Leaving ELCA

[Edial]

...

And the Biblical authors never even thought it was possible for someone to be a homosexual by orientation. From their viewpoint, everyone was born straight. So of course there won't be alot of positive things said about homosexual behavior, when it is seen as doing things against the nature of that particular person (which extends to everyone).
...

I am putting you on the spot.

According to your reasoning, would you then say that if a person who is NOT born homosexual and does such acts is involved in perversion (a word the Bible uses)?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Tangible]

An interesting entry at Gene Veith's blog. What if the more spiritually serious issue were one that is actually less controversial?

Gay ordination vs. women’s ordination | Cranach: The Blog of Veith

 

[DaRev]

And the Biblical authors never even thought it was possible for someone to be a homosexual by orientation. From their viewpoint, everyone was born straight. So of course there won't be alot of positive things said about homosexual behavior, when it is seen as doing things against the nature of that particular person (which extends to everyone).

This is one of those statements that denies Divine authorship of the Scriptures, one of the by-products of higher-critical interpretation. The fact is that there is One Biblical Author, the one true omniscient God. I think He certainly knows what He's talking about.

Christ said He came to fulfill the law, not just the ceremonial law. I think making that distinction is a man-made travesty. Either all the law is fulfilled or it isn't.

The very nature of the laws in Scripture make the distinction. It's not man-made at all, but Divinely distinguished. There are certain laws that by their very nature are intended to point to the coming of the Christ. When He came they were fulfilled.

 

[JoeCatch]

Christ said He came to fulfill the law, not just the ceremonial law. I think making that distinction is a man-made travesty. Either all the law is fulfilled or it isn't.

The very nature of the laws in Scripture make the distinction. It's not man-made at all, but Divinely distinguished. There are certain laws that by their very nature are intended to point to the coming of the Christ. When He came they were fulfilled.

Does anyone here know what the origin of this moral/ceremonial distinction is? I know that Aquinas introduces it in his Summa Theologica (along with a third category, civil law), but I'm not aware of the distinction being discussed by anybody any earlier than that. I'm under the impression that it was an innovation of Aquinas's that he derived more from his application of Greek philosophical concepts than through an exegesis of the actual biblical texts themselves. Does anyone know if the moral/ceremonial(/civil) law distinction appears in any texts prior to Aquinas? Can it be found in any pre-Thomistic Christian writings? Is it in any Jewish commentaries, after or especially before the beginning of the Christian church?

 

[Edial]

Does anyone here know what the origin of this moral/ceremonial distinction is? I know that Aquinas introduces it in his Summa Theologica (along with a third category, civil law), but I'm not aware of the distinction being discussed by anybody any earlier than that. I'm under the impression that it was an innovation of Aquinas's that he derived more from his application of Greek philosophical concepts than through an exegesis of the actual biblical texts themselves. Does anyone know if the moral/ceremonial(/civil) law distinction appears in any texts prior to Aquinas? Can it be found in any pre-Thomistic Christian writings? Is it in any Jewish commentaries, after or especially before the beginning of the Christian church?

I could give you my commentary ... and I'm not even a Jew.

1. DaRev was correct in saying that all the ceremonial laws were fulfilled when Christ came, since these talked about Christ. Pointing to Christ's coming.

2. All of the "10 Commandments" (actually 9, with Sabbath being optional) are sprinkled throughout the NT.

3. All dietary laws were nullified by Christ when he proclaimed all food clean.

4. The moral Law applies to non-believers to convict them of sin. It also will be used during the Judgement. (Pagans will be judged by the laws of their hearts).
Once they repent and become believers, they will not be judged by the penalty of that particular law because they sinned in that particular branch of morality.
So, no stoning for witchcraft.
However, that behavior still remains a sin and is described as sin in Romans where believers are strongly urged NOT to sin against the law, so that the grace might abound.

It will be forgiven IF a believer confesses sin as sin.

And that is what we are discussing. Calling sin sin.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[LutheranMafia]

You're Bible is missing the 11th commandment too? Thou Shalt Not Abort? Or is the 12th...with the 11th being Thou Shalt Not Be Gay...I get those two confused. Anyway...

Really, the Bible never mentions abortion and does not deal with the question of when life begins. Genesis 2:7 (God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being") refers to the specific, unique event of the creation of Adam out of the earth.

A good point, Adam was created as a fully formed but lifeless and spiritless body, which then had a soul bearing spirit breathed into it. Without the spirit there is no life or consciousness.

====

Edial made a comment about my supposedly believing in "soulless" embryos. Soulless strongly implies never being able to have a soul. A soulless entity is one that can never have a soul bearing spirit.

It would be more accurate to say that I believe in spiritless embryos, because Genesis 2:7, as Lux et Lex points out, refers to Adam's fully formed but spiritless body before God breathed life into it. That is the same state that I believe first trimester embryos are in.

====

I must say, things have certainly gotten more active around here! I had to read through five pages of messages because I hadn't looked in four or five days. That is a lot more than TCL usually gets these days. A little controversy is good for sluggish posting volume!

 

[PreachersWife2004]

well, Lutherans aren't being social unless they're arguing with each other, even if it's just over the color of the jello.

 

[DaRev]

It would be more accurate to say that I believe in spiritless embryos, because Genesis 2:7, as Lux et Lex points out, refers to Adam's fully formed but spiritless body before God breathed life into it. That is the same state that I believe first trimester embryos are in.

But the spirit is what makes humans distinct from the rest of creation. When a human is conceived it is still human, it's not a chicken or a mole or a monkey. 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. 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.

 

[JoeCatch]

I could give you my commentary ... and I'm not even a Jew.

Thanks for all of this, but none of it really answers my question. I know that this is the way that the now-traditional moral/ceremonial distinction in the Law works. My question was, how far back can we trace this theological concept? Did anyone prior to Aquinas use it, or was it his own innovation? I wasn't asking for commentary; I was asking a simple historical question.

 

[Edial]

well, Lutherans aren't being social unless they're arguing with each other, even if it's just over the color of the jello.

You know, I missed TCL.

Only here we can debate about everything in one thread.

 

[AngelusSax]

According to your reasoning, would you then say that if a person who is NOT born homosexual and does such acts is involved in perversion (a word the Bible uses)?

Yes. And I would apply that to one who is born homosexual engaging in heterosexual activity. It would be living a lie, and the Father of Lies is the one below, according to Jesus.

 

[Edial]

Yes. And I would apply that to one who is born homosexual engaging in heterosexual activity. It would be living a lie, and the Father of Lies is the one below, according to Jesus.

OK. You agree that homosexual activities for non-homosexual-born person is a perversion. OK.

How do we determine whether a person is a born homosexual?

From a limited understanding that I have on the topic (only what I read here and there), there is no homosexual gene.
Also, here is a site (it was in My Favorites for some time) which kind of balances the topic.

NARTH Position Statements
7. On the Causes of Homosexuality

NARTH agrees with the American Psychological Association that "biological, psychological and social factors" shape sexual identity at an early age for most people.

But the difference is one of emphasis. We place more emphasis on the psychological (family, peer and social) influences, while the American Psychological Association emphasizes biological influences--and has shown no interest in (indeed, a hostility toward) investigating those same psychological and social influences.
There is no such thing as a "gay gene" and there is no evidence to support the idea that homosexuality is simply genetic. However, biological influences may indeed influence some people toward homosexuality; recent studies point to prenatal-hormonal influences, especially in men, that result in a low-masculinized brain; also, there may be genetic factors in some people -- both of which would affect gender identity, and therefore sexual orientation. But none of these factors mean that homosexuality is normal and a part of human design, or that it is inevitable in such people, or that it is unchangeable. Numerous examples exist of people who have successfully modified their sexual behavior, identity, and arousal or fantasies.


Do you think they have a point?
Look through the site.
These are psychologist-type people that are apparently saying things they know about.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[DaRev]

OK. You agree that homosexual activities for non-homosexual-born person is a perversion. OK.

How do we determine whether a person is a born homosexual?

From a limited understanding that I have on the topic (only what I read here and there), there is no homosexual gene.
Also, here is a site (it was in My Favorites for some time) which kind of balances the topic.

NARTH Position Statements
7. On the Causes of Homosexuality

NARTH agrees with the American Psychological Association that "biological, psychological and social factors" shape sexual identity at an early age for most people.

But the difference is one of emphasis. We place more emphasis on the psychological (family, peer and social) influences, while the American Psychological Association emphasizes biological influences--and has shown no interest in (indeed, a hostility toward) investigating those same psychological and social influences.
There is no such thing as a "gay gene" and there is no evidence to support the idea that homosexuality is simply genetic. However, biological influences may indeed influence some people toward homosexuality; recent studies point to prenatal-hormonal influences, especially in men, that result in a low-masculinized brain; also, there may be genetic factors in some people -- both of which would affect gender identity, and therefore sexual orientation. But none of these factors mean that homosexuality is normal and a part of human design, or that it is inevitable in such people, or that it is unchangeable. Numerous examples exist of people who have successfully modified their sexual behavior, identity, and arousal or fantasies.


Do you think they have a point?
Look through the site.
These are psychologist-type people that are apparently saying things they know about.

Thanks,
Ed

We must also keep in mind that such things are abnormalities in the human condition. Abnormalities are ultimately the result of sin in the world. It is not at all how God designed human beings to be. So, even if one were "born" with homosexual tendencies, it is still a product of sin and is not pleasing to God.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

We must also keep in mind that such things are abnormalities in the human condition. Abnormalities are ultimately the result of sin in the world. It is not at all how God designed human beings to be. So, even if one were "born" with homosexual tendencies, it is still a product of sin and is not pleasing to God.

 

[lux et lex]

We must also keep in mind that such things are abnormalities in the human condition. Abnormalities are ultimately the result of sin in the world. It is not at all how God designed human beings to be. So, even if one were "born" with homosexual tendencies, it is still a product of sin and is not pleasing to God.

Define all of these things. I have OCD It's an abnormality of the human condition. It is not at all how God designed human beings to be. So because I was "born" with Obsessive Compulsive tendencies, it is still a product of sin and is not pleasing to God because I act on this abnormal tendencies?

 

[AngelusSax]

From a limited understanding that I have on the topic (only what I read here and there), there is no homosexual gene.

I do not ascribe to a gay gene either. I do think there are things like spikes in testosterone levels (or extreme drops) that cause the brain to develop in a way that is not in line with the majority of humanity (i.e. toward homosexual tendencies.)

Just to be clear about where I am on the gay gene thing. I think NARTH may have a point. Some of it may be psychological (and some probably is). In fact, I'll even go so far as to say there are openly active homosexuals who, for them, it is all psychological, and they can and some even do get restored to their natural heterosexual state. I am doubtful, though, this can apply to all homosexuals, as some (not you that I know of) are apt to claim or believe.

 

[Edial]

Define all of these things. I have OCD It's an abnormality of the human condition. It is not at all how God designed human beings to be. So because I was "born" with Obsessive Compulsive tendencies, it is still a product of sin and is not pleasing to God because I act on this abnormal tendencies?

DaRev most probably meant abnormalities that cause one to sin as defined in the Bible.
For example, chleptomaniac has an inborn (I think) tendency to swipe things. It's a sin. Yet he is driven to steal.
However, and it's a big HOWEVER , person that is predisposed to a certain sin more than another gets more grace once one recognizes that sin is sin.

And I can assure you ... all of us are abnormal in one sense or another and in one degree or another.

Welcome to the Hospital mental ward we call The World.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

DaRev most probably meant abnormalities that cause one to sin as defined in the Bible.
For example, chleptomaniac has an inborn (I think) tendency to swipe things. It's a sin. Yet he is driven to steal.
However, and it's a big HOWEVER , person that is predisposed to a certain sin more than another gets more grace once one recognizes that sin is sin.

And I can assure you ... all of us are abnormal in one sense or another and in one degree or another.

Welcome to the Hospital mental ward we call The World.

to this too!!

 

[Protoevangel]

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

Maybe only if he only kills one person his whole life... A "willing" victimm maybe.

 

[Edial]

I do not ascribe to a gay gene either. I do think there are things like spikes in testosterone levels (or extreme drops) that cause the brain to develop in a way that is not in line with the majority of humanity (i.e. toward homosexual tendencies.)

Just to be clear about where I am on the gay gene thing. I think NARTH may have a point. Some of it may be psychological (and some probably is). In fact, I'll even go so far as to say there are openly active homosexuals who, for them, it is all psychological, and they can and some even do get restored to their natural heterosexual state. I am doubtful, though, this can apply to all homosexuals, as some (not you that I know of) are apt to claim or believe.

I clearly am not an expert on the topic, but I am enlightened on political, business, religious propagandas or public relations as we call it.

So when NARTH said (from the link in previous post):

"But the difference is one of emphasis. We place more emphasis on the psychological (family, peer and social) influences, while the American Psychological Association emphasizes biological influences--and has shown no interest in (indeed, a hostility toward) investigating those same psychological and social influences. ... "

I believe it.

One more point.

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 (with my limited wisdom) through sheer observation see men and women acting kind of differently since childhood.
There is also a clear testimony of people being born with different types of intimate organs (you know what I mean).

Men of old that did not have benefits of scientific "Cliff Notes", such as calculators, equipments, etc., were MUCH more observant in their natural selves.

Solomon (the man of old) was called the wisest man of all the past and future.

Thanks,
Ed