To all, but particularly ELCA and ELCIC members; What are your thoughts?

[LilLamb219]

Zec and I pretty much said the same thing LOL

 

[Zecryphon]

Zec and I pretty much said the same thing LOL

That's because you were nice enough to donate part of your brain to the needy.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

So let me get this straight (pun TOTALLY intended!). Because I have a problem with gays in the pulpit, I am merely unwilling to own my own homosexual attractions? Um...please tell me I have this wrong. I have always been a heterosexual, and have no desire to be anything other than a heterosexual.

Let me be even clearer. If the headline was "ELCIC ordains man who is sexually active but not married" I'd be just as disgusted. Does that clear things up a bit?

If I ministered based on what everyone wanted, I'd be sending them all to hell in a handbasket and a smile on their face.

I don't have any need to call you a homophobe. I do have a need to point out that frequently when we don't want to deal with our own issues, own our own stuff, we will project things on other people. Some folks don't want to own their own homosexual attractions. So it's just easier to make gays into the problem. For me, this subject is not an abstract philosophical issue. It deals with real people who have real concerns and struggles. I think that better quoting Bible passages out of context (Biblical context and social context) is listening to the stories of gay and lesbian people. Hearing their real stories may indeed change our hearts.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

That's because you were nice enough to donate part of your brain to the needy.

Kinda scary that she's that smart with HALF a brain!!

 

[DaRev]

I don't have any need to call you a homophobe. I do have a need to point out that frequently when we don't want to deal with our own issues, own our own stuff, we will project things on other people. Some folks don't want to own their own homosexual attractions. So it's just easier to make gays into the problem. For me, this subject is not an abstract philosophical issue. It deals with real people who have real concerns and struggles. I think that better quoting Bible passages out of context (Biblical context and social context) is listening to the stories of gay and lesbian people. Hearing their real stories may indeed change our hearts.

Herein lies the true problem with liberal theology. It places more emphasis on emotions and social issues than on the word of God.

Willy, I truly believe you win the "twist and distort" award of the century. You are indeed the king of this.

 

[Willy]

Wait a minute, are you suggesting that God's Word doesn't matter as much as what other people might say...just because they're hurting? Doesn't make sense. God calls homosexual acts an abomination according to the book of Leviticus. We can't change that just because someone doesn't want to hear it. It doesn't work that way.

Yes, the Book of Leviticus calls homosexual acts an abomination. But it calls a whole host of other things abominable, too--things that wouldn't bother you (wearing two types of fabric). The issue in Leviticus is identity--what provides Jewish identity in light of the presence of other religions and other gods. And oh by the way, those other religions (Canaanite religions) practice sacred prostitution (inclusive of homosexual prostitution) that is, Leviticus is saying, not the way of those who follow the God of the Israelites. The issue in Leviticus in cultic purity, not morality. So the words of Leviticus are not the best ones to convince me to come to your side. The most compelling words of the Bible on the topic (and frankly there are few) are ones that come from Romans and, I would say, Genesis 2. But even the Romans passage can be understood in terms of cultic purity. Genesis 2 is another matter.

 

[Till]

But even the Romans passage can be understood in terms of cultic purity.

How?

 

[Zecryphon]

Kinda scary that she's that smart with HALF a brain!!

I would never be as greedy to take half of her brain. Just a small portion is all that was necessary. I'm just glad she was the donor and not Abby Normal.

 

[Zecryphon]

Yes, the Book of Leviticus calls homosexual acts an abomination. But it calls a whole host of other things abominable, too--things that wouldn't bother you (wearing two types of fabric). The issue in Leviticus is identity--what provides Jewish identity in light of the presence of other religions and other gods. And oh by the way, those other religions (Canaanite religions) practice sacred prostitution (inclusive of homosexual prostitution) that is, Leviticus is saying, not the way of those who follow the God of the Israelites. The issue in Leviticus in cultic purity, not morality. So the words of Leviticus are not the best ones to convince me to come to your side. The most compelling words of the Bible on the topic (and frankly there are few) are ones that come from Romans and, I would say, Genesis 2. But even the Romans passage can be understood in terms of cultic purity. Genesis 2 is another matter.

It seems to me that Leviticus is saying that if you lie with a man as with a woman, it is an abomination to the Lord. If we look at the Hebrew word for "lie" as found in Leviticus 18:22, 20:11 and 20:13 it is the same word that was used in Genesis 19:31 when Lot's daughters lay with him to become impregnated by their father. So it seems to me that this word is being used to describe sexual relations, not identities. It's very clear what the Lord finds abominable in Leviticus. Perhaps one day He will open your eyes to the truth as well.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

As has been said once already, there is a huge difference between CEREMONIAL law and MORAL law. What part do you think homosexuality (or even promiscuity) falls under? What part of the law do you think wearing two types of fabric falls under?

Ceremonial law is what Jesus fulfilled. All those laws were about being clean - when Jesus died on the cross that was the ultimate cleansing. Moral law? That's still in play. We still have to honor the marriage bed. Immorality was still abominable in the NT.

Yes, the Book of Leviticus calls homosexual acts an abomination. But it calls a whole host of other things abominable, too--things that wouldn't bother you (wearing two types of fabric). The issue in Leviticus is identity--what provides Jewish identity in light of the presence of other religions and other gods. And oh by the way, those other religions (Canaanite religions) practice sacred prostitution (inclusive of homosexual prostitution) that is, Leviticus is saying, not the way of those who follow the God of the Israelites. The issue in Leviticus in cultic purity, not morality. So the words of Leviticus are not the best ones to convince me to come to your side. The most compelling words of the Bible on the topic (and frankly there are few) are ones that come from Romans and, I would say, Genesis 2. But even the Romans passage can be understood in terms of cultic purity. Genesis 2 is another matter.

 

[Willy]

It seems to me that Leviticus is saying that if you lie with a man as with a woman, it is an abomination to the Lord. If we look at the Hebrew word for "lie" as found in Leviticus 18:22, 20:11 and 20:13 it is the same word that was used in Genesis 19:31 when Lot's daughters lay with him to become impregnated by their father. So it seems to me that this word is being used to describe sexual relations, not identities. It's very clear what the Lord finds abominable in Leviticus. Perhaps one day He will open your eyes to the truth as well.

I'm glad that you have the truth. Must be hard to be on that horse.

 

[Willy]

As has been said once already, there is a huge difference between CEREMONIAL law and MORAL law. What part do you think homosexuality (or even promiscuity) falls under? What part of the law do you think wearing two types of fabric falls under?

Ceremonial law is what Jesus fulfilled. All those laws were about being clean - when Jesus died on the cross that was the ultimate cleansing. Moral law? That's still in play. We still have to honor the marriage bed. Immorality was still abominable in the NT.

That is a neat distinction that I don't think Jews would be comfortable with.

 

[seajoy]

That is a neat distinction that I don't think Jews would be comfortable with.

Just one last before I leave on vacation.

 

[LilLamb219]

And God created Adam and Adam...no, wait. That's not right. God created Adam and Eve and they were made man and wife.

 

[Radiata]

And God created Adam and Adam...no, wait. That's not right. God created Adam and Eve and they were made man and wife.

They saying goes, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

 

[LilLamb219]

They saying goes, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

I knew I'd heard it from someplace before!

 

[Zecryphon]

I'm glad that you have the truth. Must be hard to be on that horse.

Is a personal attack the best defense you have for your position? If it is, there is no point in debating with you as you clearly have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion.

 

[Zecryphon]

I knew I'd heard it from someplace before!

It's a favorite among Evangelicals and ND's.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Ceremonial vs Moral law? What kind of extra-scriptural heresy is that? The Bible doesn't make any distinction between the two. And if it did, I'm certain that the prescription against homosexuality would fall in the former category, since the reason it makes one unclean is an unrighteous mixing of categories, just as with the fabric mixing and most of the dietary laws. Why accord it special status above the rest of the law? Simply because we think it is ickier?

 

[LilLamb219]

It can't be ceremonial at all because of the verses in the New Testament regarding...look up Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.