Lutheran CORE... (Lutherans Only)

[Jim47]

Hi Pamela

I'm sure these rules were made with the best of intentions, but isn't this much like telling your kids you don't to want to discuss sex with you in your own house but its O/K to send them down the road to someone elses house?

Maybe this could be re-evaluted?

 

[RedneckAnglican]

This is an official moderator post.

Several posts in this thread have diverged from the original topic to discussing the morality of homosexuality. Participants are reminded of Christian Forums rule 4.2, which states in part:'4.2 You will restrict any posts debating the morality of homosexuality to the Ethics & Morality, Liberal Theology or Christian Philosophy forums'. In order to comply with these rules, the subject posts have been moved to the Christian Ethics denominational subforum where they may be discussed in full. In compliance with rule 4.2, participants in that thread must provide supporting evidence and cites for their opinions.

The discussion in this thread may continue without any further discussion of the morality of the controversial topics listed under rule 4.2.Regards,
Pamela

Then...with greatest respect...the whole thread needs to be moved...One of WordAlone and Lutheran CoRe's main reasons for existance right now is how we (or some of us) in the ELCA are going to deal with the issue of Homosexuality...If we can't discuss this topic here than there is no reason for it to be here...I apologize for any problems created by this thread...Once again it shows we really can't argue with the nessesary respect and restrant we need...please move it or lock it...again...I apologize...

 

[Jim47]

I'm a little slow, but I just discovered much of this thread has been moved to a Luthern's only discussion area, but I see no link above in the specific forums. It would sure make it a lot easier for us all if there was a link above since this to be a Luther's only discussion.

Pamela, can you help us old folks who get lost easy.

 

[Jim47]

I forgot to include the link.

http://www.christianforums.com/t2708120-scriptural-positions-on-homosexuality-lutherans-only.html

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

In compliance with rule 4.2, participants in that thread must provide supporting evidence and cites for their opinions.

I'm confused--an opinion is just that---an opinion. A factual statement is one that's backed up with references. An opinion doesn't have to be backed up with anything because it's just that--an opinion.

This is getting too restrictive....I agree with Jim

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

AngelusSax you're just like my kids. You argue just for the sake of arguing and trying to get a rise out of someone. You've gone down a road you can't come back from because you would loose face. I don't think you really believe all the things you are saying but you acidently made some dumb comments and now you can't back down. It's allright to screw up so just let this dies gracefully and we'll forget you ever said thess totally ridiculous things AGAINST GOD'S WILL.

 

[pmcleanj]

Okay, I aim to please!

At the request of the original poster, the other half of this thread has been merged in from the Lutheran Congregational forum, and a redirect left in the Lutheran forum itself.

Enjoy!

My apologies to those who had trouble finding this thread this morning. In fact, the words "the Christian Ethics denominational subforum" that show up in the sort of art-deco turquoisey colour, contain a link to this thread; but patently that was far from obvious. I will try to be more explicit if I have to do this again.

Regarding the requirement for evidence in support of the debate, the precise wording of rule 4.2 is [Nooff]
The evidence requirements above are "In addition, the debate of the morality of the above topics must be backed by evidence complete with citations. Standard citations are acceptable but links are preferred." I understand the intent of this rule to be ensuring that opinions expressed, while they are simply opinions, be informed opinions.

Hope that helps.

Regards,
Pamela

 

[pmcleanj]

Hi Pamela

I'm sure these rules were made with the best of intentions, but isn't this much like telling your kids you don't to want to discuss sex with you in your own house but its O/K to send them down the road to someone elses house?

Maybe this could be re-evaluted?

Hi, Jim!

I think the intent is more like saying "Come in and sit down at the family table so we can discuss this properly, without imposing the discussion on the kids who aren't interested in discussing sex right now". But I'm just speculating: the rules are made by the site owner Erwin, and apply to the whole site.

Erwin takes suggestions from members at the Suggest New Features forum (<--- that's a clickable link). That would be the right forum to bring up discussing changes to this rule. In fact, it was member discussions of the rule that got us this "Congregation-specific Ethics" subforum designed to keep allow discussion of the "controversial topics" from a specifically Lutheran (in this case) perspective, and that got the rule reworded to allow discussion in the congregational forums of peripheral events that don't constitute actually debating the morality of the "controversial topics". If member discussion has shifted the rules in the past, it can certainly do so again, pursued in the right venue.

Hope that helps.

Pamela.

 

[Jim47]

Hi, Jim!

I think the intent is more like saying "Come in and sit down at the family table so we can discuss this properly, without imposing the discussion on the kids who aren't interested in discussing sex right now". But I'm just speculating: the rules are made by the site owner Erwin, and apply to the whole site.

Erwin takes suggestions from members at the Suggest New Features forum (<--- that's a clickable link). That would be the right forum to bring up discussing changes to this rule. In fact, it was member discussions of the rule that got us this "Congregation-specific Ethics" subforum designed to keep allow discussion of the "controversial topics" from a specifically Lutheran (in this case) perspective, and that got the rule reworded to allow discussion in the congregational forums of peripheral events that don't constitute actually debating the morality of the "controversial topics". If member discussion has shifted the rules in the past, it can certainly do so again, pursued in the right venue.

Hope that helps.

Pamela.

Hey Pamela

Thanks for taking time to respond. I really do appreciate your help and I'm going to follow your advice and post in the suggestions forum.

Another thing I did just find is that our Lutheran forum already has a sub forum for debating these things but it has never been used.


Well, after looking again, I see this is the same link, but it just doesn't show to be active when looking at the Lutheran forum. So case closed, except why does it not show any threads?

 

[LutherNut]

Hey Pamela

Thanks for taking time to respond. I really do appreciate your help and I'm going to follow your advice and post in the suggestions forum.

Another thing I did just find is that our Lutheran forum already has a sub forum for debating these things but it has never been used.


Well, after looking again, I see this is the same link, but it just doesn't show to be active when looking at the Lutheran forum. So case closed, except why does it not show any threads?

It is most likely that this thread will die here because no one can see it here anyway.

 

[Protoevangel]

It is most likely that this thread will die here because no one can see it here anyway.

Wasn't that the whole point?

 

[cableguy]

I hope not. I'm still interested in the questions I gave Angelus. I hope he responds. Folks like our brother Angelus need to be understood, so that it makes it that much easier to correct others of the same mindset later. Am I wrong?

So far I&#8217;m puzzled on whether or not Angelus and other liberal thinking Christians think that homosexuality is a sin or not. One post will state that their (homosexuals) sins are no greater than that of a strait man or woman. Later, homosexuality is taken off the table as a sin so long as it is a &#8220;loving long term relationship.&#8221; When confronted about scripture that tells us all homosexuality is a sinful, vile practice, they go nuts, complaining about the &#8220;prejudice&#8221; of the era in which the writer lived&#8230;. or going as far as saying that the letters of Paul have no validity.

Grace seems to be their defense, but it&#8217;s a cheap grace they pass out.

 

[Protoevangel]

I hope not. I'm still interested in the questions I gave Angelus. I hope he responds. Folks like our brother Angelus need to be understood, so that it makes it that much easier to correct others of the same mindset later. Am I wrong?

So far I&#8217;m puzzled on whether or not Angelus and other liberal thinking Christians think that homosexuality is a sin or not. One post will state that their (homosexuals) sins are no greater than that of a strait man or woman. Later, homosexuality is taken off the table as a sin so long as it is a &#8220;loving long term relationship.&#8221; When confronted about scripture that tells us all homosexuality is a sinful, vile practice, they go nuts, complaining about the &#8220;prejudice&#8221; of the era in which the writer lived&#8230;. or going as far as saying that the letters of Paul have no validity.

Grace seems to be their defense, but it&#8217;s a cheap grace they pass out.

I appreciate your optimism, Dan. The problem is, I doubt you'll get any straight answers from Angelus. He can avoid the meat of a discussion almost as good as Willy does. You've already summed up the symptoms pretty well. Trying to talk logically to a liberal is like wrestling with jello. Have you seen how many times (in this thread alone, even) he has made assertions, to have them questioned and challenaged, only for him to ignore the questions and challanges; to pick only a tiny part of the post to respond to? Then he comes back with the same attack later, as if it hadm't already been addressed. It's typical liberal ploys.

 

[LutherNut]

Grace seems to be their defense, but it’s a cheap grace they pass out.

Grace can only be identified against the Law. If the Law is removed or ignored, so then is Grace.

 

[cableguy]

Grace can only be identified against the Law. If the Law is removed or ignored, so then is Grace.

Amen

 

[cableguy]

I appreciate your optimism, Dan. The problem is, I doubt you'll get any straight answers from Angelus. He can avoid the meat of a discussion almost as good as Willy does. You've already summed up the symptoms pretty well. Trying to talk logically to a liberal is like wrestling with jello. Have you seen how many times (in this thread alone, even) he has made assertions, to have them questioned and challenaged, only for him to ignore the questions and challanges; to pick only a tiny part of the post to respond to? Then he comes back with the same attack later, as if it hadm't already been addressed. It's typical liberal ploys.

I don&#8217;t understand how their views can be taken seriously! The whole darn ELCA is sinking with this strange theology of denial and half-truth. Not to make this about me, but that puts my family and me in a tight spot. The congregation we have the privilege of worshipping with is great. Both of my children&#8217;s godparents go there, one of them is the assistant pastor. If this false teaching creeps in, I&#8217;ll have no choice but to leave. I owe that to my family. Makes me a real sad camper, guys and gals

 

[Protoevangel]

I don&#8217;t understand how their views can be taken seriously! The whole darn ELCA is sinking with this strange theology of denial and half-truth. Not to make this about me, but that puts my family and me in a tight spot. The congregation we have the privilege of worshipping with is great. Both of my children&#8217;s godparents go there, one of them is the assistant pastor. If this false teaching creeps in, I&#8217;ll have no choice but to leave. I owe that to my family. Makes me a real sad camper, guys and gals

I know how you feel, I am right there with you. Actually, I am already leaving because the ELCA as a whole has abandoned the marks of the Church.

"The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered."
- Augsburg Confession, Article 7

Making this decision makes me very sad, but staying would be to implicitly promote the errors. I can no longer do that in good conscience.

 

[AngelusSax]

The problem is, I doubt you'll get any straight answers from Angelus. He can avoid the meat of a discussion almost as good as Willy does.

I can? I do? Or is it that you just refuse to accept ANY answer that somehow endangers your "it's my way or the hellway" mentality that is against the very teachings and actions of the Christ you claim to follow?

Again, here is THE meat of it all. Christ reached out, and reaches out. Why the hell don't we?

A: Because we might have to realize we aren't the models of Christ we thought we were.

 

[cableguy]

But again, you refuse to answer questions. Brother, would you have those who sin, and are unrepentant, keep doing so because you are so “loving” as not to correct their ways? Do you have denial that homosexuality is in fact a perverse sin? You talk in circles to make your points, never stepping on solid ground. Here is a good point made by another that perhaps you missed because you were so concerned with other points made about your apparent personality.

Grace can only be identified against the Law. If the Law is removed or ignored, so then is Grace.

I beg you, pray, study the bible, and pray some more. Try not to ignore parts in the text that offend your sense of progressiveness. Maybe then you’ll see that others “ My way or the hellway” attitude is actually “ My way is the road to Christ.” I'll keep praying for you.

 

[cableguy]

Ufta! And maybe you can also tell me how to get my fonts the same size! This big letter, small letter look is starting to upset me.