something, then you shouldn't do it. And if you do it anyway, at least acknowledge that you've committed an act of sin that needs forgiveness, and don't support the heresy that says the action is not an act of sin.



Moderated by Merope on Dec 27, 2010 - 04:45AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 26, 2010 - 3:10PM #27
WannabeTheo
Posts: 401

Nov 26, 2010 -- 1:19AM, G_Erdner wrote:


A homosexual is someone who is attracted to members of the same gender for expressing physical sexuality.


...


There is no sin in emotional feelings of attachment and love for another person. But the Bible is clear that it is an act of sin for a man to have sexual relations with another man.







G_Erdner:


To your credit, throughout this and other threads you have been careful to emphasize that it is physical actions you find sinful. One reason this discussion never seems to go anywhere is that one side focuses on condemning specific physical actions while the other focuses on celebrating loving relationships. One frustration I have, being in a same gender relationship myself, is the apparent assumption by some on the other side of this debate that relationships like mine are completely defined by physical sexual activity. That's true of some homosexual relationships, and some heterosexual relationships as well. But those aren't the sort of relationships anybody in the ELCA is supporting.


As for supporting the relationships while condemning the physical actions, I've never heard any proposals along these lines. It seems to be assumed that condeming the acts is the same as condemning the relationship, but it's not. I might consider such a proposal, but I would have to ask: is that really the sort of religion Christianity is? Did Christ teach us to focus on physical actions, or relationships? I would submit that:



'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.(Matt 22:37-40)



reveals God's law as primarily relational, love of God and humankind. Contrast that with:



He said to them, "Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, "It is what comes out of a person that defiles. For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person." (Mark 7:18-23)



Are adultery and pederasty wrong because they are physical actions included in a list of proscribed actions, or because of the destructive consequences for all involved? No moral code which demands the prevention and destruction of loving relationships is moral, and a moral code which is nothing but a laundry list of proscribed and prescribed actions can't be taken seriously.



 


 


Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 26, 2010 - 4:34PM #28
G_Erdner
Posts: 172

Nov 26, 2010 -- 3:10PM, WannabeTheo wrote:


Are adultery and pederasty wrong because they are physical actions included in a list of proscribed actions, or because of the destructive consequences for all involved? No moral code which demands the prevention and destruction of loving relationships is moral, and a moral code which is nothing but a laundry list of proscribed and prescribed actions can't be taken seriously.   


 




Adultery and pederasty are wrong because God declared that physical sexual relations are to be between a husband (male) and a wife (female).


God's Law cannot be accurately described as "nothing but a laundry list of proscribed and prescribed actions". But that is not to say that the entirety of God's Law does not include a list of "proscribed and prescribed actions".  


God gives us the law that we may come to know that we are incapable of achieving salvation on our own by strict adherance to the Law. We will always fall short. That doesn't mean we are to ignore the "proscribed and prescribed actions" of the Law. God also gave us the Law because following it, even if imperfectly, enables us to live together in better harmony. God's Law is a gift given to us by God out of His love for us, and for our own good. It is the height of arrogance for us to presume that we can decide better than God what we should and should not do.


Evil people have, throughout history, attempted to twist and pervert Scripture in order to gain permission to engage in sinful acts.


Whenever you hear words to the effect, "Did God really say that?", you should be alerted to which fallen angel is behind them.

Moderated by Merope on Dec 27, 2010 - 04:47AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 26, 2010 - 7:41PM #29
Antiochian
Posts: 72

Nov 26, 2010 -- 1:19AM, G_Erdner wrote:


Nov 26, 2010 -- 12:34AM, Antiochian wrote:


So, a new denomination is being formed over this...  I don't get it. 



Then I'll explain it, again. A homosexual is someone who is attracted to members of the same gender for expressing physical sexuality. That is a temptation to commit an act of sin. We are all tempted to commit acts of sin. Not all of us are tempted by the same things, but we are all tempted. Sometimes, with the help of the Holy Spirit, we can resist what tempts us. Sometimes, we cannot resist. God loves us whether we try to resist or not, and whether we succeed or fail.


That doesn't mean that we are not supposed to try. And it doesn't mean that we should simply say, "The sin I'm tempted by isn't really a sin anymore because the ELCA took a vote on it."


When Jesus stopped the crowd from stoning the adulteress, He said, "Who among you is without sin?" That convinced the crowd to refrain from punishing the adulteress. But then, after forgiving her, He said to he adulteress, "Go and sin no more." Yes, He loved and forgave her. But He didn't tell her to go back and resume the sinful actions that He forgave.


There is no sin in emotional feelings of attachment and love for another person. But the Bible is clear that it is an act of sin for a man to have sexual relations with another man.


If a man feels strong urges to have sex with another man, that's a temptation to commit an act of sin that should be resisted. Not because one can earn salvation by being "good". But it should be resisted out of love and respect for God for having saved you. If God's Law says you shouldn't do something, then you shouldn't do it. And if you do it anyway, at least acknowledge that you've committed an act of sin that needs forgiveness, and don't support the heresy that says the action is not an act of sin.







I'm quite aware of what a homosexual is, and I don't need an explanation from you.  I'm gayer than a pink monkey in high heels.  As for the rest of your post, complete nonsense.  Did you read anything I typed?  What about slavery?  For that matter, what about polygamy, which was widely practiced in the OT with no complaint from God--and he was quick to say when something offended him.  And I agree with what was said in another response to you...  people get way too hung up on sex.  Don't assume that all gays pratice "sodomy."  For that matter, don't assume that heterosexual married couples don't.


Your interpretations of the passages you mention are not universal.  I know some darn intelligent biblical scholars who would take you to task on how you think the Bible addresses homosexuality.

Moderated by Merope on Dec 27, 2010 - 04:48AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 26, 2010 - 8:04PM #30
G_Erdner
Posts: 172

Nov 26, 2010 -- 7:41PM, Antiochian wrote:


I'm quite aware of what a homosexual is, and I don't need an explanation from you.  I'm gayer than a pink monkey in high heels.  As for the rest of your post, complete nonsense.  Did you read anything I typed? 




 


Yes, I did. I covered everything you said when I said:


"Evil people have, throughout history, attempted to twist and pervert Scripture in order to gain permission to engage in sinful acts.


I have no doubts that you can find as least as much "evidence" and quotes from "scholars" to support having gay sex declared not sinful as Leo X had when he wanted to sell indulgences.


The Great Deceiver is very, very skillful at deceit. That's why he's called the Great Deceiver, and not just A Pretty Good Deciever. No amount of lies will negate the fact that what is inspired by the Prince of Lies are lies.

Moderated by Merope on Dec 27, 2010 - 04:50AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook