Leaving ELCA

[AngelusSax]

I do not think it is fair to say that people of the old did not know that people could be born homosexual. (If there is such a thing).

I do, since the earliest acknowledgement of "natural-born homosexuals" was somewhere around the 1500-1600s. Well after the last of the Biblical Canon was formulated. No doubt people would have been able to witness homosexual activities, but the idea that one could be naturally oriented that way would have been very hard to grasp for most people (except perhaps the ones who had that orientation, though they often were probably married through pre-arranged ceremonies in many cultures).

 

[Edial]

I do, since the earliest acknowledgement of "natural-born homosexuals" was somewhere around the 1500-1600s. Well after the last of the Biblical Canon was formulated. No doubt people would have been able to witness homosexual activities, but the idea that one could be naturally oriented that way would have been very hard to grasp for most people (except perhaps the ones who had that orientation, though they often were probably married through pre-arranged ceremonies in many cultures).

But I grasp it without even knowing about "natural-born homosexuals" discussion.
And I do not have these tendencies.
Simple observation.

Are you saying I am wiser than Solomon.

Hope not.

Ed

 

[AngelusSax]

Well, you are smart enough to not have 300 concubines and however many other wives... so in one area anyway, I'd say yes. (I can barely keep up with one wife... why would I want more than that? )

But I grasp it without even knowing about "natural-born homosexuals" discussion.

Are you sure you didn't know about it? I mean, it's been part of the discussion for quite a long time, compared to our lifespans. I find it likely that it was at least mentioned somewhere before and you heard it, if not an active "teaching" of it to you.

Also, it would throw me for a loop to see people married to an opposite-gendered spouse doing things of a homosexual way. But such would happen in a world where one was given to their spouse circa age 13, and then their sexuality began to develop more fully. Of course, to act on it while married would be adultery, so of course it would always be seen as sin because in that regard, it is sin.

 

[Edial]

Well, you are smart enough to not have 300 concubines and however many other wives... so in one area anyway, I'd say yes. (I can barely keep up with one wife... why would I want more than that? ).

Addiction usually bypasses brains - one does what one knows he should not.

I guess that was Solomon's weakness.

Are you sure you didn't know about it? I mean, it's been part of the discussion for quite a long time, compared to our lifespans. I find it likely that it was at least mentioned somewhere before and you heard it, if not an active "teaching" of it to you.
...

I was born in USSR.

There was no teaching like that there.
Older people (simple folks) were just seeing through observation that some boys act a bit like girls. And the other way around.

Besides, the fact that people are born with two types of intimate organs certainly is a proof that some people are "born that way".

One does not need science to see that.

And people of old were naturally more observant, since their philosophy of life was based on observing nature - not many books, no TV, no Internet.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[LutheranMafia]

God says "Before you were formed in the womb, I knew you" which implies that human life begins at conception, the spirit already being present.

That does not in any way imply that a human spirit is present at conception, it strongly implies just the opposite. What it says is that the human spirit existed long before conception, and thus MUST bind with the developing fetus at some point.

There is nothing in Scripture that suggests that the spirit of human life is "implanted" (or whatever word you want to use) seperately from human conception.

I just quoted Genesis 2:7 to this effect, which is quite direct to the matter, and now you have provided another verse that strongly implies the same thing.

 

[AngelusSax]

And people of old were naturally more observant, since their philosophy of life was based on observing nature - not many books, no TV, no Internet.

Well, if they all knew about it, someone somewhere probably would've written concerning orientation, and not just the physical acts. Again, that's only a probably, but it's how I see it. The Bible never speaks to orientation, and the earliest mention of homosexual orientation has only been about 5-600 years ago, from what I can gather.

It seems the assumption would have been that there was only one orientation before that, and some just acted in depraved manner disregarding that. But, that's only so far as I can see. I'm not trying to claim perfection on this by any stretch of the imagination. And frankly, it wouldn't be the first time in my life I've been wrong if indeed I am wrong here.

 

[LutheranMafia]

If someone is born with the tendency to kill, I wonder if that's ok...

Sociopaths are extremely uncommon, unlike gays that are about 10% I believe. Sociopaths inherently enjoy harming people. No harm is inherently done to anyone because of gay acts, although harm can occur just as it can with heterosexual acts. What is the inherent sin in homosexuality? The sin comes in when harm is done to others. That is my definition of sin anyway, what is yours?

 

[Edial]

Well, if they all knew about it, someone somewhere probably would've written concerning orientation, and not just the physical acts. Again, that's only a probably, but it's how I see it. The Bible never speaks to orientation, and the earliest mention of homosexual orientation has only been about 5-600 years ago, from what I can gather.

It seems the assumption would have been that there was only one orientation before that, and some just acted in depraved manner disregarding that. But, that's only so far as I can see. I'm not trying to claim perfection on this by any stretch of the imagination. And frankly, it wouldn't be the first time in my life I've been wrong if indeed I am wrong here.

And the reason the Bible does not mention orientation is because we ALL are oriented in a sinful way.

Each in our own depraved way (no, it does not need to have a word "sex" in it in order for an act to be depraved).

Yet our Lord provides forgiveness of sins once we call (confess) a sin as sin.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Protoevangel]

Sin is disease of the soul It is "missing the mark." It is following our passions when those passions would cause us to fall short of the glorious purpose for which God created mankind -- union with Himself. It is anything that would lead us away from God's will. It is purposely failing to live up to the fullness of life in Christ for which man was created. It is making up personal definitions to circumvent God-given wisdom.

 

[Tangible]

LM, if you wish to maintain that the spirit enters the body at some point other than at conception, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it enters at some other specific point. If the spirit does not enter at conception, exactly when does it enter?

I would also preemptively disallow one possible answer with some historical precedent: at birth. Observation using modern scientific instruments has very convincingly demonstrated the ability of infants in utero to move intentionally and to respond to stimuli. Also, the fact that some infants are delivered by surgical means, rather than natural means, demonstrates that there is no difference between a fully developed infant in utero and an infant ex utero other than the method by which they receive oxygen and nutrients.

Human beings are by theological definition made up of a physical body and a non-physical spirit. This boby+spirit unity begins at conceptions and ends at physical death, then is re-established at resurrection.

IMHO, the scripture mentioned above - Jeremiah 1:5 - is 1) speaking specifically about the prophet Jeremiah, and 2) indicative that God in his eternal omniscience and providence knew that Jeremiah would be conceived at a specific time and that God had appointed him from eternity for a particular purpose, namely, to bear witness of a particular message.

While it may not give iron-clad proof that the spirit is present in the human body at conception, it certainly does not prove that the spirit is not present at conception as you contend.

 

[LutheranMafia]

Sin is disease of the soul It is "missing the mark." It is following our passions when those passions would cause us to fall short of the glorious purpose for which God created mankind -- union with Himself. It is anything that would lead us away from God's will. It is purposely failing to live up to the fullness of life in Christ for which man was created.

I can agree with all this, and fail to see how any of it indicates that homosexuality is inherently sinful.

It is making up personal definitions to circumvent God-given wisdom.

Ah yes! This is where I have particular disagreement with your side raming square pegs through round holes. The word wrongly translated as homosexual used in the New Testament clearly refers to the commonly existing practice at the time, which was male bisexuality. Male bisexuals are deeply disturbed, highly prone to drug usage and apt to engage in abuse of several kinds. To lump the much smaller homo population of the time in with the bisexual majority is like lumping conservative Lutherans in with the much larger number of alcoholics in the world simply because conservative Lutherans love beer. It is an entirely unfair grouping.

 

[AngelusSax]

Yet our Lord provides forgiveness of sins once we call (confess) a sin as sin.

He also forgives before that, I believe. Jesus did not wait for an apology and a realization of sin in murdering before calling on the Father to forgive His crucifiers.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Sociopaths are extremely uncommon, unlike gays that are about 10% I believe. Sociopaths inherently enjoy harming people. No harm is inherently done to anyone because of gay acts, although harm can occur just as it can with heterosexual acts. What is the inherent sin in homosexuality? The sin comes in when harm is done to others. That is my definition of sin anyway, what is yours?

and therein is the problem.

Is a little white lie told to protect someone still a lie? Do the ten commandments make allowances for sins that don't harm someone else?

Fact is, sin ALWAYS harms someone: GOD. Sin is an affront to God and it doesn't matter if the sin is consensual or that it's victimless.

 

[LutheranMafia]

LM, if you wish to maintain that the spirit enters the body at some point other than at conception, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it enters at some other specific point.

Gen 2:7

If the spirit does not enter at conception, exactly when does it enter?

When consciousness develops.

This boby+spirit unity begins at conceptions and ends at physical death, then is re-established at resurrection.

This was definitely not the case for Adam, as per Gen 2:7.

While it may not give iron-clad proof that the spirit is present in the human body at conception, it certainly does not prove that the spirit is not present at conception as you contend.

I did not say it proved anything, I was very specific in my language, I said that Gen 2:7 proves the point while Jer 1:5 "strongly implies" the point.

 

[LutheranMafia]

and therein is the problem.

Is a little white lie told to protect someone still a lie? Do the ten commandments make allowances for sins that don't harm someone else?

Which one of the ten commandments does not involve harm to someone else? Worshiping graven images (i.e. demons) hurts lots of people, so you can't use that one.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Which one of the ten commandments does not involve harm to someone else? Worshiping graven images (i.e. demons) hurts lots of people, so you can't use that one.

You are the one trying to define sin by who it harms, not me. I was actually pointing out that the ten commandments DOESN'T make allowances for sin that doesn't hurt someone.

 

[Tangible]

I believe I saw the "10% homosexual" mythological pony trotted out earlier. This has been factually disproved numerous times, for example in the CDC's 2005 National Survey of Family Growth.

[Page 2] The proportion of men who had a male sexual partner in the last 12 months was 2.9 percent, or approximately 1.77 million men. The proportion of men who had only male sexual partners in the last 12 months was 1.6 percent.

[Page 3] In response to a question that asked, ‘‘Do you think of yourself as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual,or somethingelse?’’ 90 percent of men 18–44 years of age responded that they think of themselves as heterosexual. About 2.3 percent of
men answered homosexual, 1.8 percent bisexual, 3.9 percent ‘‘something else,’’ and 1.8 percent did not give an answer.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362.pdf

 

[LutheranMafia]

You are the one trying to define sin by who it harms, not me.

You were the one putting the 10 Commandments forth as a counter-example, but it is not, all the sins in the 10 Commmandments involve harm to others.

I was actually pointing out that the ten commandments DOESN'T make allowances for sin that doesn't hurt someone.

Since all of the 10 Commandments involve harm to others, your point is completely lost on me here?

 

[LutheranMafia]

I believe I saw the "10% homosexual" mythological pony trotted out earlier. This has been factually disproved numerous times, for example in the CDC's 2005 National Survey of Family Growth.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362.pdf

OK, you got me there.

 

[Tangible]

Gen 2:7

7 then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

This applies to every single person who was formed of dust from the ground by the hand of God, but not to anyone else.

When consciousness develops.

And when precisely is that?

This was definitely not the case for Adam, as per Gen 2:7.

Adam didn't have a belly-button either. Adam was a unique individual.

I did not say it proved anything, I was very specific in my language, I said that Gen 2:7 proves the point while Jer 1:5 "strongly implies" the point.

Gen 2:7 does not prove, and Jer 1:5 does not imply the validity of your position.