Liberals attack doughnut shop's good deed -- What is wrong with them?

[FireDragon76]

I looked it up, and it means taking the bible literally. Do you take any of the Bible literally? And if so, does that not render you the same?

Biblicism can mean that, but it can also mean a certain approach to reading the Bible itself as revelatory. That's not how Lutherans understand it. We read the Bible with a more christocentric hermeneutic. The Bible is authoritative only inasmuch as it testifies to Christ authoritatively.

The Word we worship was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. The Bible is the Word for us believers only inasmuch as it gives us Christ.

 

[PeachyKeane]

Can you tell me where I could find this ranking of sins in the Bible?

Did God not destroy Sodom and Gammorah because of it's tolerance of homosexuality. Did God not inflict 9/11 on our country because of the same sin. There is no sin greatervthan homosexuality as evidenced by God's willingness to burn cities because of it.

 

[FireDragon76]

Did God not destroy Sodom and Gammorah because of it's tolerance of homosexuality. Did God not inflict 9/11 on our country because of the same sin. There is no sin greatervthan homosexuality as evidenced by God's willingness to burn cities because of it.

Many scholars no longer understand the story of Sodom as being about God's condemnation of homosexuality per se, but of a breach of ancient norms of hospitality.

 

[PeachyKeane]

Many scholars no longer understand the story of Sodom as being about God's condemnation of homosexuality per se, but of a breach of ancient norms of hospitality.

That's what a liberal says.

 

[FireDragon76]

That's what a liberal says.

Not just "liberals" but a great many Christians who are more educated on the subject than you.

But go ahead and prove my point by showing your disdain for the humanist intellectual tradition.

 

[PeachyKeane]

Not just "liberals" but a great many Christians who are more educated on the subject than you.

But go ahead and prove my point by showing your disdain for the humanist intellectual tradition.

Right. By 'Educated' you mean indoctrinated by Satan.

 

[grasping the after wind]

So you practice bibliolatry, no surprise there. Might I suggest you have an erroneous view of what revelation is?

I got a blog for you to check out:

The Problem with Scripture as Revelation - Under the Sun

It might help you to understand what's so wrong with your approach to the Scriptures. Or not. But it's just a suggestion.




Yes, Biblicism is a bad thing because it renders the Bible incoherent. That's why there are 30,000 Protestant denominations, some of which have some really crazy beliefs that don't have much at all to do with Jesus as an historical figure at all. We Lutherans have never been biblicist, that's not how we understand the Scriptures. Reading that blog I showed you might help you to understand that.

Have you ever heard the term Sola Scriptura?
From the ELCA website.

"The ELCA’s official Confession of Faith identifies the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (commonly called the Bible); the Apostles’, Nicene and Athanasian Creeds; and the Lutheran confessional writings in the Book of Concord as the basis for our teaching."

How do you know Jesus was opposed to humanist values?

I gather this from the fact he treated people as unique individuals rather than as members of a group one indistinguishable from another . From the fact that he placed very little value on the things of this world and told us to not seek to find our treasures in worldly things and , though you neglected to ask why I thought he had no use for democratic norms, from the fact he never once put anything up to a vote or said he changed His mind based upon the consensus of opinion of those around Him.

 

[FireDragon76]

Have you ever heard the term Sola Scriptura?
From the ELCA website.

"The ELCA’s official Confession of Faith identifies the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (commonly called the Bible); the Apostles’, Nicene and Athanasian Creeds; and the Lutheran confessional writings in the Book of Concord as the basis for our teaching."



I gather this from the fact he treated people as unique individuals rather than as members of a group one indistinguishable from another . From the fact that he placed very little value on the things of this world and told us to not seek to find our treasures in worldly things and , though you neglected to ask why I thought he had no use for democratic norms, from the fact he never once put anything up to a vote or said he changed His mind based upon the consensus of opinion of those around Him.

Since you reject that our church is a legitimate expression of Lutheranism, you are in no position to tell me as a faithful Evangelical Lutheran what my faith teaches. I have received catechism from my pastor and I am well versed in my faith and what it teaches.

Yes, we recognized the Bible as authoritative, but that doesn't mean we read it as a Baptist might, or recognize that as legitimate method of interpretation. Likewise, the creeds and confessions are true historical statements about our faith, but they are not the limits about what we could say about that faith.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Biblicism can mean that, but it can also mean a certain approach to reading the Bible itself as revelatory. That's not how Lutherans understand it. We read the Bible with a more christocentric hermeneutic. The Bible is authoritative only inasmuch as it testifies to Christ authoritatively.

The Word we worship was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. The Bible is the Word for us believers only inasmuch as it gives us Christ.

Then you are saying you go by what Christ said or didn't say, but toss all other warnings about homosexuality as not to be taken literally? Or for some other reasons those warning should be rejected?

Will you really dwell on the argument Christ never technically commented on homosexuality (the very likely reason your church chooses their belief system) specifically while, the mosaic law was very specific on homosexuality, as was Christ when he states marriage is between a man and a woman?

Christ never commented on pedophilia or rape either, does that make those things ok with your church as well?

 

[LoAmmi]

I didn't criminalize it, as you put it, God did, and as far as your assumption, people also tend to assume others do as they do...do you do that? I don't,l and you have no reason to believe I do. More "game", that's all.



There you go, assuming again, you seem to have missed a very popular opinion here concerning remarriage.

So you all see what I mean by "game"... you suggest something that isn't true in order to pretend something is OK. What you suggest falls apart as assumption, or at the very best, a blanket assumption that you tout as applying to all Christians when it absolutely does not....I'm sure of it.

Game, as in tricky unfounded maneuvers in order to make the false truth.

What?

 

[PeachyKeane]

Christ never commented on pedophilia or rape either, does that make those things ok with your church as well?

Well, was it a Democrat or Republican that did it?

 

[FireDragon76]

Then you are saying you go by what Christ said or didn't say, but toss all other warnings about homosexuality as not to be taken literally? Or for some other reasons those warning should be rejected?

Given your level of current understanding, that's closer to how you could understand it. But there's more that could be said about it, unfortunately the rules on this section of the forum make it difficult to discuss, which is why it belongs in a different area altogether, such as WWMC or TC.

Will you really dwell on the argument Christ never technically commented on homosexuality (the very likely reason your church chooses their belief system) specifically while, the mosaic law was very specific on homosexuality, as was Christ when he states marriage is between a man and a woman?

Christ is not another Moses. He's responding to the hypocrisy of the pharisees, not laying down some new law we must obey to be justified.

Christ never commented on pedophilia or rape either, does that make those things ok with your church as well?

But we know those things are wrong because they do not involve legal consent, not because God has to tell us they are wrong.

 

[redleghunter]

The Salvation Army is notoriously anti-gay.

Source?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I would be curious how you manage to see what is written over and over again in the scriptures

Remember the veil over everyone's mind,
only God is able to remove it.
So, no, most people on earth NEVER manage to see what is written.

 

[redleghunter]

Then you are saying you go by what Christ said or didn't say, but toss all other warnings about homosexuality as not to be taken literally? Or for some other reasons those warning should be rejected?

Will you really dwell on the argument Christ never technically commented on homosexuality (the very likely reason your church chooses their belief system) specifically while, the mosaic law was very specific on homosexuality, as was Christ when he states marriage is between a man and a woman?

Christ never commented on pedophilia or rape either, does that make those things ok with your church as well?

Jesus never opined on nuclear weapons either. Guess we can use them. /s

 

[grasping the after wind]

Did God not destroy Sodom and Gammorah because of it's tolerance of homosexuality. Did God not inflict 9/11 on our country because of the same sin. There is no sin greatervthan homosexuality as evidenced by God's willingness to burn cities because of it.

That is a personal interpretation of yours not a ranking from the Bible. I still await your producing the ranking system from the Bible. And no BTW God did not inflict 9/11 on the US because of homosexuality or any other sin anymore than he inflicted Europe with the bubonic plague as punoishment for making homosexuality a crime or because of rampant heterosexuality.

Since you reject that our church is a legitimate expression of Lutheranism, you are in no position to tell me as a faithful Evangelical Lutheran what my faith teaches. I have received catechism from my pastor and I am well versed in my faith and what it teaches.

Yes, we recognized the Bible as authoritative, but that doesn't mean we read it as a Baptist might, or recognize that as legitimate method of interpretation. Likewise, the creeds and confessions are true historical statements about our faith, but they are not the limits about what we could say about that faith.

Why would you falsely claim that I reject our church as a legitimate expression of Lutheranism? As a faithful member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America myself, I am in the exact position to remind you of what the ELCA actually teaches. One thing it most certainly does not teach is intolerance of the beliefs of other legitimate Christian denominations or that there is one and only one correct way to interpret the Bible. Nor does it teach that conforming to humanism is a necessary prerequisite to understanding the Bible.

 

[PeachyKeane]

That is a personal interpretation of yours not a ranking from the Bible. I still await your producing the ranking system from the Bible. And no BTW God did not inflict 9/11 on the US because of homosexuality or any other sin anymore than he inflicted Europe with the bubonic plague as punoishment for making homosexuality a crime or because of rampant heterosexuality.

You can believe what you wish, but remember, the day of judgment is coming.

 

[grasping the after wind]

You can believe what you wish, but remember, the day of judgment is coming.

I hope you keep that in mind too.

 

[PeachyKeane]

I hope you keep that in mind too.

I don't have to. God is on my side.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Jesus never opined on nuclear weapons either. Guess we can use them. /s

oh oh..... sinners invariably hurt others, which is not what children of Yahweh are called to do.

"be harmless as doves" covers a lot of territory / sin not to do...... (including ALL sexual sin)