Thoughts on homosexuality not being genetic

A couple of weeks ago I posted this:  Evidence homosexuality is not genetic | Cranach: The Blog of Veith.  It was a link to a discussion of how identical twins (who share the exact same genes) are not particularly likely to both be gay (something that happens in only 10% of the cases).  That would indicate that homosexuality is not genetic, or, if there is some kind of genetic component, it isn’t causative or determinative.  That post attracted more than ten times the usual traffic on this blog!  But there is more to say on the matter:

(1)  Homosexuality cannot be genetically transmitted.  Or if it is, that would strike a mortal blow against Darwinism.  You don’t have to believe that natural selection gives rise to different species to believe that natural selection is a real phenomenon.  That simply means that genes that aid survival and (more importantly) reproduction will be passed on to the next generations.  Same-sex attraction does NOT promote reproduction.  Rather, it prevents reproduction.  So that trait, if it is genetic and inheritable, would tend to die out.  And yet it hasn’t.  So it’s hard to imagine how it could be genetically determined and handed down.

(2)  Just because homosexuality isn’t genetic, that does not mean it is just a “choice.”  It might have causes that are psychological, physiological, medical, cultural, environmental, or some combination of these or other factors.  It’s too bad that the politically-correct conviction “not that there’s anything wrong with it” is inhibiting research into the causes of homosexuality.

(3)  The Lady Gaga diagnosis–”I was born this way”–has indeed helped homosexuality become broadly accepted today. This, however, may not be true.

(4)  There would seem to be no moral issue if a person can’t help his or her sexual orientation. And yet having a desire is not the same as acting on that desire (which is certainly evident in heterosexual attractions), so moral agency remains.  To be sure, our inner desires to do what is forbidden–our “concupiscence”–are sinful and testimony to our fallen condition.  Nevertheless, the will is operative.

(5) And yet, Christianity teaches that the will is in bondage to sin.  As a result, we cannot simply choose to stop sinning.  This applies to all sins and not just to homosexuality.  Sin inheres in our “flesh.”  Sin is part of our fallen condition.  In that sense, sin–including but not limited to homosexual desires– is inherited (even though, contrary to Darwin, it has no survival value).

(5)  All have sinned, including homosexuals, whose sin goes far beyond sexual transgressions, just as heterosexuals sin in more ways than in their sexuality.  And what all sinners need is grace, forgiveness, redemption, all of which is freely available from Christ, who covers their sins with His blood.   Self-righteousness, though–the conviction that “I am good as I am” and “I don’t need forgiveness”–is what keeps sinners away from Christ and all His free gifts.

Can you think of any other corollaries?

And I’m curious about this, from you Lutheran theologians.  It seems that Lutheranism has a view of sin and of human anthropology that is very realistic, though different from that of other theologies with a higher view of the will and a lower view of sin.  Does Lutheran theology throw any distinct light on this issue?

 

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Michael B.

    We keep the debating the cause of homosexuality, yet Paul plainly tells us in Romans chapter 1: Homosexual desires are a punishment from God.

    Read it for yourself: Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

  • Michael B.

    We keep the debating the cause of homosexuality, yet Paul plainly tells us in Romans chapter 1: Homosexual desires are a punishment from God.

    Read it for yourself: Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

  • larry

    It seems the whole debate, pro and con, suffers from a gross misunderstanding of what original sin is and that ultimately all consequent sin (pious covered and impiously displayed) is for at the end of the day the later is a repetition of that original sin in another form whatever it is. If original sin is basically as heterodoxy teaches some form or another of “moralism” or “one’s love compass is off the mark”, then the cure is not grace (i.e. forgiveness of sin) but rather “grace” (i.e. called grace but in the ‘form of the law’). But original sin is not this, it is a trust issue.

    Luther points out that in THE original sin (act if you will) the first thing the serpent did was to disconnect faith from the Word given, then trust is invested in the words of the serpent which basically say “you can trust yourself” (i.e. knowledge of good and evil for the self and hence bondage of the will). Because of this idolatry, says Paul in Romans 1:18-ff, then God turns us over to the degrading things whereby we even invent new ways to sin (trust in anything but God/Christ alone, first commandment). All men are thus bound of will not to give them excuse, somebody else made me do it, but in order to show that this way of trusting is in fact death and will be for all (alien work) so that all are bound that grace may be had (proper work). Luther makes the fascinating point concerning David’s incident of adultery/murder, that that was not the “real sin” for which he cries out in the 51st Psalm. For there David says, “I have sinned against you and you ALONE…”. Rather that David was attempting to “help God” build what God said HE would do, build his throne, make a name for him, etc… David began trusting in other words and his “faith”, not the promises of God.

    Paulson writes, “How does God repent someone? The old understanding of repentance was that God used the law both as carrot and stick, penalizing sin and promising rewards for better effort next time. The cause of David’s famous plea for mercy in Psalm 51, “Have mercy on me, O God,” was thought to be “actual sin”-a willful offense against the law because David let his love become disordered. He supposedly let his higher love for God and the law be overtaken by the lower, bestial form of love by lusting after a beautiful, married woman taking a bath. Luther began to see that this whole scenario missed what happened to David because it considered sin only by comparing it to the law. “We do not think of sin as lightly as do the pope’s theologians, who define sin as ‘anything said, done, or thought against the Law of God.’ So that sin is simply opposing God’s Law.” One of the consequences of that halfway definition of sin was to miss the finality of God’s judgment, and then a series of false distinctions of sins followed that denied the reality of baptism as a death and burial with a crucified Jesus Christ. After all, if the will is going to be the actor in repentance and the law its means, it cannot very well be dead-so thought these “pope’s theologians.” Luther simply began with David receiving a word from God and then playing hide-and-seek with it, looking for better words. The specific promise God gave David (through the preacher Nathan) forms one of the key parts of all Scripture: “I will make for you a name…a house…a place for My people…and your throne will be established forever” (2 Sam. 7). But instead of trusting the promise, David immediately shoed himself to be what Luther called “an enthusiast” (a “God-within-er” or a “naval theologian”) who looked for better words than ones he got. David, for example, was not content with God building him a house; he immediately wanted to seize the reins and build God a house. Isn’t that good, religious fervor? (are you listening LCMS pro church growth movers and shakers?) What is wrong with David wanting to give something back to God? David launched off into creating his own words and worship of God, and by doing so David lost his ear for the shepherd’s voice. God responded to him as if to say, “No, David, you have mixed up the subject and the object- I will build your house.” Luther observed that sin cannot be revealed in its depth and breadth until it is compared not only with the law but finally with God’s word of promise.”

    Christianity is always tempted to make itself another religious “moral discussion” as to sin (a halfway definition at best), thus the world says, “I see little essential fundamental difference between it and any other religion”. Thus we present a “Jesus” to be emulated as in His purity. It forgets that to really bear the cross and go to that very Cross and thus to really emulate Christ, if you will, is to go to the real Jesus who in fact was Himself made sin 2 Cor. 5:21 and an actual curse to the Law Gal. 3:13, and BE a REAL sinner, a real distruster and betrayer of God, just like Judas, just like Peter. And finally to, thus, realize that God in fact raised Him, Who became THE sinner and THE curse in reality, from the dead and was justified to do so as He spoke so and just as so He was so would we be (hence Paul’s connection with baptism in Romans).

    The sum is this and Luther makes this point that one will never grasp the real gravity of sin and one’s sin viewing it only through the Law, but not until one comes to grips with the fact that ultimately one has distrusted the promises and ultimately is trusting utterly addictively one’s own self and “faith” so much and so bound of will that you cannot “step outside yourself and figure it out”, but it must be proclaimed to you as such. This is ultimately what brought David himself to confession/absolution and like the tax collector, the sinner, to justify God by his confession.

  • larry

    It seems the whole debate, pro and con, suffers from a gross misunderstanding of what original sin is and that ultimately all consequent sin (pious covered and impiously displayed) is for at the end of the day the later is a repetition of that original sin in another form whatever it is. If original sin is basically as heterodoxy teaches some form or another of “moralism” or “one’s love compass is off the mark”, then the cure is not grace (i.e. forgiveness of sin) but rather “grace” (i.e. called grace but in the ‘form of the law’). But original sin is not this, it is a trust issue.

    Luther points out that in THE original sin (act if you will) the first thing the serpent did was to disconnect faith from the Word given, then trust is invested in the words of the serpent which basically say “you can trust yourself” (i.e. knowledge of good and evil for the self and hence bondage of the will). Because of this idolatry, says Paul in Romans 1:18-ff, then God turns us over to the degrading things whereby we even invent new ways to sin (trust in anything but God/Christ alone, first commandment). All men are thus bound of will not to give them excuse, somebody else made me do it, but in order to show that this way of trusting is in fact death and will be for all (alien work) so that all are bound that grace may be had (proper work). Luther makes the fascinating point concerning David’s incident of adultery/murder, that that was not the “real sin” for which he cries out in the 51st Psalm. For there David says, “I have sinned against you and you ALONE…”. Rather that David was attempting to “help God” build what God said HE would do, build his throne, make a name for him, etc… David began trusting in other words and his “faith”, not the promises of God.

    Paulson writes, “How does God repent someone? The old understanding of repentance was that God used the law both as carrot and stick, penalizing sin and promising rewards for better effort next time. The cause of David’s famous plea for mercy in Psalm 51, “Have mercy on me, O God,” was thought to be “actual sin”-a willful offense against the law because David let his love become disordered. He supposedly let his higher love for God and the law be overtaken by the lower, bestial form of love by lusting after a beautiful, married woman taking a bath. Luther began to see that this whole scenario missed what happened to David because it considered sin only by comparing it to the law. “We do not think of sin as lightly as do the pope’s theologians, who define sin as ‘anything said, done, or thought against the Law of God.’ So that sin is simply opposing God’s Law.” One of the consequences of that halfway definition of sin was to miss the finality of God’s judgment, and then a series of false distinctions of sins followed that denied the reality of baptism as a death and burial with a crucified Jesus Christ. After all, if the will is going to be the actor in repentance and the law its means, it cannot very well be dead-so thought these “pope’s theologians.” Luther simply began with David receiving a word from God and then playing hide-and-seek with it, looking for better words. The specific promise God gave David (through the preacher Nathan) forms one of the key parts of all Scripture: “I will make for you a name…a house…a place for My people…and your throne will be established forever” (2 Sam. 7). But instead of trusting the promise, David immediately shoed himself to be what Luther called “an enthusiast” (a “God-within-er” or a “naval theologian”) who looked for better words than ones he got. David, for example, was not content with God building him a house; he immediately wanted to seize the reins and build God a house. Isn’t that good, religious fervor? (are you listening LCMS pro church growth movers and shakers?) What is wrong with David wanting to give something back to God? David launched off into creating his own words and worship of God, and by doing so David lost his ear for the shepherd’s voice. God responded to him as if to say, “No, David, you have mixed up the subject and the object- I will build your house.” Luther observed that sin cannot be revealed in its depth and breadth until it is compared not only with the law but finally with God’s word of promise.”

    Christianity is always tempted to make itself another religious “moral discussion” as to sin (a halfway definition at best), thus the world says, “I see little essential fundamental difference between it and any other religion”. Thus we present a “Jesus” to be emulated as in His purity. It forgets that to really bear the cross and go to that very Cross and thus to really emulate Christ, if you will, is to go to the real Jesus who in fact was Himself made sin 2 Cor. 5:21 and an actual curse to the Law Gal. 3:13, and BE a REAL sinner, a real distruster and betrayer of God, just like Judas, just like Peter. And finally to, thus, realize that God in fact raised Him, Who became THE sinner and THE curse in reality, from the dead and was justified to do so as He spoke so and just as so He was so would we be (hence Paul’s connection with baptism in Romans).

    The sum is this and Luther makes this point that one will never grasp the real gravity of sin and one’s sin viewing it only through the Law, but not until one comes to grips with the fact that ultimately one has distrusted the promises and ultimately is trusting utterly addictively one’s own self and “faith” so much and so bound of will that you cannot “step outside yourself and figure it out”, but it must be proclaimed to you as such. This is ultimately what brought David himself to confession/absolution and like the tax collector, the sinner, to justify God by his confession.

  • Tom Hering

    Re: Michael B. @ 1.

    God turns people into homosexuals as a punishment? I thought the statement “God gave them over” means He allows them to be – to fully be – the sinners they already are. That His Spririt will no longer strive with them (convicting and restraining them) because that’s the way they want it.

  • Tom Hering

    Re: Michael B. @ 1.

    God turns people into homosexuals as a punishment? I thought the statement “God gave them over” means He allows them to be – to fully be – the sinners they already are. That His Spririt will no longer strive with them (convicting and restraining them) because that’s the way they want it.

  • Tom Hering

    Michael B. @ 1, what’s the cause of homosexuality? I would say it’s our sin nature. The potential for homosexuality exists in all of us, just as the potential for every other sin exists in all of us. In our flesh. Rather like the potential for cancer exists in all of us. Question is: what triggers homosexuality in some but not in others? I’d answer: the right combination of the right temptations at the right time.

  • Tom Hering

    Michael B. @ 1, what’s the cause of homosexuality? I would say it’s our sin nature. The potential for homosexuality exists in all of us, just as the potential for every other sin exists in all of us. In our flesh. Rather like the potential for cancer exists in all of us. Question is: what triggers homosexuality in some but not in others? I’d answer: the right combination of the right temptations at the right time.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Tom @ 4, this is one of the rare occasions when I will agree with you :D

    Yes, it is a sin. Though it manifests itself in a more gross and heinous way externally, yet it comes about as the result of our fallen nature.

    I’m firmly convinced that if the Church of Jesus Christ would start revisiting and reproclaiming the doctrine of Original Sin and Total Depravity again that there wouldn’t be so much debate on matters such as homosexuality or abortion. The failure of the church to address sin as sin does not stem from a lack of morality; it stems from a lack of doctrinal clarity.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Tom @ 4, this is one of the rare occasions when I will agree with you :D

    Yes, it is a sin. Though it manifests itself in a more gross and heinous way externally, yet it comes about as the result of our fallen nature.

    I’m firmly convinced that if the Church of Jesus Christ would start revisiting and reproclaiming the doctrine of Original Sin and Total Depravity again that there wouldn’t be so much debate on matters such as homosexuality or abortion. The failure of the church to address sin as sin does not stem from a lack of morality; it stems from a lack of doctrinal clarity.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    Article XIX: Of the Cause of Sin.

    Of
 the 
Cause
 of
 Sin 
they
 teach
 that, 
although
 God
 does
 create
 and
 preserve
 nature, 
yet 
the
 cause
 of
 sin
 is 
the 
will
 of
 the
 wicked,
 that
 is,
 of
 the
 devil 
and 
ungodly 
men;
 which
 will, unaided
 of
 God,
 turns
 itself 
from 
God, 
as 
Christ
 says 
John
8,
44:
 When
 he 
speaketh
 a 
lie, 
he
 speaketh
 of 
his 
own.

    While sin may manifest itself physically which is an undeniable truth as we witness disease and death. It ultimately boils down to an act of will. In this case, as in all cases sin is the result of a human will bound by the evil of the original sin that gave us this curse. Act of will or no, they are condemned by their own act of will. Let us call a sin a sin and leave it at that.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    Article XIX: Of the Cause of Sin.

    Of
 the 
Cause
 of
 Sin 
they
 teach
 that, 
although
 God
 does
 create
 and
 preserve
 nature, 
yet 
the
 cause
 of
 sin
 is 
the 
will
 of
 the
 wicked,
 that
 is,
 of
 the
 devil 
and 
ungodly 
men;
 which
 will, unaided
 of
 God,
 turns
 itself 
from 
God, 
as 
Christ
 says 
John
8,
44:
 When
 he 
speaketh
 a 
lie, 
he
 speaketh
 of 
his 
own.

    While sin may manifest itself physically which is an undeniable truth as we witness disease and death. It ultimately boils down to an act of will. In this case, as in all cases sin is the result of a human will bound by the evil of the original sin that gave us this curse. Act of will or no, they are condemned by their own act of will. Let us call a sin a sin and leave it at that.

  • George A. Marquart

    (4) There would seem to be no moral issue if a person can’t help his or her sexual orientation. And yet having a desire is not the same as acting on that desire (which is certainly evident in heterosexual attractions), so moral agency remains.

    I don’t think that the idea that there is no moral issue about something one cannot help is Scriptural. If it were so, it would mean that none of us are to blame for sin, because we cannot help sinning. Also, Matthew 5 makes it quite clear that there is no difference between desire and doing. Nevertheless, our Lord said, Matthew 12, “32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven.” That includes the desire of homosexuals, as well as homosexual acts. We dare not say that these are not sinful, but at the same time we dare not say that they cannot be forgiven.

    Peace and Joy!
    George A. Marquart

  • George A. Marquart

    (4) There would seem to be no moral issue if a person can’t help his or her sexual orientation. And yet having a desire is not the same as acting on that desire (which is certainly evident in heterosexual attractions), so moral agency remains.

    I don’t think that the idea that there is no moral issue about something one cannot help is Scriptural. If it were so, it would mean that none of us are to blame for sin, because we cannot help sinning. Also, Matthew 5 makes it quite clear that there is no difference between desire and doing. Nevertheless, our Lord said, Matthew 12, “32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven.” That includes the desire of homosexuals, as well as homosexual acts. We dare not say that these are not sinful, but at the same time we dare not say that they cannot be forgiven.

    Peace and Joy!
    George A. Marquart

  • WebMonk

    Dr. Veith, I appreciate that you bring up science topics, but I can’t remember the last time you were correct when you’ve added in your own opinion on said facts. This is no exception.

    I realize I’ve critiqued you on this sort of thing many times, and I guess you’ll have to take my word for it that I’ve been holding back from commenting many times because I didn’t want to sound too repetitive.

    But, this post has too many blatantly incorrect statements for me to skip.

    #1. “Homosexuality cannot be genetically transmitted. Or if it is, that would strike a mortal blow against Darwinism.”

    Totally false. You haven’t actually ever thought about what you’re saying, have you? At least not for any longer than it took you to type that up. You actually know things that prove your statement wrong, but you apparently have never put two and two together.

    I’m sure you’ve heard of cystic fibrosis – a completely genetic disease that is nearly 100% effective in keeping people from having kids. I won’t give a primer on how a purely genetic disease can continue in a population while being nearly 100% effective in halting reproduction, but suffice to say, it is completely possible. And such a thing doesn’t give any problem to evolution.

    If you really want to learn more, I can help you out. But, the statement that “gayness” can’t be genetic because it would weed itself out is nothing more than extreme ignorance, completely incorrect in every way.

    Quick, layman-level description of genetic diseases being passed on in a population even though the disease inhibits reproduction.

    #2 – again, you seem to have this bizarre view that if genetics isn’t a total determinant of sexuality then it isn’t an influence at all. There have been quite a few studies coming at the topic from different directions, and while they all vary somewhat as to how much genetics influences sexual orientation, they all agree that it does have a significant impact.

    You are completely ignoring (probably because you just don’t know about) genetic expression. Identical twins can have significant physiological differences because their genes expressed differently. Changes in diet, hormones, temperature, stress, and even one’s latitude can change how genes are expressed.

    Especially when you’re talking about such a complex thing as sexual orientation, there are very likely scores of genes which influence it. (nearly a dozen identified so far, and I suspect many more will be discovered in the coming decades) Variation in expression and interaction between the genes can have all sorts of effects beyond a binary switch of homo or hetero.

    A binary view of whether genetics determines sexual orientation is horribly false. Please don’t spread that sort of misinformation.

  • WebMonk

    Dr. Veith, I appreciate that you bring up science topics, but I can’t remember the last time you were correct when you’ve added in your own opinion on said facts. This is no exception.

    I realize I’ve critiqued you on this sort of thing many times, and I guess you’ll have to take my word for it that I’ve been holding back from commenting many times because I didn’t want to sound too repetitive.

    But, this post has too many blatantly incorrect statements for me to skip.

    #1. “Homosexuality cannot be genetically transmitted. Or if it is, that would strike a mortal blow against Darwinism.”

    Totally false. You haven’t actually ever thought about what you’re saying, have you? At least not for any longer than it took you to type that up. You actually know things that prove your statement wrong, but you apparently have never put two and two together.

    I’m sure you’ve heard of cystic fibrosis – a completely genetic disease that is nearly 100% effective in keeping people from having kids. I won’t give a primer on how a purely genetic disease can continue in a population while being nearly 100% effective in halting reproduction, but suffice to say, it is completely possible. And such a thing doesn’t give any problem to evolution.

    If you really want to learn more, I can help you out. But, the statement that “gayness” can’t be genetic because it would weed itself out is nothing more than extreme ignorance, completely incorrect in every way.

    Quick, layman-level description of genetic diseases being passed on in a population even though the disease inhibits reproduction.

    #2 – again, you seem to have this bizarre view that if genetics isn’t a total determinant of sexuality then it isn’t an influence at all. There have been quite a few studies coming at the topic from different directions, and while they all vary somewhat as to how much genetics influences sexual orientation, they all agree that it does have a significant impact.

    You are completely ignoring (probably because you just don’t know about) genetic expression. Identical twins can have significant physiological differences because their genes expressed differently. Changes in diet, hormones, temperature, stress, and even one’s latitude can change how genes are expressed.

    Especially when you’re talking about such a complex thing as sexual orientation, there are very likely scores of genes which influence it. (nearly a dozen identified so far, and I suspect many more will be discovered in the coming decades) Variation in expression and interaction between the genes can have all sorts of effects beyond a binary switch of homo or hetero.

    A binary view of whether genetics determines sexual orientation is horribly false. Please don’t spread that sort of misinformation.

  • Steve Billingsley

    I appreciate the approach being taken here. This was a very hot topic when I was in seminary – with the default position being taken by the majority of the faculty and student body was that homosexuality was genetic, period, full stop. (Yes – I obviously went to a seminary that was quite liberal in its theology)

    What I could never understand (and no one could ever explain to me) was – in what way could it be genetic? Was it genetic in the way that hair color or eye color is? If this was the case – wouldn’t it be quite obvious to researchers? The genetic cause(s) of these kind of physical characteristics are quite explainable to geneticists and have been for quite some time. Furthermore, there is a high degree of predictability regarding these kinds of characteristics if someone’s gene pool is known.

    The other option was a genetic trait that seems more random but has some traces of uniformity. The only problem is that all of these traits were things like sickle cell anemia, Tay-Sachs, Down’s Syndrome , etc. In short, diseases or genetic weaknesses or abnormalities that had severe health repercussions or limitations associated with them.

    So, my colleagues at seminary (as well as those in society who hold to a genetic theory of homosexuality) are actually in the uncomfortable position of comparing homosexuality to a disease or genetic aberration. Not exactly a glowing endorsement. It does provide a degree of justification for advocacy of non-discrimination, but it smacks of paternalism in its advocacy.

    To me, the theological explanation (the reality and universality of sin) is really the best explanation. It takes seriously the broken nature of humanity and doesn’t single out homosexuality as being really all that different than the temptations and sins that all humanity face. Attitudes toward homosexuality (as opposed to any other sin such as lying or hatred) are certainly culturally conditioned to some degree – but it doesn’t change the reality of sin.

  • Steve Billingsley

    I appreciate the approach being taken here. This was a very hot topic when I was in seminary – with the default position being taken by the majority of the faculty and student body was that homosexuality was genetic, period, full stop. (Yes – I obviously went to a seminary that was quite liberal in its theology)

    What I could never understand (and no one could ever explain to me) was – in what way could it be genetic? Was it genetic in the way that hair color or eye color is? If this was the case – wouldn’t it be quite obvious to researchers? The genetic cause(s) of these kind of physical characteristics are quite explainable to geneticists and have been for quite some time. Furthermore, there is a high degree of predictability regarding these kinds of characteristics if someone’s gene pool is known.

    The other option was a genetic trait that seems more random but has some traces of uniformity. The only problem is that all of these traits were things like sickle cell anemia, Tay-Sachs, Down’s Syndrome , etc. In short, diseases or genetic weaknesses or abnormalities that had severe health repercussions or limitations associated with them.

    So, my colleagues at seminary (as well as those in society who hold to a genetic theory of homosexuality) are actually in the uncomfortable position of comparing homosexuality to a disease or genetic aberration. Not exactly a glowing endorsement. It does provide a degree of justification for advocacy of non-discrimination, but it smacks of paternalism in its advocacy.

    To me, the theological explanation (the reality and universality of sin) is really the best explanation. It takes seriously the broken nature of humanity and doesn’t single out homosexuality as being really all that different than the temptations and sins that all humanity face. Attitudes toward homosexuality (as opposed to any other sin such as lying or hatred) are certainly culturally conditioned to some degree – but it doesn’t change the reality of sin.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Web Monk @8
    I don’t know that anyone denies that genetics plays a role in human sexuality. After all, gender, hormones and sexual organs certainly have a lot to sexual behavior.

    But the critique is of the belief that there is a “gay gene” – a determinate factor that absolutely decides one’s sexual orientation – without any significant choice for the individual involved.

    Human sexuality is certainly quite complex, with all kinds of factors involved (from family situation, cultural expectations, formative experiences, trauma, psychological makeup – etc. etc. etc.) – which to me why such a simplistic biologically deterministic explanation is so dubious.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Web Monk @8
    I don’t know that anyone denies that genetics plays a role in human sexuality. After all, gender, hormones and sexual organs certainly have a lot to sexual behavior.

    But the critique is of the belief that there is a “gay gene” – a determinate factor that absolutely decides one’s sexual orientation – without any significant choice for the individual involved.

    Human sexuality is certainly quite complex, with all kinds of factors involved (from family situation, cultural expectations, formative experiences, trauma, psychological makeup – etc. etc. etc.) – which to me why such a simplistic biologically deterministic explanation is so dubious.

  • EGK

    We must continue to proclaim that homosexuality belongs to the order of the fall, not to the order of creation. The acceptance of homosexuality as legitimate belongs to the blindness that comes because of sin. But we also need to note as St. Paul does in Romans 1 that we dare not claim it to be the worst of sins or a sin that condemns more than others. In Romans 1 Paul begins with homosexual relations because that is the most obvious of sins, not because it is the worst. He does not use it to give the rest of us an excuse for separating them as “worse sinners” than the rest of humanity. Rather he goes on and says that it is the beginning of a downward spiral that leads to “all manner of unrighteousness, evil, coteousness, malice,” such as “envy, murder, strife, deceit,” making them “gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, fathless, heartless, ruthless.” (Rom. 1:29-31). So don’t use it to justify your self as less of a sinner; rather, recognize that you, too, are “born this way,” namely, a sinner!

  • EGK

    We must continue to proclaim that homosexuality belongs to the order of the fall, not to the order of creation. The acceptance of homosexuality as legitimate belongs to the blindness that comes because of sin. But we also need to note as St. Paul does in Romans 1 that we dare not claim it to be the worst of sins or a sin that condemns more than others. In Romans 1 Paul begins with homosexual relations because that is the most obvious of sins, not because it is the worst. He does not use it to give the rest of us an excuse for separating them as “worse sinners” than the rest of humanity. Rather he goes on and says that it is the beginning of a downward spiral that leads to “all manner of unrighteousness, evil, coteousness, malice,” such as “envy, murder, strife, deceit,” making them “gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, fathless, heartless, ruthless.” (Rom. 1:29-31). So don’t use it to justify your self as less of a sinner; rather, recognize that you, too, are “born this way,” namely, a sinner!

  • EGK

    We must continue to proclaim that homosexuality belongs to the order of the fall, not to the order of creation. The acceptance of homosexuality as legitimate belongs to the blindness that comes because of sin. But we also need to note as St. Paul does in Romans 1 that we dare not claim it to be the worst of sins or a sin that condemns more than others. In Romans 1 Paul begins with homosexual relations because that is the most obvious of sins, not because it is the worst. He does not use it to give the rest of us an excuse for separating them as “worse sinners” than the rest of humanity. Rather he goes on and says that it is the beginning of a downward spiral that leads to “all manner of unrighteousness, evil, coveteousness, malice,” such as “envy, murder, strife, deceit,” making them “gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, fathless, heartless, ruthless.” (Rom. 1:29-31). So don’t use it to justify your self as less of a sinner; rather, recognize that you, too, are “born this way,” namely, a sinner!

  • EGK

    We must continue to proclaim that homosexuality belongs to the order of the fall, not to the order of creation. The acceptance of homosexuality as legitimate belongs to the blindness that comes because of sin. But we also need to note as St. Paul does in Romans 1 that we dare not claim it to be the worst of sins or a sin that condemns more than others. In Romans 1 Paul begins with homosexual relations because that is the most obvious of sins, not because it is the worst. He does not use it to give the rest of us an excuse for separating them as “worse sinners” than the rest of humanity. Rather he goes on and says that it is the beginning of a downward spiral that leads to “all manner of unrighteousness, evil, coveteousness, malice,” such as “envy, murder, strife, deceit,” making them “gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, fathless, heartless, ruthless.” (Rom. 1:29-31). So don’t use it to justify your self as less of a sinner; rather, recognize that you, too, are “born this way,” namely, a sinner!

  • kenneth

    The Christian light of view puts photons upon phtons on the issue of human free will and determinism. Pelagius wrought much woe on the Christian church through out the millenialls since. Free will begs the question of whether we have enough for salvation in our works and causes a crash of Pauline theology. Lutheran theology that follows Luther’s need is brilliant in it’s scope about the problem of free will.

    Determinism isn’t as bad as it sounds because it frees up the human will to accept God’s will instead. He makes the initiative and brings home our savation by an act that is wholly His.

    Homosexuality doesn’t fit in with Frued and Darwin and also some church theologians, that of the pelagian persuation. They still think human savation can occur outside of God’s absolute will. It just cannot happen!

    Homosexuality and it’s politcal agenda is just a symptom of the times that are bent toward rebellion. Ther is no hoipe for eithe heterosexul or homosexual outside of Christ.+

  • kenneth

    The Christian light of view puts photons upon phtons on the issue of human free will and determinism. Pelagius wrought much woe on the Christian church through out the millenialls since. Free will begs the question of whether we have enough for salvation in our works and causes a crash of Pauline theology. Lutheran theology that follows Luther’s need is brilliant in it’s scope about the problem of free will.

    Determinism isn’t as bad as it sounds because it frees up the human will to accept God’s will instead. He makes the initiative and brings home our savation by an act that is wholly His.

    Homosexuality doesn’t fit in with Frued and Darwin and also some church theologians, that of the pelagian persuation. They still think human savation can occur outside of God’s absolute will. It just cannot happen!

    Homosexuality and it’s politcal agenda is just a symptom of the times that are bent toward rebellion. Ther is no hoipe for eithe heterosexul or homosexual outside of Christ.+

  • WebMonk

    Steve @ 10,
    I don’t know that anyone denies that genetics plays a role in human sexuality.

    I’m not quite as sure about that as you are. Dr. Veith certainly seems to be strongly stating that genetics plays no role in sexual orientation.

    Homosexuality cannot be genetically transmitted. …. So it’s hard to imagine how it could be genetically determined and handed down. …. Just because homosexuality isn’t genetic….

    It sounds to me like Dr. Veith is denying that genetics could possibly determine one’s sexual orientation.

    You and I know that there’s a lot more than a binary option of genetics determining sexual orientation or not. I’m also quite sure that many people don’t realize that.

    Look at your post #9. It sounds like a lot of misunderstanding at that seminary about what role genetics plays in determining one’s sexual orientation. It’s way more than just hair color, and it’s way more complicated than a disease.

    Factors include genes, gene expression, environment, experiences, and choices. Comparisons to hair color or genetic diseases on one side, or a self-selected preference on the other side, are both horribly and demonstrably false.

    But, just because those are false views, doesn’t mean people realize they’re false.

  • WebMonk

    Steve @ 10,
    I don’t know that anyone denies that genetics plays a role in human sexuality.

    I’m not quite as sure about that as you are. Dr. Veith certainly seems to be strongly stating that genetics plays no role in sexual orientation.

    Homosexuality cannot be genetically transmitted. …. So it’s hard to imagine how it could be genetically determined and handed down. …. Just because homosexuality isn’t genetic….

    It sounds to me like Dr. Veith is denying that genetics could possibly determine one’s sexual orientation.

    You and I know that there’s a lot more than a binary option of genetics determining sexual orientation or not. I’m also quite sure that many people don’t realize that.

    Look at your post #9. It sounds like a lot of misunderstanding at that seminary about what role genetics plays in determining one’s sexual orientation. It’s way more than just hair color, and it’s way more complicated than a disease.

    Factors include genes, gene expression, environment, experiences, and choices. Comparisons to hair color or genetic diseases on one side, or a self-selected preference on the other side, are both horribly and demonstrably false.

    But, just because those are false views, doesn’t mean people realize they’re false.

  • Bob H

    A good interview and discussion on this topic at Issues, Etc. for Feb 15th, http://issuesetc.org/archive/

  • Bob H

    A good interview and discussion on this topic at Issues, Etc. for Feb 15th, http://issuesetc.org/archive/

  • Steve Billingsley

    Web Monk @ 14
    I think the key word is determinate. There is a difference between influence and determination. I have a genetic predisposition toward Type 2 Diabetes in my family. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t have the responsibility to eat in a healthy way and exercise. There very well could be a genetic component that predisposes some toward a homosexual orientation. I don’t know if there is or isn’t, but I can’t rule it out. But at the same time – that doesn’t absolve anyone of the responsibility of proper sexual behavior.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Web Monk @ 14
    I think the key word is determinate. There is a difference between influence and determination. I have a genetic predisposition toward Type 2 Diabetes in my family. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t have the responsibility to eat in a healthy way and exercise. There very well could be a genetic component that predisposes some toward a homosexual orientation. I don’t know if there is or isn’t, but I can’t rule it out. But at the same time – that doesn’t absolve anyone of the responsibility of proper sexual behavior.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The argument I have seen that is against homosexuality being genetic like cystic fibrosis is that homosexuality is not distributed in the population the same way. The pattern doesn’t seem to fit.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The argument I have seen that is against homosexuality being genetic like cystic fibrosis is that homosexuality is not distributed in the population the same way. The pattern doesn’t seem to fit.

  • Med Student

    As Webmonk says, there’s a lot more to genetics than just what genes a person has. Gene expression is just as important, and that can be quite variable even between identical twins. I had a college class that went into epigenetics just a little bit, in particular the effects of stress hormones like cortisol. These hormones can cause methylation of certain gene loci, which prevents transcription and thus expression of those genes. Not to mention that many traits are not inherited in a Mendelian fashion and are multi-factorial. Even a genetically inherited disease like Type I diabetes generally requires some sort of environmental factor in order to be expressed. There is a vast spectrum of possibilities between traits that are determined by a single gene and traits that aren’t genetic at all. The whole point of genome-wide association studies is to try to determine if there is genetic component to some trait or disease (i.e. alcoholism, type II diabetes), how much of a contribution it makes, and what genes may be responsible.

  • Med Student

    As Webmonk says, there’s a lot more to genetics than just what genes a person has. Gene expression is just as important, and that can be quite variable even between identical twins. I had a college class that went into epigenetics just a little bit, in particular the effects of stress hormones like cortisol. These hormones can cause methylation of certain gene loci, which prevents transcription and thus expression of those genes. Not to mention that many traits are not inherited in a Mendelian fashion and are multi-factorial. Even a genetically inherited disease like Type I diabetes generally requires some sort of environmental factor in order to be expressed. There is a vast spectrum of possibilities between traits that are determined by a single gene and traits that aren’t genetic at all. The whole point of genome-wide association studies is to try to determine if there is genetic component to some trait or disease (i.e. alcoholism, type II diabetes), how much of a contribution it makes, and what genes may be responsible.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “there’s a lot more to genetics than just what genes a person has. Gene expression is just as important,”

    Isn’t that a bit of an overstatement? Even though it is true that expression matters, and that environment affects expression, ‘just as important’ seems a bit of an exaggeration. I guess I just mean that the underlying structure has to be there to even have the potential of being switched on so to speak. Just a question. (I am not committed to that position, so all you nurture fanatics can relax.)

    Anyway, it seems if homosexuality is at least in part a “born that way” condition, then it is more like a defect or at the tail of some distribution.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “there’s a lot more to genetics than just what genes a person has. Gene expression is just as important,”

    Isn’t that a bit of an overstatement? Even though it is true that expression matters, and that environment affects expression, ‘just as important’ seems a bit of an exaggeration. I guess I just mean that the underlying structure has to be there to even have the potential of being switched on so to speak. Just a question. (I am not committed to that position, so all you nurture fanatics can relax.)

    Anyway, it seems if homosexuality is at least in part a “born that way” condition, then it is more like a defect or at the tail of some distribution.

  • Barry Arrington

    Why does it matter whether homosexual attraction is genetic, environmentally determined or both? From the studies I have seen on the success rate of homosexuals trying to change their orientation (not encouraging), it may well be the case that same sex desire is immutable or nearly so. I don’t know, but for the sake of what follows I am willing to concede for the sake of argument that homosexual attraction is an immutable characteristic. So what?

    There is an obvious unspoken assumption underlying all augments that homosexual attraction should be considered normative merely by virtue of being immutable. That assumption is that if a person has an immutable desire it is, at the very least, not blameworthy and probably affirmatively good for him to act on that desire. But it seems to me that this is plainly not the case as a couple of examples will show.

    The recidivism rate among pedophiles is very high, which is why many states have passed laws mandating lifetime supervision for convicted child molesters even after they have served their prison terms. It is almost certainly the case that a pedophile’s desire to have sexual contact with children is immutable or nearly so. Yet aside from a few loons in NAMBLA no one argues that pedophilia should be normative merely by virtue of being immutable.

    Consider a heterosexual married man. His tendency to be attracted to women other than his wife is immutable. Yet indulging that immutable attraction (i.e, committing adultery) is almost universally condemned.

    It seems to me, therefore, that the “immutability” of a desire is simply no ground for arguing the desire should be considered normative. Indeed, just the opposite is often the case. There are immutable desires that practically everyone agrees should be resisted by the person affected and if he fails to resist them he should be condemned if not also punished.

    It follows that if the fact that a desire is immutable is no ground for sanctioning acting upon the desire, it does not matter how the desire came to be immutable. Whether same sex attraction is immutable and, if it is, whether that immutability is rooted in genetic, epigenetic or environmental factors, or a combination of all three, may be interesting questions, but the answer to those questions is certainly not determinative with regard to the moral issue, because acting on a desire, even if the desire is immutable, is not necessarily moral.

  • Barry Arrington

    Why does it matter whether homosexual attraction is genetic, environmentally determined or both? From the studies I have seen on the success rate of homosexuals trying to change their orientation (not encouraging), it may well be the case that same sex desire is immutable or nearly so. I don’t know, but for the sake of what follows I am willing to concede for the sake of argument that homosexual attraction is an immutable characteristic. So what?

    There is an obvious unspoken assumption underlying all augments that homosexual attraction should be considered normative merely by virtue of being immutable. That assumption is that if a person has an immutable desire it is, at the very least, not blameworthy and probably affirmatively good for him to act on that desire. But it seems to me that this is plainly not the case as a couple of examples will show.

    The recidivism rate among pedophiles is very high, which is why many states have passed laws mandating lifetime supervision for convicted child molesters even after they have served their prison terms. It is almost certainly the case that a pedophile’s desire to have sexual contact with children is immutable or nearly so. Yet aside from a few loons in NAMBLA no one argues that pedophilia should be normative merely by virtue of being immutable.

    Consider a heterosexual married man. His tendency to be attracted to women other than his wife is immutable. Yet indulging that immutable attraction (i.e, committing adultery) is almost universally condemned.

    It seems to me, therefore, that the “immutability” of a desire is simply no ground for arguing the desire should be considered normative. Indeed, just the opposite is often the case. There are immutable desires that practically everyone agrees should be resisted by the person affected and if he fails to resist them he should be condemned if not also punished.

    It follows that if the fact that a desire is immutable is no ground for sanctioning acting upon the desire, it does not matter how the desire came to be immutable. Whether same sex attraction is immutable and, if it is, whether that immutability is rooted in genetic, epigenetic or environmental factors, or a combination of all three, may be interesting questions, but the answer to those questions is certainly not determinative with regard to the moral issue, because acting on a desire, even if the desire is immutable, is not necessarily moral.

  • David Palmer

    I don’t think we need be definitive on whether homosexuality is inherent in a person as born or learnt.

    Surely our doctrine of original sin permits us to understand that a child could be born with a predisposition to homosexuality just as another child is born angry or with congenital heart disease.

    What we do know is that homosexual activity is condemned as unnatural both on natural law and Biblical grounds.

  • David Palmer

    I don’t think we need be definitive on whether homosexuality is inherent in a person as born or learnt.

    Surely our doctrine of original sin permits us to understand that a child could be born with a predisposition to homosexuality just as another child is born angry or with congenital heart disease.

    What we do know is that homosexual activity is condemned as unnatural both on natural law and Biblical grounds.

  • fws

    I would encourage everyone here to read larrys post. and read it carefully. dr vieth is proposing the roman catholic scholastic and aristotelian definition of concupiscence and thus of original sin.

    If this error is not corrected according to the apology art I then the following articles on good works, justification and the formula of concord will not be understood correctly. this is foundational to lutheran theology I suggest.

    that is the start of doctrinal disaster.

    I happen to be a homosexual participant in this blog, and also a confessional Lutheran just to be honest here.

  • fws

    I would encourage everyone here to read larrys post. and read it carefully. dr vieth is proposing the roman catholic scholastic and aristotelian definition of concupiscence and thus of original sin.

    If this error is not corrected according to the apology art I then the following articles on good works, justification and the formula of concord will not be understood correctly. this is foundational to lutheran theology I suggest.

    that is the start of doctrinal disaster.

    I happen to be a homosexual participant in this blog, and also a confessional Lutheran just to be honest here.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    There would seem to be no moral issue if a person can’t help his or her sexual orientation.
    I disagree. My sexual orientation is straight – but that doesn’t mean there is “no moral issue” of practicing fornication or adultery. What other behaviors might we “can’t help”? Does a measure of causality in any way mitigate morality? Is there “no moral issue” for the insane person who accidentally kills someone? Or is there only no moral issue if two causally determined adults engage in mutually consented upon acts? Is it no moral issue if a sadist and masochist hook up? I don’t think this line of reasoning can hold up to scrutiny.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    There would seem to be no moral issue if a person can’t help his or her sexual orientation.
    I disagree. My sexual orientation is straight – but that doesn’t mean there is “no moral issue” of practicing fornication or adultery. What other behaviors might we “can’t help”? Does a measure of causality in any way mitigate morality? Is there “no moral issue” for the insane person who accidentally kills someone? Or is there only no moral issue if two causally determined adults engage in mutually consented upon acts? Is it no moral issue if a sadist and masochist hook up? I don’t think this line of reasoning can hold up to scrutiny.

  • Joanne

    The gentle humane issue here is that it would be wonderful if every human being could grow up, find the love of their lives, get married, have kids, and then grow old together. Some do find this is what life really is for them.
    Others run into all kinds of messes with mate-finding and sex. The world is rife with adutery. Your father says, just find you a nice girl and settle down; but the chicks down at the club would miss you so much. And, he hasn’t told his dad, but he did ask a girl to marry him and she declined his kind off.
    Adam and Eve and a talking snake have forever made mate-finding a strange and wonderful adventure, or you might call it a nightmare.
    But hey, maybe your dad would like this deal. You have found a girl, a very dependent girl, who says she will marry you. Nice. But here’s the deal, she’s not that really into men, if you know what if mean. She might be able to suffer physical attentions once a month or so, and she’d really prefer it if you were gone most of the time, but yet, you put a roof over my head and food on my table, and I’ll marry you. Good deal! Lots of men have made that deal and lived with it for the rest of their lives, even though the once-a-month thing never did really work out.
    Then there is divorce, that kind law that Moses gave us because ole once-a-month upstairs decided he couldn’t live for the rest of his life with a woman who had no sexual desire for him. The bastard. He devorced Ethel and married Lulu and the bed rocks almost every night. Ain’t divorce wonderful, how it can fix so many mistakes.
    But, that’s our corollary, divorce. Ethel never said she wouldn’t have sex with him, but he always wanted it and it’s so disgusting. Can you imagine how awful it was for Ethel to go to sleep night after night with a whimpering, pleading man disturbing her happiness? It must have been a cross she just had to bear, but she wall will to bear it. She didn’t ask for no divorce. And the strange thing of it all is that Ethel would have been fine with Lulu moving in, if that would have made him happier, cause somehow, Lulu always made her happier too.
    The deals we make. Sometime we can live with them and sometimes we can’t. But, the kindness of divorce is not universally appreciated. Jesus called Moses a softy and said no divorce. His apostles as one man responded that it was impossible to live a happy live without the possibility of divorce. Denying divorce is a harsh and cruel law. Yet, Jesus was firm, no divorce.
    So here we have the corollary Dr. Veith talks about between the sexual suffering of straight people and the sexual suffering of gay people. Lulu and Him will live in the state of adultery for the rest of their lives. They’ve had two kids and go to church every Sunday. But just being married to each other and doing that disgusting thing almost every night, though it makes Him very happy, has him in a state of adultery, right along with Lulu. Their married life is a sin. No divorce.
    Ethel, as you might imagine, found her a companion too. She makes Ethel happy and the thing they do sometimes upstairs at night with those funny little plastic thingies. That’s not really sex, it’s just relieving tension. Yet the Bible is clear on this one too, no how now way. Just having her companion, and having that deep, deep desire just to be near her all the time, puts Ethel into a state of sin, and yes, you might call what she is doing, adultery too, cause she is still His real wife.
    Yep, this is the corollary. A mode of life that is sin in and of itself and that lasts a life time. It’s the kind of sin that King David was conceived in. It’s everywhere and it’s all the time.
    But, strangely, Ethel and her companion don’t go to church, but Him and Lulu go every sunday. He’s an Elder. Ethel thinks her life of sin puts a blotch between her and God. He sometimes thinks that being divorce might be a problem, but down as the church, it never seems to be.

  • Joanne

    The gentle humane issue here is that it would be wonderful if every human being could grow up, find the love of their lives, get married, have kids, and then grow old together. Some do find this is what life really is for them.
    Others run into all kinds of messes with mate-finding and sex. The world is rife with adutery. Your father says, just find you a nice girl and settle down; but the chicks down at the club would miss you so much. And, he hasn’t told his dad, but he did ask a girl to marry him and she declined his kind off.
    Adam and Eve and a talking snake have forever made mate-finding a strange and wonderful adventure, or you might call it a nightmare.
    But hey, maybe your dad would like this deal. You have found a girl, a very dependent girl, who says she will marry you. Nice. But here’s the deal, she’s not that really into men, if you know what if mean. She might be able to suffer physical attentions once a month or so, and she’d really prefer it if you were gone most of the time, but yet, you put a roof over my head and food on my table, and I’ll marry you. Good deal! Lots of men have made that deal and lived with it for the rest of their lives, even though the once-a-month thing never did really work out.
    Then there is divorce, that kind law that Moses gave us because ole once-a-month upstairs decided he couldn’t live for the rest of his life with a woman who had no sexual desire for him. The bastard. He devorced Ethel and married Lulu and the bed rocks almost every night. Ain’t divorce wonderful, how it can fix so many mistakes.
    But, that’s our corollary, divorce. Ethel never said she wouldn’t have sex with him, but he always wanted it and it’s so disgusting. Can you imagine how awful it was for Ethel to go to sleep night after night with a whimpering, pleading man disturbing her happiness? It must have been a cross she just had to bear, but she wall will to bear it. She didn’t ask for no divorce. And the strange thing of it all is that Ethel would have been fine with Lulu moving in, if that would have made him happier, cause somehow, Lulu always made her happier too.
    The deals we make. Sometime we can live with them and sometimes we can’t. But, the kindness of divorce is not universally appreciated. Jesus called Moses a softy and said no divorce. His apostles as one man responded that it was impossible to live a happy live without the possibility of divorce. Denying divorce is a harsh and cruel law. Yet, Jesus was firm, no divorce.
    So here we have the corollary Dr. Veith talks about between the sexual suffering of straight people and the sexual suffering of gay people. Lulu and Him will live in the state of adultery for the rest of their lives. They’ve had two kids and go to church every Sunday. But just being married to each other and doing that disgusting thing almost every night, though it makes Him very happy, has him in a state of adultery, right along with Lulu. Their married life is a sin. No divorce.
    Ethel, as you might imagine, found her a companion too. She makes Ethel happy and the thing they do sometimes upstairs at night with those funny little plastic thingies. That’s not really sex, it’s just relieving tension. Yet the Bible is clear on this one too, no how now way. Just having her companion, and having that deep, deep desire just to be near her all the time, puts Ethel into a state of sin, and yes, you might call what she is doing, adultery too, cause she is still His real wife.
    Yep, this is the corollary. A mode of life that is sin in and of itself and that lasts a life time. It’s the kind of sin that King David was conceived in. It’s everywhere and it’s all the time.
    But, strangely, Ethel and her companion don’t go to church, but Him and Lulu go every sunday. He’s an Elder. Ethel thinks her life of sin puts a blotch between her and God. He sometimes thinks that being divorce might be a problem, but down as the church, it never seems to be.

  • fws

    Dr Veith has asked us to comment as Lutheran theologians even though his launch point for this is speculative scientific or pseudo scientific considerations.

    I won’t debate whether homosexuality is nature or nurture. Why would that matter? Let’s try to evalutate what we can say about all this from God’s Word as Law and Gospel applies to all of us. There is no special Law or Gospel that uniquely applies to homosexuals.

    First I need to correct some of Dr Veiths comments. I suggest they are very wrong:

    4) …To be sure, our inner desires to do what is forbidden–our “concupiscence”–are sinful and testimony to our fallen condition. Nevertheless, the will is operative….

    This position, is , in fact , the scholastic/aristotelian view of “concupiscence ” that our Lutheran Confessions in the Apology art II “original sin” and Luther’s preface to his 1545 translation of Romans (referenced in our confessions as a further amplification/explanation to our confessions) say.

    The confessions define Original Sin as two things. It is 1) the lack/absence of Adamic Original Righteousness which was the very Image of God. And what was that Image of God? Conformity to God’s Law? no. That would be the fruit of the Image. The Image itself that was lost to Adam in the fall was Trust and Faith in the Works of Another . It was , according to our Confessions, fear, love and trust , alone, in Christ Jesus.

    Then there is the second part of Original Sin. What is that? it faith! It is a faith that Old Adam “viciously” places in anything BUT the works of Another! So original sin in both parts is about faith! it is the lack of fear love and trust in God and it is the fear love and trust of Old Adam in ANYTHING at all that is not the Works of Another! This includes especially trust in our own righteous works.

    In contrast scholasticism proposes that sin is about what we do in thought word and deed. it is a problem of our actions of thought word and deed not conforming to the Law, whereas the Confessions say the problem is a heart that viciously desires to place its fear love and trust in anything but God. Idolatry is the very heart of sin this says. Romans 1! So for Lutherans acts in thought word and deed are merely the symptoms and consequences of a far deeper problem that simply cannot be solved by anything at all we are able to do!

    In contrast scholasticism proposes that the Image of God is found in the aristelian “higher powers” that distinguish men from beasts. That Image therefore consists of mans power to reason and love. Concupiscence , in contrast, are mans “natural appetites” that are driven by emotions. These are the baser instincts. To become a virtuous person then, the task is to use ones will in the daily practice of love guided by reason with the aim of controlling and restraining the baser instincts. Scholasticism, and the neo scholasticism of calvinism then labels this aristotelian exercise as “sanctification.” and it is! But it is a form of sanctification that any pagan can do and is driven by God’s Law written in their Reason to do. Romans 2:15. note that Romans 2:15 does not say the law is written in the hearts of fallen men! Our Apology makes a huge deal about this exact distinction. It is the “work of the Law” that is written in the heart of Old Adam. that work is to kill and accuse always. But one will find at the very beginning of our Apology in the article on “love and the fulfilling of the Law” that the Law can only be written in the hearts of men when the prophecy contained in Jeremiah 33 is fulfilled! And that prophecy is alone fulfilled when faith alone, in Christ alone, which is the very Image of God and is Adamic Original righteousness is restored by the waters of Baptism and in baptismal regeneration. Study this please! And only then, is there a will in man, that again wills to do the will of God and keep the Law. But there remains the Old Adam that is “operative” in the believer. And how is the will operative? this way:

    Sin in the Scriptures means not only external works of the body but also all those movements within us which bestir themselves and move us to do the external works, namely, the depth of the heart with all its powers. Therefore the word do should refer to a person’s completely falling into sin. No external work of sin happens, after all, unless a person commit himself to it completely, body and soul. In particular, the Scriptures see into the heart, to the root and main source of all sin: unbelief in the depth of the heart. Thus, even as faith alone makes just and brings the Spirit and the desire to do good external works, so it is only unbelief which sins and exalts the flesh and brings desire to do evil external works. That’s what happened to Adam and Eve in Paradise (cf. Genesis 3).

    Note that this says something about our will that seems radically different from what Dr Veith seems to be suggesting about how the will is operative.

    Here is the complete text. It is a short read and it is essential reading for Confessional Lutherans! http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

    So for Lutherans, ALL sin is “Capital sin” (ie mortal sin). ALL sin is death. (cf Smalcald Articles) . Our confessions categorically reject that there is such a thing as “venial sin”! And more importantly, our confessions emphatically reject the notion that there is willful and then there is unwillful sin!

    Note that the Roman Catholic definition of Natural Law is that reconformity to this Law is to find Life. Conformity to Natural Law is precisely to reconform to the Image of God. it is to find Life.

    And Natural Law is not merely romans 2:15 which is the Law of God written in the Conscience of ALL men that is the IDENTICAL Law as that found in the Decalog (apology “on justification”). For them natural law includes speculation about Divine Design that involves scientific inquiry etc. So note that Rome defines homosexuality as “objectively disordered” but does not, by saying that, define homosexuality itself as sin!

    Also note that for Lutherans, ANY and all Law always accuses! It always kill! Sure it does also aid us in avoiding temporal punishment and suffering, but it ends with this life. And there is NO Life in the Law, there is only death! Life is alone found in the Works of Another! And it is that trust in the Works of Another that the Confessions define, exactly so, as the very Image of God. And this Image is fully and completely restored in the New Man, that is created , ex nihilo, in baptism in both homosexuals and heterosexuals alike!

    Until we get this part right, it is pointless to discuss the topic of Homosexuality as it relates to sin.

    I would suggest that conversation on homosexuality is valuable for all of us here? why? it exposes the false doctrines on sin and original sin for what they are. Homosexuality is the canary in the coal mine. Discussion of it exposes theological error among those who consider themselves confessional and orthodox. And this is not about whether or not homosexuality is a sin. It is about those fundamental doctrines such as original sin that are fundamental to Lutheran Orthodoxy and that we are in constant danger of losing sight of.

    (5) All have sinned, including homosexuals, whose sin goes far beyond sexual transgressions, just as heterosexuals sin in more ways than in their sexuality. And what all sinners need is grace, forgiveness, redemption, all of which is freely available from Christ, who covers their sins with His blood. Self-righteousness, though–the conviction that “I am good as I am” and “I don’t need forgiveness”–is what keeps sinners away from Christ and all His free gifts.

    There are two errors here. The first is that we can make some sort of equivalence between heterosexuality and homosexuality. To do that we would need to imagine a world where to be heterosexual, per se, is shameful and that would fully include noble impulses of Love and self sacrifice. And it would be to say that heterosexuality is unnecessary! one can find what one would need in platonic friendships. this is what is urged upon homosexuals after all.

    the second error is to assume that when a homosexual says that he does not think his homosexuality is sinful he is also saying that he is not a sinner. that would be the same thing as saying that a calvinist is saying “i am not a sinner” when he states that his false doctrine on the blessed sacraments and on election are not sins. This is a silly and shallow understanding isnt it? I am a confessional Lutheran and i confess my sins daily. They are many. I do not consider my homosexuality to be one of those sins however. I do not find that anywhere in Holy Scripture. And my conscience is bound by the Word of God and the One Law of God written both in my Reason and in the Decalog.

    Now for response to other comments here. Note that my comments can only be understood in the context of what I have repeated from our Confessions just now:

    comment # 1 . Michael B: If romans 1 refers to homosexuals, then wouldnt we need to take into full account what you quote? I am referring to “their women”. Romans 1 is talking about men who are naturally inclined to be attracted to females. Those men then reject what is natural to them and leave “their women” and turn to lust after other men. Let me ask all of you if this picture Paul paints represents typical experience of homosexuals? I don’t think it does. And I am a homosexual who has knows thousands of homosexuals. This description does not fit the experience of even one homosexual I have ever met. I conclude from this that this Word of God is not talking about what we today would label homosexuality. I would suggest that you consider this alternative understanding of the text carefully. To read this otherwise I suggest is to miss the entire point of the Epistle of Romans!

    to be continued….

  • fws

    Dr Veith has asked us to comment as Lutheran theologians even though his launch point for this is speculative scientific or pseudo scientific considerations.

    I won’t debate whether homosexuality is nature or nurture. Why would that matter? Let’s try to evalutate what we can say about all this from God’s Word as Law and Gospel applies to all of us. There is no special Law or Gospel that uniquely applies to homosexuals.

    First I need to correct some of Dr Veiths comments. I suggest they are very wrong:

    4) …To be sure, our inner desires to do what is forbidden–our “concupiscence”–are sinful and testimony to our fallen condition. Nevertheless, the will is operative….

    This position, is , in fact , the scholastic/aristotelian view of “concupiscence ” that our Lutheran Confessions in the Apology art II “original sin” and Luther’s preface to his 1545 translation of Romans (referenced in our confessions as a further amplification/explanation to our confessions) say.

    The confessions define Original Sin as two things. It is 1) the lack/absence of Adamic Original Righteousness which was the very Image of God. And what was that Image of God? Conformity to God’s Law? no. That would be the fruit of the Image. The Image itself that was lost to Adam in the fall was Trust and Faith in the Works of Another . It was , according to our Confessions, fear, love and trust , alone, in Christ Jesus.

    Then there is the second part of Original Sin. What is that? it faith! It is a faith that Old Adam “viciously” places in anything BUT the works of Another! So original sin in both parts is about faith! it is the lack of fear love and trust in God and it is the fear love and trust of Old Adam in ANYTHING at all that is not the Works of Another! This includes especially trust in our own righteous works.

    In contrast scholasticism proposes that sin is about what we do in thought word and deed. it is a problem of our actions of thought word and deed not conforming to the Law, whereas the Confessions say the problem is a heart that viciously desires to place its fear love and trust in anything but God. Idolatry is the very heart of sin this says. Romans 1! So for Lutherans acts in thought word and deed are merely the symptoms and consequences of a far deeper problem that simply cannot be solved by anything at all we are able to do!

    In contrast scholasticism proposes that the Image of God is found in the aristelian “higher powers” that distinguish men from beasts. That Image therefore consists of mans power to reason and love. Concupiscence , in contrast, are mans “natural appetites” that are driven by emotions. These are the baser instincts. To become a virtuous person then, the task is to use ones will in the daily practice of love guided by reason with the aim of controlling and restraining the baser instincts. Scholasticism, and the neo scholasticism of calvinism then labels this aristotelian exercise as “sanctification.” and it is! But it is a form of sanctification that any pagan can do and is driven by God’s Law written in their Reason to do. Romans 2:15. note that Romans 2:15 does not say the law is written in the hearts of fallen men! Our Apology makes a huge deal about this exact distinction. It is the “work of the Law” that is written in the heart of Old Adam. that work is to kill and accuse always. But one will find at the very beginning of our Apology in the article on “love and the fulfilling of the Law” that the Law can only be written in the hearts of men when the prophecy contained in Jeremiah 33 is fulfilled! And that prophecy is alone fulfilled when faith alone, in Christ alone, which is the very Image of God and is Adamic Original righteousness is restored by the waters of Baptism and in baptismal regeneration. Study this please! And only then, is there a will in man, that again wills to do the will of God and keep the Law. But there remains the Old Adam that is “operative” in the believer. And how is the will operative? this way:

    Sin in the Scriptures means not only external works of the body but also all those movements within us which bestir themselves and move us to do the external works, namely, the depth of the heart with all its powers. Therefore the word do should refer to a person’s completely falling into sin. No external work of sin happens, after all, unless a person commit himself to it completely, body and soul. In particular, the Scriptures see into the heart, to the root and main source of all sin: unbelief in the depth of the heart. Thus, even as faith alone makes just and brings the Spirit and the desire to do good external works, so it is only unbelief which sins and exalts the flesh and brings desire to do evil external works. That’s what happened to Adam and Eve in Paradise (cf. Genesis 3).

    Note that this says something about our will that seems radically different from what Dr Veith seems to be suggesting about how the will is operative.

    Here is the complete text. It is a short read and it is essential reading for Confessional Lutherans! http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

    So for Lutherans, ALL sin is “Capital sin” (ie mortal sin). ALL sin is death. (cf Smalcald Articles) . Our confessions categorically reject that there is such a thing as “venial sin”! And more importantly, our confessions emphatically reject the notion that there is willful and then there is unwillful sin!

    Note that the Roman Catholic definition of Natural Law is that reconformity to this Law is to find Life. Conformity to Natural Law is precisely to reconform to the Image of God. it is to find Life.

    And Natural Law is not merely romans 2:15 which is the Law of God written in the Conscience of ALL men that is the IDENTICAL Law as that found in the Decalog (apology “on justification”). For them natural law includes speculation about Divine Design that involves scientific inquiry etc. So note that Rome defines homosexuality as “objectively disordered” but does not, by saying that, define homosexuality itself as sin!

    Also note that for Lutherans, ANY and all Law always accuses! It always kill! Sure it does also aid us in avoiding temporal punishment and suffering, but it ends with this life. And there is NO Life in the Law, there is only death! Life is alone found in the Works of Another! And it is that trust in the Works of Another that the Confessions define, exactly so, as the very Image of God. And this Image is fully and completely restored in the New Man, that is created , ex nihilo, in baptism in both homosexuals and heterosexuals alike!

    Until we get this part right, it is pointless to discuss the topic of Homosexuality as it relates to sin.

    I would suggest that conversation on homosexuality is valuable for all of us here? why? it exposes the false doctrines on sin and original sin for what they are. Homosexuality is the canary in the coal mine. Discussion of it exposes theological error among those who consider themselves confessional and orthodox. And this is not about whether or not homosexuality is a sin. It is about those fundamental doctrines such as original sin that are fundamental to Lutheran Orthodoxy and that we are in constant danger of losing sight of.

    (5) All have sinned, including homosexuals, whose sin goes far beyond sexual transgressions, just as heterosexuals sin in more ways than in their sexuality. And what all sinners need is grace, forgiveness, redemption, all of which is freely available from Christ, who covers their sins with His blood. Self-righteousness, though–the conviction that “I am good as I am” and “I don’t need forgiveness”–is what keeps sinners away from Christ and all His free gifts.

    There are two errors here. The first is that we can make some sort of equivalence between heterosexuality and homosexuality. To do that we would need to imagine a world where to be heterosexual, per se, is shameful and that would fully include noble impulses of Love and self sacrifice. And it would be to say that heterosexuality is unnecessary! one can find what one would need in platonic friendships. this is what is urged upon homosexuals after all.

    the second error is to assume that when a homosexual says that he does not think his homosexuality is sinful he is also saying that he is not a sinner. that would be the same thing as saying that a calvinist is saying “i am not a sinner” when he states that his false doctrine on the blessed sacraments and on election are not sins. This is a silly and shallow understanding isnt it? I am a confessional Lutheran and i confess my sins daily. They are many. I do not consider my homosexuality to be one of those sins however. I do not find that anywhere in Holy Scripture. And my conscience is bound by the Word of God and the One Law of God written both in my Reason and in the Decalog.

    Now for response to other comments here. Note that my comments can only be understood in the context of what I have repeated from our Confessions just now:

    comment # 1 . Michael B: If romans 1 refers to homosexuals, then wouldnt we need to take into full account what you quote? I am referring to “their women”. Romans 1 is talking about men who are naturally inclined to be attracted to females. Those men then reject what is natural to them and leave “their women” and turn to lust after other men. Let me ask all of you if this picture Paul paints represents typical experience of homosexuals? I don’t think it does. And I am a homosexual who has knows thousands of homosexuals. This description does not fit the experience of even one homosexual I have ever met. I conclude from this that this Word of God is not talking about what we today would label homosexuality. I would suggest that you consider this alternative understanding of the text carefully. To read this otherwise I suggest is to miss the entire point of the Epistle of Romans!

    to be continued….

  • fws

    ekg @ 12

    what is your Scriptural basis for claiming this? I do not assume even that blindness or albinoism or birth defects are a result of the fall. Who is to say that these things would not occur in a world without sin?

    when the disciples asked what sin was the cause of the mans blindness Jesus responded that the blindness was not the result of sin, it was so that God would be glorified. I think this deserves some thought.

    We assume that unsinful=perfect. I suggest this is not a scriptural notion. I would suggest that the incarnate God probably forgot his prayer shawl at home and had to return to get it, and that he made mistakes building chairs for his father and had to learn from that. And this was all without sin.

  • fws

    ekg @ 12

    what is your Scriptural basis for claiming this? I do not assume even that blindness or albinoism or birth defects are a result of the fall. Who is to say that these things would not occur in a world without sin?

    when the disciples asked what sin was the cause of the mans blindness Jesus responded that the blindness was not the result of sin, it was so that God would be glorified. I think this deserves some thought.

    We assume that unsinful=perfect. I suggest this is not a scriptural notion. I would suggest that the incarnate God probably forgot his prayer shawl at home and had to return to get it, and that he made mistakes building chairs for his father and had to learn from that. And this was all without sin.

  • fws

    steve @ 9

    maybe the better understanding is to see that the problem is not in what we view in creation. it is our view of that creation. Maybe in an unfallen world birth defects would not be seen as defect but instead as a gift of God that calls us to complete our own selves by service to others.

    The fall was not about the world or creation changing. it was about adams change of heart.

    it was about his putting trust in his own works of thought word and deed rather than trusting in the Works of a good God who would provide Goodness and Mercy without needing to distinguish good and evil. Reason sees the opposite of Sin as being Goodness. Only faith can see that the opposite of sin is not goodness. It is alone faith in the Works of Another. “that which is not of faith is sin” is where this doctrine is found, along with the entire rest of Holy Scripture

    so those readings that place sin in the act of adam that did not conform to the Law “dont eat from that tree!” is misinformed. The lack of the Image of God is not a lack of conformity to the law of God. it is the lack of fear love and trust in the Works of Another and looking to that Work alone to receive fatherly Goodness and Mercy that we all deperately want and need. Instead Adam and his children according to the flesh seek to find that essential first article goodness and mercy in our own works of righteousness and our conformity to the Law. This in fact, is the core idea behind roman catholic theories of Natural Law. This robs Christ of the honor that alone belongs to him and it suggests there is a path to a restored Image of God that is not wholy and alone dependent upon the Works of Another but rather, teleologically, depends upon our conformity to natural law.

    For Lutheran Christians there is only one teleological or eternal consequence of anything at all we can do and in Natural law or any other law. that eternal consequence is eternal death. Alone.

    ONLY in the Works of Another, alone, alone, alone, can one find the teleological consequence of Eternal Life. In all our works and in the Law of God the only eternal consequence to be found is death. Yes here on earth the Law and keeping of the Law aids us in avoiding the wrath and punishment of God and permits us to enjoy life. But this all ends with this life. if we wish to deal with God we need to aim higher! And that is to aim to place our trust, alone, in the Works of Another. this alone is what makes one a Christian and this alone is the most difficult and lifelong task of every christian.

  • fws

    steve @ 9

    maybe the better understanding is to see that the problem is not in what we view in creation. it is our view of that creation. Maybe in an unfallen world birth defects would not be seen as defect but instead as a gift of God that calls us to complete our own selves by service to others.

    The fall was not about the world or creation changing. it was about adams change of heart.

    it was about his putting trust in his own works of thought word and deed rather than trusting in the Works of a good God who would provide Goodness and Mercy without needing to distinguish good and evil. Reason sees the opposite of Sin as being Goodness. Only faith can see that the opposite of sin is not goodness. It is alone faith in the Works of Another. “that which is not of faith is sin” is where this doctrine is found, along with the entire rest of Holy Scripture

    so those readings that place sin in the act of adam that did not conform to the Law “dont eat from that tree!” is misinformed. The lack of the Image of God is not a lack of conformity to the law of God. it is the lack of fear love and trust in the Works of Another and looking to that Work alone to receive fatherly Goodness and Mercy that we all deperately want and need. Instead Adam and his children according to the flesh seek to find that essential first article goodness and mercy in our own works of righteousness and our conformity to the Law. This in fact, is the core idea behind roman catholic theories of Natural Law. This robs Christ of the honor that alone belongs to him and it suggests there is a path to a restored Image of God that is not wholy and alone dependent upon the Works of Another but rather, teleologically, depends upon our conformity to natural law.

    For Lutheran Christians there is only one teleological or eternal consequence of anything at all we can do and in Natural law or any other law. that eternal consequence is eternal death. Alone.

    ONLY in the Works of Another, alone, alone, alone, can one find the teleological consequence of Eternal Life. In all our works and in the Law of God the only eternal consequence to be found is death. Yes here on earth the Law and keeping of the Law aids us in avoiding the wrath and punishment of God and permits us to enjoy life. But this all ends with this life. if we wish to deal with God we need to aim higher! And that is to aim to place our trust, alone, in the Works of Another. this alone is what makes one a Christian and this alone is the most difficult and lifelong task of every christian.

  • fws

    john @ 23

    you are comparing apples and oranges. you would not say that there is NO proper exercise of heterosexuality. But there are those here who claim this to be true of homosexuality.

    david palmer @ 21
    are you the david palmer who was a tutor at northwestern lutheran academy? I would contest both of your assertions.

    The Confessions define “natural law” as being specifically and only the Law written by God in the conscience/reason of all men. romans 2:15 . Note that the Confessions reject the notion that the Law is written in the heart of Old Adam. Also note that this distinction forms the basis of a core argument in the Apology. The Apology says the Law can only be written on the heart of New Man in the fulfillment of Jer 33 (see “on love and the keeping of the Law” in the very first few paragraphs…)

    secondly, I would suggest that there is simply NO word of God that speaks specifically to what we define today as homosexuality. the bible simply knows no category called “homosexuality”. that does not mean it does not exist. After all the bible knows of no category called negro either. Does the category exist and is it useful in interpreting our world? did the category exist in biblical times? does that matter with respect to morals? I suggest no. that is subject to debate. But that debate is not a scriptural or religious or moral debate per se is it?

  • fws

    john @ 23

    you are comparing apples and oranges. you would not say that there is NO proper exercise of heterosexuality. But there are those here who claim this to be true of homosexuality.

    david palmer @ 21
    are you the david palmer who was a tutor at northwestern lutheran academy? I would contest both of your assertions.

    The Confessions define “natural law” as being specifically and only the Law written by God in the conscience/reason of all men. romans 2:15 . Note that the Confessions reject the notion that the Law is written in the heart of Old Adam. Also note that this distinction forms the basis of a core argument in the Apology. The Apology says the Law can only be written on the heart of New Man in the fulfillment of Jer 33 (see “on love and the keeping of the Law” in the very first few paragraphs…)

    secondly, I would suggest that there is simply NO word of God that speaks specifically to what we define today as homosexuality. the bible simply knows no category called “homosexuality”. that does not mean it does not exist. After all the bible knows of no category called negro either. Does the category exist and is it useful in interpreting our world? did the category exist in biblical times? does that matter with respect to morals? I suggest no. that is subject to debate. But that debate is not a scriptural or religious or moral debate per se is it?

  • Joanne

    I know you wish that some theologians would take over this conversation, but it looks to me like all you got is us fools again. That being said, I’m more interested in talking pastorily about these types of problems adultry/abberrant sexuality (not criminal sexual predators of children, but just the annoying kind that are everywhere). And, pastoral care is theology in action, isn’t it?

    Here’s a deal you made with God. If I take this call to a suburban parish way out on the west side of Sheboygan, God, you’ll keep all those inner-city problems away from my ministry and we’ll live in harmony with you. Maybe your frontal lobe isn’t all that aware of the deal, but an important part of you did indeed make that deal when you took that too nice to refuse call.

    But, every damn Sunday when your sheep come up to you for the body and blood of Christ, Mr. Swishy swans his way from somewhere in the back and you commune him. You know him because when you arrived at this perfect suburban parish, Mr. Swishy was little 4 year old Bobby Swishy who brought a doll to church every Sunday. In that same place where you make deals with God, you made a bet with yourself way back then that Bobby Swishy was not the marrying kind and you hoped fervently that when he grew up he’d move to a city somewhere.

    But, there he is, every blessed Sunday, lifting his face to you while kneeling at the altar for you to place the waffer onto his lips (you reintroduced the older Lutheran practice about 10 years ago). You do your best to avoid touching his lips each time, but he always manages to touch your finger, the rascal. The two of you have had a running battle over this since you catechecised and confirmed him also about 10 years ago. In every cell of your brain you ask God, why won’t he move away; Isn’t it time for him to go find a colony of his own kind somewhere urban?

    Then, also coming up the center aisle is someone you really don’t know so well. Most of her family of German factory owners goes to an ELCA church, but for some reason, she wants to come here. But, she just doesn’t seem to know how to dress for church. A short list: spagetti straps, lots of cleavage, and 3 inch heels, you can imagine the rest. But she has two peculiarities, an Italian last name, Saia, and every Sunday she cocoons herself in the most ornate, old fashioned, black, Italian church shawl you’ve ever seen (and Mr. Bobby Swishy loves, Loves, LOVES it). She keeps her head covered in it for the whole service. She must have been raised Lutheran, but she’s had another life somewhere else that’s made a big difference in her.

    Oh, and her lips too always touch your finger during communion, but only part of you notices how nice that is. There’s no battle inside you with Frau Senora Saia, like there is with Mr. Swishy. If only she dressed more appropiately; you can see her ample cleavage a mile away, let alone when she’s kneeling right in front of you. Her exquisite shawl could cover more if she had the sense to wrap it more effectively.

    Then of course, there’s trouble in River City. That handsome new Vicar you got from the seminary last Summer, he seems fine, he’s working out well. All the women in the congregation have fallen in love with him, includng Mr. Swishy. And, much to the signaling of the hackles on the back of your neck, after services your wonderful new vicar spends 20 minutes chating and laughfing with Mr. (you-know-who). Have you got a bigger problem than you think and is God getting awfully close to breaking the deal he made with you, all those years ago?

    And then, as you’ve been planning also for the past 10 years, you reintroduce private confession. Nothing fancy, just your sanctuary chair drawn up to the altar rail so the penitent can kneel beside you and you can put your hands on the penitent’s head when you announce the absolution. An elder will keep those waiting out of earshot.

    Simple as duck soup, but all Hell is about to break loose at Happy Shepherd Lutheran Church in West Sheboygan. (to be continued)

  • Joanne

    I know you wish that some theologians would take over this conversation, but it looks to me like all you got is us fools again. That being said, I’m more interested in talking pastorily about these types of problems adultry/abberrant sexuality (not criminal sexual predators of children, but just the annoying kind that are everywhere). And, pastoral care is theology in action, isn’t it?

    Here’s a deal you made with God. If I take this call to a suburban parish way out on the west side of Sheboygan, God, you’ll keep all those inner-city problems away from my ministry and we’ll live in harmony with you. Maybe your frontal lobe isn’t all that aware of the deal, but an important part of you did indeed make that deal when you took that too nice to refuse call.

    But, every damn Sunday when your sheep come up to you for the body and blood of Christ, Mr. Swishy swans his way from somewhere in the back and you commune him. You know him because when you arrived at this perfect suburban parish, Mr. Swishy was little 4 year old Bobby Swishy who brought a doll to church every Sunday. In that same place where you make deals with God, you made a bet with yourself way back then that Bobby Swishy was not the marrying kind and you hoped fervently that when he grew up he’d move to a city somewhere.

    But, there he is, every blessed Sunday, lifting his face to you while kneeling at the altar for you to place the waffer onto his lips (you reintroduced the older Lutheran practice about 10 years ago). You do your best to avoid touching his lips each time, but he always manages to touch your finger, the rascal. The two of you have had a running battle over this since you catechecised and confirmed him also about 10 years ago. In every cell of your brain you ask God, why won’t he move away; Isn’t it time for him to go find a colony of his own kind somewhere urban?

    Then, also coming up the center aisle is someone you really don’t know so well. Most of her family of German factory owners goes to an ELCA church, but for some reason, she wants to come here. But, she just doesn’t seem to know how to dress for church. A short list: spagetti straps, lots of cleavage, and 3 inch heels, you can imagine the rest. But she has two peculiarities, an Italian last name, Saia, and every Sunday she cocoons herself in the most ornate, old fashioned, black, Italian church shawl you’ve ever seen (and Mr. Bobby Swishy loves, Loves, LOVES it). She keeps her head covered in it for the whole service. She must have been raised Lutheran, but she’s had another life somewhere else that’s made a big difference in her.

    Oh, and her lips too always touch your finger during communion, but only part of you notices how nice that is. There’s no battle inside you with Frau Senora Saia, like there is with Mr. Swishy. If only she dressed more appropiately; you can see her ample cleavage a mile away, let alone when she’s kneeling right in front of you. Her exquisite shawl could cover more if she had the sense to wrap it more effectively.

    Then of course, there’s trouble in River City. That handsome new Vicar you got from the seminary last Summer, he seems fine, he’s working out well. All the women in the congregation have fallen in love with him, includng Mr. Swishy. And, much to the signaling of the hackles on the back of your neck, after services your wonderful new vicar spends 20 minutes chating and laughfing with Mr. (you-know-who). Have you got a bigger problem than you think and is God getting awfully close to breaking the deal he made with you, all those years ago?

    And then, as you’ve been planning also for the past 10 years, you reintroduce private confession. Nothing fancy, just your sanctuary chair drawn up to the altar rail so the penitent can kneel beside you and you can put your hands on the penitent’s head when you announce the absolution. An elder will keep those waiting out of earshot.

    Simple as duck soup, but all Hell is about to break loose at Happy Shepherd Lutheran Church in West Sheboygan. (to be continued)

  • David Palmer

    fws @ 28

    This Lutheran is in fact Reformed and lives 1,000s km away from northwestern lutheran academy wherever that might be.

    I use natural law as referring to those things that “we can’t not know”, so Romans 1:19,20.

    Whilst the Bible does not say a great deal about homosexual activity, it says enough (and this examination is at the level of the Greek text and known meaning): Roms 1:24f, 1 Cor 6:9,10, but you know all this fws, therefore as per John in the seven letters, repent!

  • David Palmer

    fws @ 28

    This Lutheran is in fact Reformed and lives 1,000s km away from northwestern lutheran academy wherever that might be.

    I use natural law as referring to those things that “we can’t not know”, so Romans 1:19,20.

    Whilst the Bible does not say a great deal about homosexual activity, it says enough (and this examination is at the level of the Greek text and known meaning): Roms 1:24f, 1 Cor 6:9,10, but you know all this fws, therefore as per John in the seven letters, repent!

  • fws

    David Palmer @30

    For Lutheran Christians the christian life is one of continual repentence. This repentence is begun in us, by God, in our baptism. It is not something we can do of our own reason and strength.

    I am very familiar with the Greek text David. Let’s look at those two texts shall we?

    Problem #1 Romans 1:24 refers to men who leave “what comes naturally to them” (which we are told is to be attracted to women), and “their women” and turns to worship other men as idols.

    Problem #2: If romans 1:24 names homosexuals, then the entire chapter, especially vs 25-31 is the biblically descriptive diagnostic of homosexuality. If that is true then Romans ch 1 is only about homosexuals. So what do we do with Romans 2:1? I suggest that your understanding eviscerates the entire point of Romans.

    Problem #3: the clinical definition of the technical medical term “homosexual” was most recently defined in around 1980 , and did not even exist as a word or category or defined concept until the early 20th century. Your exegesis I would suggest is an exercise in anachronism therefore.

    Now for the Corinthians text. It seems clear that Arsenokoitia is taken from the greek septuagint and leviticus 18. It think it is at least plausible that St Paul is referring to the practices in Lev 18, and it is also plausible/probable (?) that this refers to a religious practice that also existed in St Pauls time , of a temple worker offering himself ritually to another man as a female sexually.

    Again, this would not even describe the phenomenon called transvestitism let alone homosexuality. Again, there was no category called “homosexual” as we now identify it since the 20th century.

    Finally, why do we need a verse specifically singling out a class of persons that we would never fit into to condemn a sin we would never ever commit.

    I suggest, alternatively to what you are seeming to suggest, that the bible condemns sexual immorality and that sexual morality is defined identically for both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

    And sexual immorality is what? it is to take from someone else what is not ours to have. it is to hurt or harm our neighbor in his body, and it is not to help and befriend our neighbor in every bodily need as we would ourselves want to be treated.

    At it’s core all sin including sexual sin is to look to obtain Goodness and Mercy by our own actions rather than trusting in the actions of God to provide it to us.It is the idolatry of placing our fear, love and trust in our own selves or in others or in created things as where we need to seek goodness and mercy independently of God.

    It looks like saul making sacrifice before battle. It looks like the religion of the pharisees, and it looks like the neoscholasticism of calvinism of which you tell us you are an adherent. And you call this reliance on self will “sanctification” and it is! But for a believer it is far more than that. Even pagans can do the “sanctification” that the reformed indentify as such.

  • fws

    David Palmer @30

    For Lutheran Christians the christian life is one of continual repentence. This repentence is begun in us, by God, in our baptism. It is not something we can do of our own reason and strength.

    I am very familiar with the Greek text David. Let’s look at those two texts shall we?

    Problem #1 Romans 1:24 refers to men who leave “what comes naturally to them” (which we are told is to be attracted to women), and “their women” and turns to worship other men as idols.

    Problem #2: If romans 1:24 names homosexuals, then the entire chapter, especially vs 25-31 is the biblically descriptive diagnostic of homosexuality. If that is true then Romans ch 1 is only about homosexuals. So what do we do with Romans 2:1? I suggest that your understanding eviscerates the entire point of Romans.

    Problem #3: the clinical definition of the technical medical term “homosexual” was most recently defined in around 1980 , and did not even exist as a word or category or defined concept until the early 20th century. Your exegesis I would suggest is an exercise in anachronism therefore.

    Now for the Corinthians text. It seems clear that Arsenokoitia is taken from the greek septuagint and leviticus 18. It think it is at least plausible that St Paul is referring to the practices in Lev 18, and it is also plausible/probable (?) that this refers to a religious practice that also existed in St Pauls time , of a temple worker offering himself ritually to another man as a female sexually.

    Again, this would not even describe the phenomenon called transvestitism let alone homosexuality. Again, there was no category called “homosexual” as we now identify it since the 20th century.

    Finally, why do we need a verse specifically singling out a class of persons that we would never fit into to condemn a sin we would never ever commit.

    I suggest, alternatively to what you are seeming to suggest, that the bible condemns sexual immorality and that sexual morality is defined identically for both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

    And sexual immorality is what? it is to take from someone else what is not ours to have. it is to hurt or harm our neighbor in his body, and it is not to help and befriend our neighbor in every bodily need as we would ourselves want to be treated.

    At it’s core all sin including sexual sin is to look to obtain Goodness and Mercy by our own actions rather than trusting in the actions of God to provide it to us.It is the idolatry of placing our fear, love and trust in our own selves or in others or in created things as where we need to seek goodness and mercy independently of God.

    It looks like saul making sacrifice before battle. It looks like the religion of the pharisees, and it looks like the neoscholasticism of calvinism of which you tell us you are an adherent. And you call this reliance on self will “sanctification” and it is! But for a believer it is far more than that. Even pagans can do the “sanctification” that the reformed indentify as such.

  • fws

    Joanne. we all want, in our Old Adam hearts, to define who is in and who is outside of the church by what we can do.

    This is the original sin we all are delivered from, insofar as we are regenerate, in our Baptism.

    Thank God for this repentence that alone can be worked by God through his Word of reconciliation in the Works of Another.

  • fws

    Joanne. we all want, in our Old Adam hearts, to define who is in and who is outside of the church by what we can do.

    This is the original sin we all are delivered from, insofar as we are regenerate, in our Baptism.

    Thank God for this repentence that alone can be worked by God through his Word of reconciliation in the Works of Another.

  • Joanne

    Confiteor Deo omnipotenti
    Instead of private confession, for the last 150 years Lutherans have been making do with a publicly recited general confession about nothing in particular, or The Confiteor as it’s known. The pastors stick with this very unLutheran practice because they fear learning too much about their flock. I don’t want to know about any sins that particularily bother you, just do the confiteor on Sunday morning and we’ll all make do with that, and no matter what might be bothering you, I’ll forgive it and you can just go stuff it. OhTay.

    Private confession as Martin Luther insisted upon it is another whole different matter. You’re gonna know what you’re forgiving that bothers your flock, by a rite that draws it out of them. In confession/absolution you will hear from bothered members that have never darkened the door of your study, for a nice chat with the Pastor. Now certain confessons my need the further work of the law/gospel in the pastor’s study, but most won’t.

    Now as mentioned above, there are members of your flock that have forgivable sins that never change and never go away, such as your gay and your divorced adulterers. They need your hands on their heads every week knowing that you know how bad their sins really are and that you have given them your absolution directly for that intractable sin. Come on boys, do your jobs. Face our sin head on and don’t keep hiding ignorantly behide that flemsy confiteor. Or do I have to sic Luther on you; you really don’t want that.

    Now, as it would happen down at Happy Shepherd, guess who was the first penitent to show up for the new/old rite of confession/absolution. Yeah, Mr. Swishy, and he thinks he’s going to tell the pastor something he doesn’t already know. Now the pastor is sure that God has broken his deal of a cushy sinecure out in West Sheboygan. Oh, God, do I really have to hear this. He’s going to tell me he’s gay, he might even confess some gay liaisons. Oh, what have I done? Well we can’t break the seal of the confessional, so we’ll never know what Mr. Swishy confessed to.

    Then guess who his second confessing penitent was; yeah, his dreamboat Frau Senora Saia. I wonder what she confessed to? Then the whole confirmation class entered for their turn at confession, guided by your darling new Vicar, whom you now know something about that has amazed you, but we’ll never know, only our loving lieber Beichtvater will know and it will affect his work with the new Vicar, though the new Vicar will never know why, and we will never know what.

    This is a new beginning for our pastor and it seems his job has just been opened up like a pomegranite where he can now see all the seeds. It will never be the same job for him again. His sheep will come and whisper into his ear their particular burdens, and he will personally, with both his hands, forgive them.

    “Pastor, please hear my confession and pronounce forgiveness in order to fulfill God’s will.” Hey, the confiteor is in this confession rite as well, so you can still always fall back on it, if the sins of your flock get just too messy for you to deal with them.

  • Joanne

    Confiteor Deo omnipotenti
    Instead of private confession, for the last 150 years Lutherans have been making do with a publicly recited general confession about nothing in particular, or The Confiteor as it’s known. The pastors stick with this very unLutheran practice because they fear learning too much about their flock. I don’t want to know about any sins that particularily bother you, just do the confiteor on Sunday morning and we’ll all make do with that, and no matter what might be bothering you, I’ll forgive it and you can just go stuff it. OhTay.

    Private confession as Martin Luther insisted upon it is another whole different matter. You’re gonna know what you’re forgiving that bothers your flock, by a rite that draws it out of them. In confession/absolution you will hear from bothered members that have never darkened the door of your study, for a nice chat with the Pastor. Now certain confessons my need the further work of the law/gospel in the pastor’s study, but most won’t.

    Now as mentioned above, there are members of your flock that have forgivable sins that never change and never go away, such as your gay and your divorced adulterers. They need your hands on their heads every week knowing that you know how bad their sins really are and that you have given them your absolution directly for that intractable sin. Come on boys, do your jobs. Face our sin head on and don’t keep hiding ignorantly behide that flemsy confiteor. Or do I have to sic Luther on you; you really don’t want that.

    Now, as it would happen down at Happy Shepherd, guess who was the first penitent to show up for the new/old rite of confession/absolution. Yeah, Mr. Swishy, and he thinks he’s going to tell the pastor something he doesn’t already know. Now the pastor is sure that God has broken his deal of a cushy sinecure out in West Sheboygan. Oh, God, do I really have to hear this. He’s going to tell me he’s gay, he might even confess some gay liaisons. Oh, what have I done? Well we can’t break the seal of the confessional, so we’ll never know what Mr. Swishy confessed to.

    Then guess who his second confessing penitent was; yeah, his dreamboat Frau Senora Saia. I wonder what she confessed to? Then the whole confirmation class entered for their turn at confession, guided by your darling new Vicar, whom you now know something about that has amazed you, but we’ll never know, only our loving lieber Beichtvater will know and it will affect his work with the new Vicar, though the new Vicar will never know why, and we will never know what.

    This is a new beginning for our pastor and it seems his job has just been opened up like a pomegranite where he can now see all the seeds. It will never be the same job for him again. His sheep will come and whisper into his ear their particular burdens, and he will personally, with both his hands, forgive them.

    “Pastor, please hear my confession and pronounce forgiveness in order to fulfill God’s will.” Hey, the confiteor is in this confession rite as well, so you can still always fall back on it, if the sins of your flock get just too messy for you to deal with them.

  • David Palmer

    Quite some posts there, Joanne.

    I like that first recorded saying of our Lord in Mark’s Gospel: …..repent and believe in the gospel. Those two action words directed by Jesus to us personally are in the active voice, imperative mood, present tense. Our action of repentance and faith (yes of course according to the grace of God), to be performed daily.

    Hello fws I suspect you, I and Susan have arrived as all the other birds have flown – I did have quite a long way to fly in order to arrive.

    I note that you said at post #22 that you were both a homosexual and also a confessional Lutheran. For the sake of clarity are you saying that you are of homosexual orientation or that plus one who also engages in homosexual activity?

    Paul does cite homosexual activity in Romans 1 as a particular outworking of man’s rebellion against God. However he also goes on to cite covetousness, malice, envy, etc as further outcomes in the chapter, so I don’t see your attempt to lock me up into homosexuality as the single subject of Roms 1 works. We have to deal with the text as it presents itself to – after all every word is given by inspiration of God for our instruction.

    Re 1 Cor 6:9,10 I think you are trying to slip away from the plain meaning of 1 Cor 6:9,10 read in the light of the Bible’s teaching re human sexuality. Regarding arsenokoitai, you cannot interpret it in isolation but in context: moichoi..malakoi… arsenokoitai, taken together, in particular malakoi… arsenokoitai we are left with homosexual activity as such being condemned, nor can we avoid Paul’s own Jewish background with its demonstrated abhorrence of homosexuality plus what he has already said in Roms 1:26,27 plus the situation itself of his intended readership located in a city well known for its licentiousness, including homosexuality involving older men with youth and young men.

    Robert Gagnon deals exhaustively with these texts in The Bible and Homosexual Practice”. I came across this reference to Luther on the subject: http://apprising.org/2009/08/30/martin-luther-on-homosexuality/.

    I suspect we are not going to agree. If so, I’ll leave the last word to you.

  • David Palmer

    Quite some posts there, Joanne.

    I like that first recorded saying of our Lord in Mark’s Gospel: …..repent and believe in the gospel. Those two action words directed by Jesus to us personally are in the active voice, imperative mood, present tense. Our action of repentance and faith (yes of course according to the grace of God), to be performed daily.

    Hello fws I suspect you, I and Susan have arrived as all the other birds have flown – I did have quite a long way to fly in order to arrive.

    I note that you said at post #22 that you were both a homosexual and also a confessional Lutheran. For the sake of clarity are you saying that you are of homosexual orientation or that plus one who also engages in homosexual activity?

    Paul does cite homosexual activity in Romans 1 as a particular outworking of man’s rebellion against God. However he also goes on to cite covetousness, malice, envy, etc as further outcomes in the chapter, so I don’t see your attempt to lock me up into homosexuality as the single subject of Roms 1 works. We have to deal with the text as it presents itself to – after all every word is given by inspiration of God for our instruction.

    Re 1 Cor 6:9,10 I think you are trying to slip away from the plain meaning of 1 Cor 6:9,10 read in the light of the Bible’s teaching re human sexuality. Regarding arsenokoitai, you cannot interpret it in isolation but in context: moichoi..malakoi… arsenokoitai, taken together, in particular malakoi… arsenokoitai we are left with homosexual activity as such being condemned, nor can we avoid Paul’s own Jewish background with its demonstrated abhorrence of homosexuality plus what he has already said in Roms 1:26,27 plus the situation itself of his intended readership located in a city well known for its licentiousness, including homosexuality involving older men with youth and young men.

    Robert Gagnon deals exhaustively with these texts in The Bible and Homosexual Practice”. I came across this reference to Luther on the subject: http://apprising.org/2009/08/30/martin-luther-on-homosexuality/.

    I suspect we are not going to agree. If so, I’ll leave the last word to you.

  • Joanne

    I like that Mark word too. There you have God himself speaking to us and giving a command. Normally we would have no inate ability to repent and believe, but the Word of God coming out of his own mouth performs what it sets out to do. Repentance and faith are worked by the power in God’s word in all who hear it. His word never returns to him void.
    Nice comment.

  • Joanne

    I like that Mark word too. There you have God himself speaking to us and giving a command. Normally we would have no inate ability to repent and believe, but the Word of God coming out of his own mouth performs what it sets out to do. Repentance and faith are worked by the power in God’s word in all who hear it. His word never returns to him void.
    Nice comment.

  • Grace

    fws @ 28

    “secondly, I would suggest that there is simply NO word of God that speaks specifically to what we define today as homosexuality. the bible simply knows no category called “homosexuality”. that does not mean it does not exist. After all the bible knows of no category called negro either.”

    fws,

    You must take a good look/read of Romans 1, just for starters. However we have been over this before. It’s like saying the word “Trinity doesn’t exist in the Bible therefore there is no Scripture which supports the Trinity, therefore because the word “Trinity” doesn’t appear, just as the word “homosexuality” doesn’t appear, therefore it doesn’t exist. Pure nonsense!

    Homosexuality has been noted in Romans 1 and elsewhere since the Bible was translated. Homosexuals aren’t able to accept the passages because it then proves that homosexuality is sinful. Sodom and Gomorrah are another subject that has been discussed and then boofooed by the gay community as not being relevant. It’s the gay hoax, the open game of “it ain’t true, cause we can’t stand the truth” – - standing on one foot with the other planted firmly in their mouth!

  • Grace

    fws @ 28

    “secondly, I would suggest that there is simply NO word of God that speaks specifically to what we define today as homosexuality. the bible simply knows no category called “homosexuality”. that does not mean it does not exist. After all the bible knows of no category called negro either.”

    fws,

    You must take a good look/read of Romans 1, just for starters. However we have been over this before. It’s like saying the word “Trinity doesn’t exist in the Bible therefore there is no Scripture which supports the Trinity, therefore because the word “Trinity” doesn’t appear, just as the word “homosexuality” doesn’t appear, therefore it doesn’t exist. Pure nonsense!

    Homosexuality has been noted in Romans 1 and elsewhere since the Bible was translated. Homosexuals aren’t able to accept the passages because it then proves that homosexuality is sinful. Sodom and Gomorrah are another subject that has been discussed and then boofooed by the gay community as not being relevant. It’s the gay hoax, the open game of “it ain’t true, cause we can’t stand the truth” – - standing on one foot with the other planted firmly in their mouth!

  • fws

    david @ 34

    “For the sake of clarity are you saying that you are of homosexual orientation or that plus one who also engages in homosexual activity?”

    For the sake of clarity, suffer me just this once, to be a little incourteous and answer your question with a question:

    why would that matter? would it put me in a different category? would I be less forgiven?

    For clarity I can offer this preliminarily:

    I do not believe that homosexuality, per se, is a sin.
    Homosexuality is not, definitionally, about sexual urges. Why not? Most homosexuals recognize their homosexuality around age 4-6 years old. That is just a fact. Just as with heterosexual attraction to the opposite sex then, the sex drive comes at puberty and the direction is what it is aimed is a consequence of that orientation not the defining element. I hope you read this carefully dear brother. Therefore not all sex that is between two men is “homosexual sex”. I think I am on solid ground to allow the medical community to define the word. They own it.

    I am suggesting that we are arguing needlessly because we have different definitions of that word “homosexual”. I would suggest that I am on stronger ground here because I follow the medical defintion of the term as it was most currently defined after the Hooker studies in around 1980.

    I would suggest that alot of argumentation between gays and the religious who want to call homosexuality a sin produces alot more heat than productive and Godly light because many christians see the definition of homosexuality by the medical community as some sort of subversive plot to UN-sin homosexuality. I suggest that this is very misguided.

    When I am doing apologetics with a jehovahs witness or whoever, I accept their definition of whatever term, and then I insist that we stick to that definition until it becomes untennable. Useful communication can only happen with a common defintion of terms, so any useful debate must start with a polite agreement on terms used. The important thing is to agree on terms, not argue over the “ONE true and correct” definition. Those who speak more than one language know there is no such thing!

    I will note that you will NEVER find a definition of the terms homosexual or homosexual lifestyle anywhere in Dr Gagnon’s writings. I challenge you to find a discussion on this anywhere in Gagnon. He simply assumes that there is that one correct and biblical definition that all must agree to. I find that very very odd. I do not consider him a serious scholar on this subject for precisely that reason, although I know he poses as such and takes great pride in posing as the voice of scholarly reason. I think that is a common presbyterian thang eh?

    Besides , Gagnon IS reformed and is looking at the who thing from a covenant perspective which I , as a Lutheran christian must completely reject. It confuses Law and Gospel.His whole thesis is that Gays have an indentity crisis. It is about who is INDENTIFIED as being in or out of the Church. Joanne’s narrative correctly expresses the Lutheran view on this. Yes Lutherans differ from your perspective. How?

    Whosoever(!) clings to that forgiveness of sins in IN the church. It is not about whether one is in or out of the church as an identity that matters. We don’t get to chose our identity. Jesus as bridegroom purchases his bride with his own blood. In biblical times the bride has absolutely no choice in this at all! So being IN rather than OUT is not about our identifying at all! It is about , alone, trusting in the Works of Another and hiding our best works, including our identifying, faith and repentence which all merit us hell apart from Christ, in the Works of Another. And this hiding in the Works of Another is nothing that our reason and own strength knows h0w to do. Our reason flees from this idea in fact.

  • fws

    david @ 34

    “For the sake of clarity are you saying that you are of homosexual orientation or that plus one who also engages in homosexual activity?”

    For the sake of clarity, suffer me just this once, to be a little incourteous and answer your question with a question:

    why would that matter? would it put me in a different category? would I be less forgiven?

    For clarity I can offer this preliminarily:

    I do not believe that homosexuality, per se, is a sin.
    Homosexuality is not, definitionally, about sexual urges. Why not? Most homosexuals recognize their homosexuality around age 4-6 years old. That is just a fact. Just as with heterosexual attraction to the opposite sex then, the sex drive comes at puberty and the direction is what it is aimed is a consequence of that orientation not the defining element. I hope you read this carefully dear brother. Therefore not all sex that is between two men is “homosexual sex”. I think I am on solid ground to allow the medical community to define the word. They own it.

    I am suggesting that we are arguing needlessly because we have different definitions of that word “homosexual”. I would suggest that I am on stronger ground here because I follow the medical defintion of the term as it was most currently defined after the Hooker studies in around 1980.

    I would suggest that alot of argumentation between gays and the religious who want to call homosexuality a sin produces alot more heat than productive and Godly light because many christians see the definition of homosexuality by the medical community as some sort of subversive plot to UN-sin homosexuality. I suggest that this is very misguided.

    When I am doing apologetics with a jehovahs witness or whoever, I accept their definition of whatever term, and then I insist that we stick to that definition until it becomes untennable. Useful communication can only happen with a common defintion of terms, so any useful debate must start with a polite agreement on terms used. The important thing is to agree on terms, not argue over the “ONE true and correct” definition. Those who speak more than one language know there is no such thing!

    I will note that you will NEVER find a definition of the terms homosexual or homosexual lifestyle anywhere in Dr Gagnon’s writings. I challenge you to find a discussion on this anywhere in Gagnon. He simply assumes that there is that one correct and biblical definition that all must agree to. I find that very very odd. I do not consider him a serious scholar on this subject for precisely that reason, although I know he poses as such and takes great pride in posing as the voice of scholarly reason. I think that is a common presbyterian thang eh?

    Besides , Gagnon IS reformed and is looking at the who thing from a covenant perspective which I , as a Lutheran christian must completely reject. It confuses Law and Gospel.His whole thesis is that Gays have an indentity crisis. It is about who is INDENTIFIED as being in or out of the Church. Joanne’s narrative correctly expresses the Lutheran view on this. Yes Lutherans differ from your perspective. How?

    Whosoever(!) clings to that forgiveness of sins in IN the church. It is not about whether one is in or out of the church as an identity that matters. We don’t get to chose our identity. Jesus as bridegroom purchases his bride with his own blood. In biblical times the bride has absolutely no choice in this at all! So being IN rather than OUT is not about our identifying at all! It is about , alone, trusting in the Works of Another and hiding our best works, including our identifying, faith and repentence which all merit us hell apart from Christ, in the Works of Another. And this hiding in the Works of Another is nothing that our reason and own strength knows h0w to do. Our reason flees from this idea in fact.

  • fws

    david @ 34

    “Paul does cite homosexual activity in Romans 1 as a particular outworking of man’s rebellion against God.”

    Dear brother, may I have permission to conjecture from this statement that you define “homosexual activity” as being ANY sex between the same gender?

    May I point out that this does not fit either the medical definition of the word. In addition this definition would not be accepted by any homosexual at all that you would choose to dialog with. Prison rape is not homosexual sex to us. Transgender sex where one party in the sex act assumes the role of a female in all aspects is NOT homosexual sex to us.

    It seems that you say that “homosexuality” as a category includes ANY and ALL persons who engage in sex with the same gender or who have a latent desire to do so. (correct me if I am wrong). and then within that broad category, you might agree that there are subcategories that dont really matter… between transgenders say, or lesbians and gays…

    The medical community and all gay men and lesbians and transgenders work to create their categories in the other direction. And that direction starts with that 5 year old young boy who identifies as a girl and is maybe attracted even to other girls (!) or a boy who identifies as a boy and is attracted to other boys. My point here is to enter the definition conversation at the precise point where the medical community and gays enter this process. And this entry point is around age 5 or so. It is not at the point of puberty as the defining point. Can you see how this all would confuse the conversation greatly?

  • fws

    david @ 34

    “Paul does cite homosexual activity in Romans 1 as a particular outworking of man’s rebellion against God.”

    Dear brother, may I have permission to conjecture from this statement that you define “homosexual activity” as being ANY sex between the same gender?

    May I point out that this does not fit either the medical definition of the word. In addition this definition would not be accepted by any homosexual at all that you would choose to dialog with. Prison rape is not homosexual sex to us. Transgender sex where one party in the sex act assumes the role of a female in all aspects is NOT homosexual sex to us.

    It seems that you say that “homosexuality” as a category includes ANY and ALL persons who engage in sex with the same gender or who have a latent desire to do so. (correct me if I am wrong). and then within that broad category, you might agree that there are subcategories that dont really matter… between transgenders say, or lesbians and gays…

    The medical community and all gay men and lesbians and transgenders work to create their categories in the other direction. And that direction starts with that 5 year old young boy who identifies as a girl and is maybe attracted even to other girls (!) or a boy who identifies as a boy and is attracted to other boys. My point here is to enter the definition conversation at the precise point where the medical community and gays enter this process. And this entry point is around age 5 or so. It is not at the point of puberty as the defining point. Can you see how this all would confuse the conversation greatly?

  • fws

    grace @ 36

    I am not saying that merely because the word “homosexual ” does not exist in the bible that therefore the bible does not speak specifically to homosexuality. That is not my argument. So you are not therefore addressing my argument dear Grace. Ok?

    I am saying that what the bible describes and what some christians such as yourself wish to label as describing “homosexuality” is not something that the medical community or any gay person alive would identify as “homosexual”.

    I am referring to the sodom and gomorrah story (group rape), lev 18 (a man becomes an emasculated woman as the condition for having sex with another man) and romans 1 (the men left their women and the desire for women that was their natural inclination to lust after other men CONTRARY to their normal predilection).

    You are not terribly good at nuance Grace, but I hope you can catch the difference here. I am saying that what the bible describes in those passages does not fit the medical technical term as defined by the medical community. This only breeds confusion in any argument or conversation.

    We need to agree on a common definition of terms whenever we argue with anyone about anything. Until this is done, any conversation will be talking past one another.

    that is my entire point. I dont even need to argue beyond this as to whether homosexuality is or is not a sin until we get past this critical point. verstehen sie?

  • fws

    grace @ 36

    I am not saying that merely because the word “homosexual ” does not exist in the bible that therefore the bible does not speak specifically to homosexuality. That is not my argument. So you are not therefore addressing my argument dear Grace. Ok?

    I am saying that what the bible describes and what some christians such as yourself wish to label as describing “homosexuality” is not something that the medical community or any gay person alive would identify as “homosexual”.

    I am referring to the sodom and gomorrah story (group rape), lev 18 (a man becomes an emasculated woman as the condition for having sex with another man) and romans 1 (the men left their women and the desire for women that was their natural inclination to lust after other men CONTRARY to their normal predilection).

    You are not terribly good at nuance Grace, but I hope you can catch the difference here. I am saying that what the bible describes in those passages does not fit the medical technical term as defined by the medical community. This only breeds confusion in any argument or conversation.

    We need to agree on a common definition of terms whenever we argue with anyone about anything. Until this is done, any conversation will be talking past one another.

    that is my entire point. I dont even need to argue beyond this as to whether homosexuality is or is not a sin until we get past this critical point. verstehen sie?

  • fws

    david palmer @ 34

    My suggestion to you and Grace and everyone here is to start with defining of terms. What is the definition of the words ‘homosexual” “homosexual lifestyle” and even “homosexual sex” that would be fully acceptable to any homosexual or medical person who employs the highly tecnical and specific medical term.

    THEN go to the Bible and see if this term is the appropriate term to describe lev 18,, the sodom and gomorrah story, romans 1 , etc. If it is the appropriate term, then argue accordingly. If it is not the appropriate term, then you must find another term or else you will only sow seeds of confusion.

    There is nothing inspired, sacred or Divine about a word that was coined in 1895 and is a medical technical term. That would be to insist that “be joyful always” must be translated “never be clinically depressed!” . This would be exactly an exercise in anachronism. That is really my only point David.

  • fws

    david palmer @ 34

    My suggestion to you and Grace and everyone here is to start with defining of terms. What is the definition of the words ‘homosexual” “homosexual lifestyle” and even “homosexual sex” that would be fully acceptable to any homosexual or medical person who employs the highly tecnical and specific medical term.

    THEN go to the Bible and see if this term is the appropriate term to describe lev 18,, the sodom and gomorrah story, romans 1 , etc. If it is the appropriate term, then argue accordingly. If it is not the appropriate term, then you must find another term or else you will only sow seeds of confusion.

    There is nothing inspired, sacred or Divine about a word that was coined in 1895 and is a medical technical term. That would be to insist that “be joyful always” must be translated “never be clinically depressed!” . This would be exactly an exercise in anachronism. That is really my only point David.

  • fws

    david palmer at 34

    “Paul does cite homosexual activity in Romans 1 as a particular outworking of man’s rebellion against God.”

    “homosexual activity”. Define please. Is it the thought word and deed of having sex or desireing sex with someone?

    What about the puppy love that 5 year old homosexual has for another little boy? Is that what you visualize when you say ‘homosexual activity”? That matters why? When you say “homosexual activity” that is exactly where a medical professional or gay or lesbian person would take the meaning to. Sex acts would not be definitional to them.

    Now how do you think this difference in perspective would confuse the conversation if you insisted on slapping that label “homosexual” on romans 1? how would it fit in the minds of those you are debating with?

  • fws

    david palmer at 34

    “Paul does cite homosexual activity in Romans 1 as a particular outworking of man’s rebellion against God.”

    “homosexual activity”. Define please. Is it the thought word and deed of having sex or desireing sex with someone?

    What about the puppy love that 5 year old homosexual has for another little boy? Is that what you visualize when you say ‘homosexual activity”? That matters why? When you say “homosexual activity” that is exactly where a medical professional or gay or lesbian person would take the meaning to. Sex acts would not be definitional to them.

    Now how do you think this difference in perspective would confuse the conversation if you insisted on slapping that label “homosexual” on romans 1? how would it fit in the minds of those you are debating with?

  • fws

    david palmer @34

    I hope that you can see that this definitional difference and approach is not a deliberate attempt to UN-sin something the bible calls sin. it is rather the medical community observing a phenomenon and trying to wrap a definition around that phenomenon.

    And so the honest question and answer for a gay man and someone in the medical community would be this: what to make of the fact that all homosexuals start their development, as homosexuals (not as trangenders who wish to become females), almost at the begining of their life? Is it sinful? How? Why? What should a parent do if almost observations suggest that this phenomenon is normally irreversable? What should be the response of the church? What part of this is a) sin b) a consequence of the fall into sin c) should be fought to be reversed or … alternatively , accepted with resignation and covered by grace….

    Instead most religious use terms that are very visceral and evoke images of sexually predatory post pubescent males on the prowl for victims to convert into homosexuals or to abuse. Can you see how this would cause some problems in a conversation? a cognitive dissonance?

  • fws

    david palmer @34

    I hope that you can see that this definitional difference and approach is not a deliberate attempt to UN-sin something the bible calls sin. it is rather the medical community observing a phenomenon and trying to wrap a definition around that phenomenon.

    And so the honest question and answer for a gay man and someone in the medical community would be this: what to make of the fact that all homosexuals start their development, as homosexuals (not as trangenders who wish to become females), almost at the begining of their life? Is it sinful? How? Why? What should a parent do if almost observations suggest that this phenomenon is normally irreversable? What should be the response of the church? What part of this is a) sin b) a consequence of the fall into sin c) should be fought to be reversed or … alternatively , accepted with resignation and covered by grace….

    Instead most religious use terms that are very visceral and evoke images of sexually predatory post pubescent males on the prowl for victims to convert into homosexuals or to abuse. Can you see how this would cause some problems in a conversation? a cognitive dissonance?

  • fws

    david AND DR VEITH

    Please also note the following:

    parents of gays, gays and their medical providers really dont care whether being gay is nature or nurture. why would they care?

    This argument is one that matters only to the religious.

    Why?

    Imaging that someone like me discovers, to their great dismay, that they have something different. They hide it. then they discover there is a label for what it is they have. that label is “homosexual”. If they are christian they are taught that the content of that label can be found in the biblical depiction of sodom and gomorrah. Reaction: “oh my God! Is that what I am??!!” “I must surely overcome this at all costs to not go to hell.”

    So then follows a life of the idolatry of thinking that overcoming ‘homosexual urges” (keep in mind this is at age 6…) is what? it is the price demanded for getting into heaven! So some try to cut a deal with God by becoming pastors or priests so that God will cure them. others become psychiatrists. Others get married to get fixed and ruin the lives of a good woman and the children. This is all sinful idolatry isnt it? Think of all the wreckage this attempt to get right with God causes.

    There needs to be a better way. there is! It is called the forgiveness of sins. St James says: confess your sins, to one another, and you will be healed.

    I believe that is true with all my heart David. So here I am identifying myself honestly. Why not? Jesus has already pled my case before God and so that is fully settled. The rest is about our earthly existence together and avoiding God’s punishment for sinning against others here on earth. and that is ALL about how I deal with and treat my neighbor. It is not about affecting the status of my relationship with God. I do fear God, and so I work to keep his Laws here on earth to avoid his punishment . But as to my relationship to him? That is ALL about the Works of Another David.

  • fws

    david AND DR VEITH

    Please also note the following:

    parents of gays, gays and their medical providers really dont care whether being gay is nature or nurture. why would they care?

    This argument is one that matters only to the religious.

    Why?

    Imaging that someone like me discovers, to their great dismay, that they have something different. They hide it. then they discover there is a label for what it is they have. that label is “homosexual”. If they are christian they are taught that the content of that label can be found in the biblical depiction of sodom and gomorrah. Reaction: “oh my God! Is that what I am??!!” “I must surely overcome this at all costs to not go to hell.”

    So then follows a life of the idolatry of thinking that overcoming ‘homosexual urges” (keep in mind this is at age 6…) is what? it is the price demanded for getting into heaven! So some try to cut a deal with God by becoming pastors or priests so that God will cure them. others become psychiatrists. Others get married to get fixed and ruin the lives of a good woman and the children. This is all sinful idolatry isnt it? Think of all the wreckage this attempt to get right with God causes.

    There needs to be a better way. there is! It is called the forgiveness of sins. St James says: confess your sins, to one another, and you will be healed.

    I believe that is true with all my heart David. So here I am identifying myself honestly. Why not? Jesus has already pled my case before God and so that is fully settled. The rest is about our earthly existence together and avoiding God’s punishment for sinning against others here on earth. and that is ALL about how I deal with and treat my neighbor. It is not about affecting the status of my relationship with God. I do fear God, and so I work to keep his Laws here on earth to avoid his punishment . But as to my relationship to him? That is ALL about the Works of Another David.

  • Grace

    fws @ 28

    “secondly, I would suggest that there is simply NO word of God that speaks specifically to what we define today as homosexuality. the bible simply knows no category called “homosexuality”. that does not mean it does not exist. After all the bible knows of no category called negro either.”

    fws,

    You must take a good look/read of Romans 1, just for starters. However, we have been over this before. It’s like saying the word “Trinity doesn’t exist in the Bible therefore there is no Scripture which supports the Trinity, therefore because the word “Trinity” doesn’t appear, just as the word “homosexuality” doesn’t appear, it doesn’t exist. Pure nonsense!

    Homosexuality has been noted in Romans 1 and elsewhere since the Bible was translated. Homosexuals aren’t able to accept the passages because it then proves that homosexuality is sinful. Sodom and Gomorrah is another subject that has been discussed and then boofooed by the gay community as not being relevant. It’s the gay hoax, the open game of “it ain’t true, cause we can’t stand the truth” standing on one foot with the other planted firmly in their mouth!

    26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

    27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

    (One only need look at the disease which follows homosexual acts HIV/AIDS)
    28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

  • Grace

    fws @ 28

    “secondly, I would suggest that there is simply NO word of God that speaks specifically to what we define today as homosexuality. the bible simply knows no category called “homosexuality”. that does not mean it does not exist. After all the bible knows of no category called negro either.”

    fws,

    You must take a good look/read of Romans 1, just for starters. However, we have been over this before. It’s like saying the word “Trinity doesn’t exist in the Bible therefore there is no Scripture which supports the Trinity, therefore because the word “Trinity” doesn’t appear, just as the word “homosexuality” doesn’t appear, it doesn’t exist. Pure nonsense!

    Homosexuality has been noted in Romans 1 and elsewhere since the Bible was translated. Homosexuals aren’t able to accept the passages because it then proves that homosexuality is sinful. Sodom and Gomorrah is another subject that has been discussed and then boofooed by the gay community as not being relevant. It’s the gay hoax, the open game of “it ain’t true, cause we can’t stand the truth” standing on one foot with the other planted firmly in their mouth!

    26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

    27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

    (One only need look at the disease which follows homosexual acts HIV/AIDS)
    28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

  • Grace

    fws

    YOU WROTE: “I am saying that what the bible describes and what some christians such as yourself wish to label as describing “homosexuality” is not something that the medical community or any gay person alive would identify as “homosexual”.

    Of course homosexuals do not want to identify their behavior as abnormal. It’s this misconception which homosexuals have of their sexual acts, that spurs them on, to believe it’s different than what the Bible says it is.

    YOU WROTE: “You are not terribly good at nuance Grace, but I hope you can catch the difference here. I am saying that what the bible describes in those passages does not fit the medical technical term as defined by the medical community. This only breeds confusion in any argument or conversation. “

    I’m very good at “nuance” – what you miss, and you do intentionally, is misrepresent what homosexuality is, and that is sex with the same sex.

    DEFINITION of HOMOSEXUALITY:

    1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
    2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex.

  • Grace

    fws

    YOU WROTE: “I am saying that what the bible describes and what some christians such as yourself wish to label as describing “homosexuality” is not something that the medical community or any gay person alive would identify as “homosexual”.

    Of course homosexuals do not want to identify their behavior as abnormal. It’s this misconception which homosexuals have of their sexual acts, that spurs them on, to believe it’s different than what the Bible says it is.

    YOU WROTE: “You are not terribly good at nuance Grace, but I hope you can catch the difference here. I am saying that what the bible describes in those passages does not fit the medical technical term as defined by the medical community. This only breeds confusion in any argument or conversation. “

    I’m very good at “nuance” – what you miss, and you do intentionally, is misrepresent what homosexuality is, and that is sex with the same sex.

    DEFINITION of HOMOSEXUALITY:

    1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
    2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex.

  • Michael B.

    It’s true the bible condemns homosexuality, but how can we just pick and choose the verses we want from the bible? What about the verses saying about how a rapist should marry his victim, or how often a child or slave should be beat, or “thou shall not suffer a witch to live”, or “a homosexual shall be put to death” or “suffer not a woman to teach”. You use twisted gymnastics to neutralize these verses, and condemn liberals when they do the same thing.

  • Michael B.

    It’s true the bible condemns homosexuality, but how can we just pick and choose the verses we want from the bible? What about the verses saying about how a rapist should marry his victim, or how often a child or slave should be beat, or “thou shall not suffer a witch to live”, or “a homosexual shall be put to death” or “suffer not a woman to teach”. You use twisted gymnastics to neutralize these verses, and condemn liberals when they do the same thing.

  • Grace

    Michael B @ 46

    The passages you cite; are they in the Old or New Testament?

    If you want to make a point, cite the verse, chapter and Book.

    A woman to teach? The following Scripture should help you understand more clearly.

    Aquila and Priscilla are always spoken of ‘together’ its also evident that when they took Apollos into their home they both “expounded unto him they way of God more perfectly.”

    24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

    25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

    26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
    Acts 18:24-26

    Aquila and Priscilla did it together in their home.

    There is only ONE reason one can divorce and remarry, and that is IF their spouse has commited sexual sin.

  • Grace

    Michael B @ 46

    The passages you cite; are they in the Old or New Testament?

    If you want to make a point, cite the verse, chapter and Book.

    A woman to teach? The following Scripture should help you understand more clearly.

    Aquila and Priscilla are always spoken of ‘together’ its also evident that when they took Apollos into their home they both “expounded unto him they way of God more perfectly.”

    24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

    25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

    26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
    Acts 18:24-26

    Aquila and Priscilla did it together in their home.

    There is only ONE reason one can divorce and remarry, and that is IF their spouse has commited sexual sin.

  • Grace

    Michael @ 46

    You put up an extremely poor argument for the sin of homosexuality. The disease it brings about, HIV/AIDS should give you some clue!

  • Grace

    Michael @ 46

    You put up an extremely poor argument for the sin of homosexuality. The disease it brings about, HIV/AIDS should give you some clue!

  • Joanne

    I have a rule of thumb about sin. I want never to quibble with God about what is and isn’t a sin. We swim in a great soup bowl of sin; an attitude can turn a good deed into a sin. An expectation of reward can make a wholesome work totally unacceptable to God. Sin is the default position; it’s the one definite in my life I can always count on. Not sinning is something I read about in the Bible and pray for. If God lets me squeek through a brief episode in my life without sinning, I count it as a miracle.

    When I approach the Throne of Grace on that last day my only hope will be that Jesus blood will cover me so well that God won’t realize that it’s me, always sinning Joanne. Oh Lord, if thou shouldest mark iniquities, I might as well just go straight to hell and not bother the Great Judge. But, I’ve been taught that for Jesus sheep, God doesn’t count iniquities and that my name will be written in a book so that if my name is found there, it doesn’t matter what evil Satan charges me with, I have the get out of Hell mark on my forehead.

    What I’m saying is, if anyone accuses me of sin, I instantly ask for forgiveness. Surely, I’ve sinned somehow. You men know that the worst sin against a woman is to use the wrong tone of voice to tell her something. I say, accept the sin and try a different tone. I’m always guilty. I’ve often said that people who are altruistic just don’t understand their true motivations. Among us sinners, altruism simple doesn’t exist. It must have been something that disappeared with the Fall.

    What I really want to say is whatever you do before God, don’t deny sin. A denied sin is a sin that isn’t forgiven and Jesus crawled all over people who thought they were righteous before the Law. In this particular thread, maybe the Bible says all gays are going straight to Hell and maybe it doesn’t, but it’s always safest to assume it’s a sin and to beg for forgiveness. If God will forgive an adulterous divorced couple who have been committing adultery for 35 years, he can certainly forgive an old gay couple who have been together for 35 years. IF they all do not deny their sin and beg everyday for forgivness and release from the bondage of Satan. Intractable sin, the kind that adheres to who we are and our daily lives and our state in life, the absolute demand of no divorce and no same-sex is forgivable by the God who knows what he’s doing when he demands that we do things that we simply cannot do. Jesus commanded the impossible all the time just to make sure we knew that the Law was not going to get us to heaven.

    I would just like to suggest, that if your congregation has found a way to live with divorced straight couples living in married adultery, surely you can find a way to live with gay people living together who need forgiveness for an admitted sin and a way to heaven just like you do.

    But, they can’t keep living in sin. Ha, you’re telling me. But when was the last time you broke up a married couple with 3 kids because the husband had been married before. When? We have divorced and remarried Pastors for God’s sake. We swim in a great soup bowl of sin. Find a way you sinners, find a way to get God’s gay children to heaven without denying their sin, and as kindly as you treat all the adulterous straight couples in your congregations.

  • Joanne

    I have a rule of thumb about sin. I want never to quibble with God about what is and isn’t a sin. We swim in a great soup bowl of sin; an attitude can turn a good deed into a sin. An expectation of reward can make a wholesome work totally unacceptable to God. Sin is the default position; it’s the one definite in my life I can always count on. Not sinning is something I read about in the Bible and pray for. If God lets me squeek through a brief episode in my life without sinning, I count it as a miracle.

    When I approach the Throne of Grace on that last day my only hope will be that Jesus blood will cover me so well that God won’t realize that it’s me, always sinning Joanne. Oh Lord, if thou shouldest mark iniquities, I might as well just go straight to hell and not bother the Great Judge. But, I’ve been taught that for Jesus sheep, God doesn’t count iniquities and that my name will be written in a book so that if my name is found there, it doesn’t matter what evil Satan charges me with, I have the get out of Hell mark on my forehead.

    What I’m saying is, if anyone accuses me of sin, I instantly ask for forgiveness. Surely, I’ve sinned somehow. You men know that the worst sin against a woman is to use the wrong tone of voice to tell her something. I say, accept the sin and try a different tone. I’m always guilty. I’ve often said that people who are altruistic just don’t understand their true motivations. Among us sinners, altruism simple doesn’t exist. It must have been something that disappeared with the Fall.

    What I really want to say is whatever you do before God, don’t deny sin. A denied sin is a sin that isn’t forgiven and Jesus crawled all over people who thought they were righteous before the Law. In this particular thread, maybe the Bible says all gays are going straight to Hell and maybe it doesn’t, but it’s always safest to assume it’s a sin and to beg for forgiveness. If God will forgive an adulterous divorced couple who have been committing adultery for 35 years, he can certainly forgive an old gay couple who have been together for 35 years. IF they all do not deny their sin and beg everyday for forgivness and release from the bondage of Satan. Intractable sin, the kind that adheres to who we are and our daily lives and our state in life, the absolute demand of no divorce and no same-sex is forgivable by the God who knows what he’s doing when he demands that we do things that we simply cannot do. Jesus commanded the impossible all the time just to make sure we knew that the Law was not going to get us to heaven.

    I would just like to suggest, that if your congregation has found a way to live with divorced straight couples living in married adultery, surely you can find a way to live with gay people living together who need forgiveness for an admitted sin and a way to heaven just like you do.

    But, they can’t keep living in sin. Ha, you’re telling me. But when was the last time you broke up a married couple with 3 kids because the husband had been married before. When? We have divorced and remarried Pastors for God’s sake. We swim in a great soup bowl of sin. Find a way you sinners, find a way to get God’s gay children to heaven without denying their sin, and as kindly as you treat all the adulterous straight couples in your congregations.

  • Grace

    Joanne @ 49

    YOU WROTE: “I would just like to suggest, that if your congregation has found a way to live with divorced straight couples living in married adultery, surely you can find a way to live with gay people living together who need forgiveness for an admitted sin and a way to heaven just like you do.

    I cannot forgive others of their sexual sins, or any other sins, it’s up to them to repent and turn from sin.

    I would have no way of knowing if a couple was living in “married adultery” – as for homosexuals living together – they can, but the Bible doesn’t say they will inherit Eternal life with Christ. One isn’t given a pass to sin on purpose. We are to repent and turn from sin. Sexual sin is purposeful, it takes thought to whip off your clothes and have sex. If two people aren’t married male and female, or two males or two females think they are getting away with their sin, they are wrong.

    “But, they can’t keep living in sin. Ha, you’re telling me. But when was the last time you broke up a married couple with 3 kids because the husband had been married before. When? We have divorced and remarried Pastors for God’s sake. We swim in a great soup bowl of sin. Find a way you sinners, find a way to get God’s gay children to heaven without denying their sin, and as kindly as you treat all the adulterous straight couples in your congregations.”

    We do not have “divorced and remarried pastors” in our churches. I don’t attend liberal churches. If a pastor has an affair, he’s taken away from the pulpit.

    I cannot, and neither can you find a way to get anyone to heaven, it’s up to them to repent of their sin, and turn to Christ. If your church allows sinful practice within the membership of church, that’s to their shame. PCUSA, ELCA, and other churches embrace such sinful behavior.

    To the woman caught in adultery, Christ said:

    11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

    12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. John 8

  • Grace

    Joanne @ 49

    YOU WROTE: “I would just like to suggest, that if your congregation has found a way to live with divorced straight couples living in married adultery, surely you can find a way to live with gay people living together who need forgiveness for an admitted sin and a way to heaven just like you do.

    I cannot forgive others of their sexual sins, or any other sins, it’s up to them to repent and turn from sin.

    I would have no way of knowing if a couple was living in “married adultery” – as for homosexuals living together – they can, but the Bible doesn’t say they will inherit Eternal life with Christ. One isn’t given a pass to sin on purpose. We are to repent and turn from sin. Sexual sin is purposeful, it takes thought to whip off your clothes and have sex. If two people aren’t married male and female, or two males or two females think they are getting away with their sin, they are wrong.

    “But, they can’t keep living in sin. Ha, you’re telling me. But when was the last time you broke up a married couple with 3 kids because the husband had been married before. When? We have divorced and remarried Pastors for God’s sake. We swim in a great soup bowl of sin. Find a way you sinners, find a way to get God’s gay children to heaven without denying their sin, and as kindly as you treat all the adulterous straight couples in your congregations.”

    We do not have “divorced and remarried pastors” in our churches. I don’t attend liberal churches. If a pastor has an affair, he’s taken away from the pulpit.

    I cannot, and neither can you find a way to get anyone to heaven, it’s up to them to repent of their sin, and turn to Christ. If your church allows sinful practice within the membership of church, that’s to their shame. PCUSA, ELCA, and other churches embrace such sinful behavior.

    To the woman caught in adultery, Christ said:

    11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

    12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. John 8

  • fws

    joanne.

    the instructions on confession are helpful here. with God your rule of thumb applies. we confess ALL sin , even those sins we are not aware of as being sin, and even those sins we are , as yet, unrepentent of. Even our repentence and faith are full of sin and we are not forgiven on the basis of those two things.

    but before our neighbor we confess those sins only that we know and feel in our heart. and what are those sins? they are just as you say they are. they are whatever we do that greaves another person or does not work to make the lives of others better with us being in their lives. we say “the customer is always right”. This is the attitude we are to have towards our neighbor.

    So what if we see our neighbor doing something harmful to himself or others?

    first we examine to see if it is our vocation to correct or admonish that person. what is our vocational relationship to that person? are we a judge, policeman, parent, or a friend or a coworker? are we their boss or employee? Only then can we know what it is our duty to do and what is NOT our duty to do and therefore would be nosing into business that is not ours to nose into.

    Then, we realize that what we have to sell, moral advice, will only be accepted if the customer wants to receive it. So we think very very hard about how to serve that advice in a way that nathan did to david when he had committed both murder and adultery. We show the respect we would show to a person who had the power of life or death over us. We approach that person with our cricitism/advice as we would approach a judge who can sentence us.

  • fws

    joanne.

    the instructions on confession are helpful here. with God your rule of thumb applies. we confess ALL sin , even those sins we are not aware of as being sin, and even those sins we are , as yet, unrepentent of. Even our repentence and faith are full of sin and we are not forgiven on the basis of those two things.

    but before our neighbor we confess those sins only that we know and feel in our heart. and what are those sins? they are just as you say they are. they are whatever we do that greaves another person or does not work to make the lives of others better with us being in their lives. we say “the customer is always right”. This is the attitude we are to have towards our neighbor.

    So what if we see our neighbor doing something harmful to himself or others?

    first we examine to see if it is our vocation to correct or admonish that person. what is our vocational relationship to that person? are we a judge, policeman, parent, or a friend or a coworker? are we their boss or employee? Only then can we know what it is our duty to do and what is NOT our duty to do and therefore would be nosing into business that is not ours to nose into.

    Then, we realize that what we have to sell, moral advice, will only be accepted if the customer wants to receive it. So we think very very hard about how to serve that advice in a way that nathan did to david when he had committed both murder and adultery. We show the respect we would show to a person who had the power of life or death over us. We approach that person with our cricitism/advice as we would approach a judge who can sentence us.

  • fws

    grace @ 50

    yes grace. our dear Lord jesus did not say what we would have expected which would have been “now go and stop being a whore.”

    he said instead: “go and sin no more!”

    and he says that to you and I too Grace through his Law. Have you stopped sinning completely as he commanded that adulterous woman to do and as he also commands you and I to do? have you stopped sinning in all your thoughts, words and deedd?

    that is what this passage demands and nothing less. It is not demanding that we merely stop doing. It demands nothing less than complete perfection in all our thoughts, words and deeds and emotions and our will.

  • fws

    grace @ 50

    yes grace. our dear Lord jesus did not say what we would have expected which would have been “now go and stop being a whore.”

    he said instead: “go and sin no more!”

    and he says that to you and I too Grace through his Law. Have you stopped sinning completely as he commanded that adulterous woman to do and as he also commands you and I to do? have you stopped sinning in all your thoughts, words and deedd?

    that is what this passage demands and nothing less. It is not demanding that we merely stop doing. It demands nothing less than complete perfection in all our thoughts, words and deeds and emotions and our will.

  • Grace

    fws

    Dancing around and about, after you make excuses for homosexuality and its definition. God gives us an escape, HE would not have given it if it were not true. It’s man who demands his sin be rectified, excuses given for it’s continued use.

    ~ ~ ~ There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. ~ ~ ~
    1 Corinthians 10:13

    ~ ~ ~ The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: ~ ~ ~

    2 Peter 2:9

    ~ ~ ~ 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

    15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. ~ ~ ~
    James 1

    ~ ~ ~ Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. ~ ~ ~
    Jude 1:7

  • Grace

    fws

    Dancing around and about, after you make excuses for homosexuality and its definition. God gives us an escape, HE would not have given it if it were not true. It’s man who demands his sin be rectified, excuses given for it’s continued use.

    ~ ~ ~ There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. ~ ~ ~
    1 Corinthians 10:13

    ~ ~ ~ The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: ~ ~ ~

    2 Peter 2:9

    ~ ~ ~ 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

    15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. ~ ~ ~
    James 1

    ~ ~ ~ Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. ~ ~ ~
    Jude 1:7

  • Joanne

    I love the account of the prophet Nathan’s confrontation with King David. He came and he told a story about a poor man and a rich man. The rich man stole the only thing highly valued by the poor man, his little ewe lamb. Nathan tells the story so well that the morality of it is chrystal clear, and David immediately passes a death sentence on the evil doer.

    “You are the man!” Now your baby with the dead man’s wife will die, and all your family dealings will turn to trouble. Nathan got it all right.

    The old Lutheran composers were fond of putting David’s family pain to music; it makes for such drama. Fili mi, fili mi, fili mi Absolon.

    How did it ever come about that the Savior would come to us through adultery and murder? From very sinful people comes the sinless man.

    However, one would think that the ill-gotten gain, Bathsheba, would have been required to be sent away to truly make the King penitent. Nathan doesn’t dare even suggest that David must give up Bathsheba for the evil he has done. No, God has plans as said above to bring the sinless one from the loins of the sinful, the very sinful.

    Just an academic question: Is it still adultery if you murder the spouse of your new love?

  • Joanne

    I love the account of the prophet Nathan’s confrontation with King David. He came and he told a story about a poor man and a rich man. The rich man stole the only thing highly valued by the poor man, his little ewe lamb. Nathan tells the story so well that the morality of it is chrystal clear, and David immediately passes a death sentence on the evil doer.

    “You are the man!” Now your baby with the dead man’s wife will die, and all your family dealings will turn to trouble. Nathan got it all right.

    The old Lutheran composers were fond of putting David’s family pain to music; it makes for such drama. Fili mi, fili mi, fili mi Absolon.

    How did it ever come about that the Savior would come to us through adultery and murder? From very sinful people comes the sinless man.

    However, one would think that the ill-gotten gain, Bathsheba, would have been required to be sent away to truly make the King penitent. Nathan doesn’t dare even suggest that David must give up Bathsheba for the evil he has done. No, God has plans as said above to bring the sinless one from the loins of the sinful, the very sinful.

    Just an academic question: Is it still adultery if you murder the spouse of your new love?

  • Grace

    Joanne @ 54

    “Just an academic question: Is it still adultery if you murder the spouse of your new love?”

    If you need to ask the question, for ANY reason, then I would suggest you study. If you’re asking the question to inspire some sort of intellectual debate, you’ve missed the mark, again.. I would suggest you study.

    “How did it ever come about that the Savior would come to us through adultery and murder? From very sinful people comes the sinless man.”

    Christ, God the Son did not come through adultery and murder, HE was Deity. He came through the HOLY Ghost to Mary’s womb.

    18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

    19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

    20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

    21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
    Matthew 1

    STUDY:

    Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
    2 Timothy 2:15

  • Grace

    Joanne @ 54

    “Just an academic question: Is it still adultery if you murder the spouse of your new love?”

    If you need to ask the question, for ANY reason, then I would suggest you study. If you’re asking the question to inspire some sort of intellectual debate, you’ve missed the mark, again.. I would suggest you study.

    “How did it ever come about that the Savior would come to us through adultery and murder? From very sinful people comes the sinless man.”

    Christ, God the Son did not come through adultery and murder, HE was Deity. He came through the HOLY Ghost to Mary’s womb.

    18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

    19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

    20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

    21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
    Matthew 1

    STUDY:

    Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
    2 Timothy 2:15

  • Grace

    fws @ 43

    YOU WROTE:

    “The rest is about our earthly existence together and avoiding God’s punishment for sinning against others here on earth. and that is ALL about how I deal with and treat my neighbor. It is not about affecting the status of my relationship with God. I do fear God, and so I work to keep his Laws here on earth to avoid his punishment . But as to my relationship to him? That is ALL about the Works of Another David.”

    fws, As you stated It is not about affecting the status of my relationship with God” – - fws, you are not following what our LORD God stated, you’re making it up. You and your neighbor have become the loves in your life, that isn’t how the LORD God stated it in Matthew 22. That’s your rendition, the “NEIGHBOR” of “LOVE” which dominates your life!

    37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

    38 This is the first and great commandment.

    39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

    40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Matthew 22

    The FIRST Commandment “love the Lord they God with all they heart” is often trumped by the second “love they neighbour as thyself” – that is the one those who lean towards sin rest their case, the first to love the LORD is rarely mentioned.

    It isn’t neighbor first, it is the LORD thy God first.

  • Grace

    fws @ 43

    YOU WROTE:

    “The rest is about our earthly existence together and avoiding God’s punishment for sinning against others here on earth. and that is ALL about how I deal with and treat my neighbor. It is not about affecting the status of my relationship with God. I do fear God, and so I work to keep his Laws here on earth to avoid his punishment . But as to my relationship to him? That is ALL about the Works of Another David.”

    fws, As you stated It is not about affecting the status of my relationship with God” – - fws, you are not following what our LORD God stated, you’re making it up. You and your neighbor have become the loves in your life, that isn’t how the LORD God stated it in Matthew 22. That’s your rendition, the “NEIGHBOR” of “LOVE” which dominates your life!

    37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

    38 This is the first and great commandment.

    39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

    40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Matthew 22

    The FIRST Commandment “love the Lord they God with all they heart” is often trumped by the second “love they neighbour as thyself” – that is the one those who lean towards sin rest their case, the first to love the LORD is rarely mentioned.

    It isn’t neighbor first, it is the LORD thy God first.

  • Joanne

    One of my favorite Old Testament accounts is of how a man from Ephraim, took a woman from Judah, and almost caused the annihilation of the tribe of Benjamin. It’s better than the account of Sodom and Gomorrah because it only involves the Children of Israel. It shows us the Children of God behaving no better than the heathen and how God reacted to it when his own Children were involved.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gibeah

    It is said that King Saul was from the reconstituted tribe of Benjamin, and I believe that Paul called himself a Benjamite.

    In the beginning of the story, a Judean father has sold his daughter to a man of Ephraim, to be his concubine, which I believe is a wife that you also own as chattle property. For some reason she was not happy with her husband in Ephraim and she went back home to her father’s house in Judah where it becomes obvious that she is much loved and highly prized by her father. Perhaps she was his little ewe lamb that he had sold because of dire poverty, we don’t know why, but the father obviously wants her to stay home now, but he cannot buy her back from the Ephraimite and must, sooner or later let her go away again with him.

    It really was the father’s love for his daughter that caused the traveling party to find themselves in need of a place to stay that night in Gibeah of Benjamin. Now when the donkey dung hits the fan, the men, just as they did at S & G, offered to throw out their women to protect the men, the absolute opposite of what western men would do. The women initially bore the brunt of the terror.

    Can any of you imagine your husband tossing you out to a rowdy band of randy men to be raped to death? It’s unthinkable in New Testament ideas of the duty of a husband, who like Christ died for his church, should rather die for his wife himself than to leave her unprotected against evil men. I repeat, unthinkable in NT marriage thought.

    It’s an amazing and heartbreaking story from beginning to end where we see what the Israelites are usually doing to Canaanites, doing to each other, and the women, the pocessions of the men, are mere pawns in the matter. It’s a window into an alien world.

    What I think is that whenever we discuss the sin of men wanting to sleep with other men, Benjamin and the Battle of Gibeah should be the examble we use because it’s about the problem within the community of the Children of God.

  • Joanne

    One of my favorite Old Testament accounts is of how a man from Ephraim, took a woman from Judah, and almost caused the annihilation of the tribe of Benjamin. It’s better than the account of Sodom and Gomorrah because it only involves the Children of Israel. It shows us the Children of God behaving no better than the heathen and how God reacted to it when his own Children were involved.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gibeah

    It is said that King Saul was from the reconstituted tribe of Benjamin, and I believe that Paul called himself a Benjamite.

    In the beginning of the story, a Judean father has sold his daughter to a man of Ephraim, to be his concubine, which I believe is a wife that you also own as chattle property. For some reason she was not happy with her husband in Ephraim and she went back home to her father’s house in Judah where it becomes obvious that she is much loved and highly prized by her father. Perhaps she was his little ewe lamb that he had sold because of dire poverty, we don’t know why, but the father obviously wants her to stay home now, but he cannot buy her back from the Ephraimite and must, sooner or later let her go away again with him.

    It really was the father’s love for his daughter that caused the traveling party to find themselves in need of a place to stay that night in Gibeah of Benjamin. Now when the donkey dung hits the fan, the men, just as they did at S & G, offered to throw out their women to protect the men, the absolute opposite of what western men would do. The women initially bore the brunt of the terror.

    Can any of you imagine your husband tossing you out to a rowdy band of randy men to be raped to death? It’s unthinkable in New Testament ideas of the duty of a husband, who like Christ died for his church, should rather die for his wife himself than to leave her unprotected against evil men. I repeat, unthinkable in NT marriage thought.

    It’s an amazing and heartbreaking story from beginning to end where we see what the Israelites are usually doing to Canaanites, doing to each other, and the women, the pocessions of the men, are mere pawns in the matter. It’s a window into an alien world.

    What I think is that whenever we discuss the sin of men wanting to sleep with other men, Benjamin and the Battle of Gibeah should be the examble we use because it’s about the problem within the community of the Children of God.

  • Grace

    Joanne @ 57

    You send the readers of your post off to wikipedia. Is there some reason you cannot use Bible Scripture to prove your point?

  • Grace

    Joanne @ 57

    You send the readers of your post off to wikipedia. Is there some reason you cannot use Bible Scripture to prove your point?

  • Pingback: [VIDEO] I Want To Know What It’s Like | Practikel

  • Pingback: [VIDEO] I Want To Know What It’s Like | Practikel

  • Taylor

    Here’s a suggestion for all of you. Instead of relying on a book to form your own opinions about homosexual people, why don’t you make your own? Case in point: Slavery. When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property. (Exod. 21:20-21) Although your book says this, I doubt any of you own slaves, but if you take this book as literally as some of you do, why don’t you own slaves? Obviously, you are picking and choosing what you want to follow. Homosexuality isn’t a sin. As it just so happens, many other animals can be homosexual as well. The fact that you condemn it because of what someone else said about it is just plain ignorant. Grow up and get your own opinions instead of having a book make them for you.

  • Taylor

    Here’s a suggestion for all of you. Instead of relying on a book to form your own opinions about homosexual people, why don’t you make your own? Case in point: Slavery. When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property. (Exod. 21:20-21) Although your book says this, I doubt any of you own slaves, but if you take this book as literally as some of you do, why don’t you own slaves? Obviously, you are picking and choosing what you want to follow. Homosexuality isn’t a sin. As it just so happens, many other animals can be homosexual as well. The fact that you condemn it because of what someone else said about it is just plain ignorant. Grow up and get your own opinions instead of having a book make them for you.

  • Alex

    fws:
    Hello, my name is Alex- and I am a biblicist; meaning, I believe in the absolute infallibility of the word of God- The Bible. Because I believe in the infallibility of the word of God, I believe that it is only through showing you what it says that I will be able to argue with you, because the principles taught in the Bible are concepts based on eternal laws- they are applicable to every situation we face. [For organizations sake, I have put verses in blue]

    I do not know you, nor do I care to learn all of your strengths and weaknesses, for as the word says:
    1 Corinthians 2:2 (KJV)- For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

    For I would be doing you a disservice to learn more about you and then become partial to your opinion, because then I would be unlike God – who is an impartial judge:
    1 Peter 1:17 (KJV)- And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

    I do not come to you as one who boasts in my knowledge, for my knowledge is decent (we all have a decent amount of knowledge here), but I come to you in humility because knowledge makes one prideful:
    1 Corinthians 8:1 (KJV)- Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

    I do not compare you to anyone, nor should you compare me to others – because as far as I am concerned getting proven wrong is an essential part of life, and I have experienced it many occasions:
    Proverbs 6:23 (KJV)- For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life:

    And I find that people that really love you won’t lie to you. They tell you the truth, even if it hurts – because this is what God does:
    Hebrews 12:6 (KJV)- For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

    But I am inclined to not believe you when you quote “higher knowledge” on the exact meaning of certain hebrew and greek words – because the word of god is fairly clear on such big issues like homosexuality, and because the bible is clear about it – I should rather trust God on this than you:
    Acts 5:29 (KJV)- Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

    I also know that the morality that is produced in a person’s ethics and character are a result of their inward desires and ideals- therefore by examining your fruits I will be able to understand whether or not you are correct:
    Matthew 7:16 (KJV)- Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

    In Romans 1, it talks about the backwards mindset that is produced in those that go after strange flesh- that is, homosexuals. You profess to be queer and judging by your fruits, you display many of the characteristics as such. Therefore your many words don’t fool me or any other Christian. You want to have the last word, but ultimately God will have the last word and he will judge all of us, and we will be left without excuse.
    Romans 1:29-32 (KJV)- 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

    The Bible says that those that commit such acts will be filled with the fruits thereof, and our proximity to the return of Jesus Christ means that evildoers will become much more commonplace. This however does not excuse their acts, and it does not excuse yours, if the word cannot convince you of your sin, then I must be inclined to turn away from you. I still plead with you to examine yourself and repent, for no homosexuals will be allowed into Heaven!:
    2 Timothy 3:1-5 (KJV)- This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

    If you hate me for calling you out on all of this, then I am not surprised because that is exactly what I would expect:
    John 15:18 (KJV)- If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

    I pray that you repent while there is still time left, for there will be a time when Satan is allowed to blind the hearts of the wicked, (even so today) and God will send strong delusions in the end-times as well, so your window of opportunity is running out:
    Isaiah 55:6-7 (KJV)- Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: 7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

    If you repent though, you will have complete forgiveness, and I always choose this verse because it shows the awesome power of the word of God. Even while people thought the world was flat, God knew it was round and you can’t go north or south forever, but if you go east you will never end up west, and if you go west you will never end up going east. So if you repent then your forgiveness goes on forever!:
    Psalm 103:12 (KJV)- As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

  • Alex

    fws:
    Hello, my name is Alex- and I am a biblicist; meaning, I believe in the absolute infallibility of the word of God- The Bible. Because I believe in the infallibility of the word of God, I believe that it is only through showing you what it says that I will be able to argue with you, because the principles taught in the Bible are concepts based on eternal laws- they are applicable to every situation we face. [For organizations sake, I have put verses in blue]

    I do not know you, nor do I care to learn all of your strengths and weaknesses, for as the word says:
    1 Corinthians 2:2 (KJV)- For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

    For I would be doing you a disservice to learn more about you and then become partial to your opinion, because then I would be unlike God – who is an impartial judge:
    1 Peter 1:17 (KJV)- And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

    I do not come to you as one who boasts in my knowledge, for my knowledge is decent (we all have a decent amount of knowledge here), but I come to you in humility because knowledge makes one prideful:
    1 Corinthians 8:1 (KJV)- Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

    I do not compare you to anyone, nor should you compare me to others – because as far as I am concerned getting proven wrong is an essential part of life, and I have experienced it many occasions:
    Proverbs 6:23 (KJV)- For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life:

    And I find that people that really love you won’t lie to you. They tell you the truth, even if it hurts – because this is what God does:
    Hebrews 12:6 (KJV)- For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

    But I am inclined to not believe you when you quote “higher knowledge” on the exact meaning of certain hebrew and greek words – because the word of god is fairly clear on such big issues like homosexuality, and because the bible is clear about it – I should rather trust God on this than you:
    Acts 5:29 (KJV)- Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

    I also know that the morality that is produced in a person’s ethics and character are a result of their inward desires and ideals- therefore by examining your fruits I will be able to understand whether or not you are correct:
    Matthew 7:16 (KJV)- Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

    In Romans 1, it talks about the backwards mindset that is produced in those that go after strange flesh- that is, homosexuals. You profess to be queer and judging by your fruits, you display many of the characteristics as such. Therefore your many words don’t fool me or any other Christian. You want to have the last word, but ultimately God will have the last word and he will judge all of us, and we will be left without excuse.
    Romans 1:29-32 (KJV)- 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

    The Bible says that those that commit such acts will be filled with the fruits thereof, and our proximity to the return of Jesus Christ means that evildoers will become much more commonplace. This however does not excuse their acts, and it does not excuse yours, if the word cannot convince you of your sin, then I must be inclined to turn away from you. I still plead with you to examine yourself and repent, for no homosexuals will be allowed into Heaven!:
    2 Timothy 3:1-5 (KJV)- This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

    If you hate me for calling you out on all of this, then I am not surprised because that is exactly what I would expect:
    John 15:18 (KJV)- If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

    I pray that you repent while there is still time left, for there will be a time when Satan is allowed to blind the hearts of the wicked, (even so today) and God will send strong delusions in the end-times as well, so your window of opportunity is running out:
    Isaiah 55:6-7 (KJV)- Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: 7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

    If you repent though, you will have complete forgiveness, and I always choose this verse because it shows the awesome power of the word of God. Even while people thought the world was flat, God knew it was round and you can’t go north or south forever, but if you go east you will never end up west, and if you go west you will never end up going east. So if you repent then your forgiveness goes on forever!:
    Psalm 103:12 (KJV)- As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

  • Alex

    I’m not sure why, but the verses don’t show up in blue.

  • Alex

    I’m not sure why, but the verses don’t show up in blue.

  • Fws

    alex @ 60

    thanks for sharing Alex.
    I too believe that the Bible is the (redundancy alert…) complely infalable Word of God and is to be our guide for both our faith and our life.

    I praise you for resolving to know nothing but Christ Crucified and would encourage you to continue to do that.

    You have told me that you don’t want to know anything about what I personally believe about the fact that I am sinful and totally lost without the Works of Another who is Christ and that I believe in that Christ with all my heart, and , only in Him, I am certain that I am right with God.

    I am not sure what your point is in writing to me in that case. I can assure you that I daily repent of my sins. All of them. And I can also assure you, based upon the Word of God, that my repentence is far from complete and is far from the perfection God demands. So even my perfection cannot save me. So I repent exactly as our dear Lord has commanded, and then too I trust , alone, in what He has done and not in my own repentence or any work of my own to save me.

    Do I believe homosexuality is a sin? No. And one would need to show me that I am wrong, alone, from the infalable Word of God. You have not attempted to do that.

    Bless you Alex in the Name of our dear Lord Jesus.

  • Fws

    alex @ 60

    thanks for sharing Alex.
    I too believe that the Bible is the (redundancy alert…) complely infalable Word of God and is to be our guide for both our faith and our life.

    I praise you for resolving to know nothing but Christ Crucified and would encourage you to continue to do that.

    You have told me that you don’t want to know anything about what I personally believe about the fact that I am sinful and totally lost without the Works of Another who is Christ and that I believe in that Christ with all my heart, and , only in Him, I am certain that I am right with God.

    I am not sure what your point is in writing to me in that case. I can assure you that I daily repent of my sins. All of them. And I can also assure you, based upon the Word of God, that my repentence is far from complete and is far from the perfection God demands. So even my perfection cannot save me. So I repent exactly as our dear Lord has commanded, and then too I trust , alone, in what He has done and not in my own repentence or any work of my own to save me.

    Do I believe homosexuality is a sin? No. And one would need to show me that I am wrong, alone, from the infalable Word of God. You have not attempted to do that.

    Bless you Alex in the Name of our dear Lord Jesus.

  • Alex

    If one does not believe a certain sin is a sin (as defined by the Bible), then one need only to repent of the other sins they have in their life. This seems to be what you are telling me, and I assure you – it’s not a correct view of repentance.

    Repentance isn’t just in word, but in deed. I admit to you that I am actually still struggling with sin, but if your right arm offends you- cut it off. I am in the process of getting rid of my internet access, due to my inability to combat the temptations that surround me on the internet. I believe that until we realize that not everyone who just says: “I’m a Christian, and I ask Jesus to forgive me for my sins,” is going to Heaven – then and only then can we seek true repentance.

    To give you an idea of my basic theology I sum it up in two verses:
    Romans 10:13 (KJV)- For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
    Matthew 7:21 (KJV)- Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

    These two seemingly contradictory verses can be better put this way:
    All who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved, but of those who call upon my name – if they don’t also commit themselves to the work of the Father, which Jesus committed himself to – then the Holy Spirit cannot work his ministry in their hearts. Because to make him “Lord of your life” is to mean that every second of every day is his, and you are only a cup to be filled with his spirit – to be poured out on others.

    Jesus who was both fully man, and fully God – denied himself to the point of death to do the Father’s will. So if the creator of the universe, Jesus – denied himself for us, isn’t it reasonable to conclude that we should deny every bit of ourselves to do the will of Christ?

    We cannot deny ourselves to do Christ’s will, if we aren’t even willing to obey the commandments of his will in the first place.

    Genuine repentance means to cast down the flesh, and to grow in our new nature- Christ. It doesn’t necessarily always come easy, and sometimes it will cost you your life – but anyone who denies Christ will be denied by Christ in the hereafter. The one who only asks for repentance to gain Heaven, doesn’t understand the basic concept that to gain Heaven we have to desire to become like Christ first.

    This is not preaching a works-based salvation, for justification is by Christ alone, but the growth cannot stop there. The sanctification is the process of becoming more like him, and Christ was against Homosexuality – therefore if you have no desire to stop being a Homosexual then your fruits show no genuine repentance and you are not really a Christian, but one who professes to be one.

    This is a serious topic, but I only say all of this in the best intentions.

  • Alex

    If one does not believe a certain sin is a sin (as defined by the Bible), then one need only to repent of the other sins they have in their life. This seems to be what you are telling me, and I assure you – it’s not a correct view of repentance.

    Repentance isn’t just in word, but in deed. I admit to you that I am actually still struggling with sin, but if your right arm offends you- cut it off. I am in the process of getting rid of my internet access, due to my inability to combat the temptations that surround me on the internet. I believe that until we realize that not everyone who just says: “I’m a Christian, and I ask Jesus to forgive me for my sins,” is going to Heaven – then and only then can we seek true repentance.

    To give you an idea of my basic theology I sum it up in two verses:
    Romans 10:13 (KJV)- For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
    Matthew 7:21 (KJV)- Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

    These two seemingly contradictory verses can be better put this way:
    All who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved, but of those who call upon my name – if they don’t also commit themselves to the work of the Father, which Jesus committed himself to – then the Holy Spirit cannot work his ministry in their hearts. Because to make him “Lord of your life” is to mean that every second of every day is his, and you are only a cup to be filled with his spirit – to be poured out on others.

    Jesus who was both fully man, and fully God – denied himself to the point of death to do the Father’s will. So if the creator of the universe, Jesus – denied himself for us, isn’t it reasonable to conclude that we should deny every bit of ourselves to do the will of Christ?

    We cannot deny ourselves to do Christ’s will, if we aren’t even willing to obey the commandments of his will in the first place.

    Genuine repentance means to cast down the flesh, and to grow in our new nature- Christ. It doesn’t necessarily always come easy, and sometimes it will cost you your life – but anyone who denies Christ will be denied by Christ in the hereafter. The one who only asks for repentance to gain Heaven, doesn’t understand the basic concept that to gain Heaven we have to desire to become like Christ first.

    This is not preaching a works-based salvation, for justification is by Christ alone, but the growth cannot stop there. The sanctification is the process of becoming more like him, and Christ was against Homosexuality – therefore if you have no desire to stop being a Homosexual then your fruits show no genuine repentance and you are not really a Christian, but one who professes to be one.

    This is a serious topic, but I only say all of this in the best intentions.

  • Fws

    Alex @ 63

    Alex. We are probably talking past each other because we use terms differently. i affirm that whatever they were doing in lev 18, and the sodom and gomorrah story was sinful. And i affirm that what is described in Romans one is also sin. Ditto 1 cor , esp since it seems to refer directly to lev 18. What is it that we disagree on?

    A. without knowing one blessed thing about me or my life you assume that what is described in those passages somehow describe my life, experiences, way of living, beliefs or behaviors. Those passages do not reflect me in any of thoses ways. i cannot identify, even remotely, with the images those passages conjure up.

    B. I am a homosexual. What i say in A. is true. Connect those dots. I am to repent of what exactly alex?

  • Fws

    Alex @ 63

    Alex. We are probably talking past each other because we use terms differently. i affirm that whatever they were doing in lev 18, and the sodom and gomorrah story was sinful. And i affirm that what is described in Romans one is also sin. Ditto 1 cor , esp since it seems to refer directly to lev 18. What is it that we disagree on?

    A. without knowing one blessed thing about me or my life you assume that what is described in those passages somehow describe my life, experiences, way of living, beliefs or behaviors. Those passages do not reflect me in any of thoses ways. i cannot identify, even remotely, with the images those passages conjure up.

    B. I am a homosexual. What i say in A. is true. Connect those dots. I am to repent of what exactly alex?

  • Alex

    So what you are saying is that if you are not a overly-promiscuous homosexual that is ok? I don’t know if you are in a relationship, but let’s assume you are – even if you both consent, it is still wrong. Adultery between a married man and a married woman (not married to eachother) is still wrong even if they both consent. If we take the other route though, and you are a celibate homosexual, then you are still sinning, because you know as well as I do that thoughts are equivalent to sin, and if homosexuality is a sin – then it stands to reason that thinking any homosexual thoughts whatsoever is a sin.

    This pretty much narrows it down to the only other option – you frequently have homosexual thoughts, but you don’t desire to have them, and in that case you are battling against your sin nature just like the rest of us.

    Only you can answer which category you fall into – but there is no exceptions, you either fall into one of these three categories, or you are just completely ignorant of the fact that you are sinning.

  • Alex

    So what you are saying is that if you are not a overly-promiscuous homosexual that is ok? I don’t know if you are in a relationship, but let’s assume you are – even if you both consent, it is still wrong. Adultery between a married man and a married woman (not married to eachother) is still wrong even if they both consent. If we take the other route though, and you are a celibate homosexual, then you are still sinning, because you know as well as I do that thoughts are equivalent to sin, and if homosexuality is a sin – then it stands to reason that thinking any homosexual thoughts whatsoever is a sin.

    This pretty much narrows it down to the only other option – you frequently have homosexual thoughts, but you don’t desire to have them, and in that case you are battling against your sin nature just like the rest of us.

    Only you can answer which category you fall into – but there is no exceptions, you either fall into one of these three categories, or you are just completely ignorant of the fact that you are sinning.

  • Grace

    fws WROTE:

    Posted @ 37 on February 20, 2012 – - On Thoughts on homosexuality not being genetic

    I do not believe that homosexuality, per se, is a sin.
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/02/16/thoughts-on-homosexuality-not-being-genetic/#comment-142493

    It’s a sin – but homosexuals don’t want to admit it.

  • Grace

    fws WROTE:

    Posted @ 37 on February 20, 2012 – - On Thoughts on homosexuality not being genetic

    I do not believe that homosexuality, per se, is a sin.
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/02/16/thoughts-on-homosexuality-not-being-genetic/#comment-142493

    It’s a sin – but homosexuals don’t want to admit it.

  • Alex

    @grace:

    amen brother.

  • Alex

    @grace:

    amen brother.

  • Fws

    Alex @65

    Alex. I first came to know i was a homo around the same age you knew you were a heterosexual. You did not know that until after puberty? Are you following me? So what you are saying, reducing homosexuality to sex or thinking about sex seems wrong to me.

    If you stopped thinking about sex or having sex would that make you ” not heterosexual”? I say no.

    If you thought about having sex with another man or did have sex with another man would that make you gay? A gay man would say no. So would the medical community.

    Do you get what i am saying?

  • Fws

    Alex @65

    Alex. I first came to know i was a homo around the same age you knew you were a heterosexual. You did not know that until after puberty? Are you following me? So what you are saying, reducing homosexuality to sex or thinking about sex seems wrong to me.

    If you stopped thinking about sex or having sex would that make you ” not heterosexual”? I say no.

    If you thought about having sex with another man or did have sex with another man would that make you gay? A gay man would say no. So would the medical community.

    Do you get what i am saying?

  • Fws

    Alex @ 67

    Grace is a woman.

  • Fws

    Alex @ 67

    Grace is a woman.

  • Fws

    Alex @ 65

    I hope u are not offended at this: you are saying you have what doctors would call a compulsive behavior. Doctors also classify drug addiction and alchoholism as such.

    Here is the comment that i hope does not offend. Most persons do not suffer from what you have. Most men do not. Most women do not. And it doesnt matter whether or not those men or women are gay or not. You illness does occur among homosexuals and lesbians. But it is no more common for them than it is for any other humans.

    So please do not feel free to assume that others suffer from your particular mental illness.

  • Fws

    Alex @ 65

    I hope u are not offended at this: you are saying you have what doctors would call a compulsive behavior. Doctors also classify drug addiction and alchoholism as such.

    Here is the comment that i hope does not offend. Most persons do not suffer from what you have. Most men do not. Most women do not. And it doesnt matter whether or not those men or women are gay or not. You illness does occur among homosexuals and lesbians. But it is no more common for them than it is for any other humans.

    So please do not feel free to assume that others suffer from your particular mental illness.

  • Fws

    Alex @ 67

    If you feel you know me well enough to just lump me in with a group and assume that you know my opinions before you even take the courtesy to ask, then why are you even bothering to post here?

  • Fws

    Alex @ 67

    If you feel you know me well enough to just lump me in with a group and assume that you know my opinions before you even take the courtesy to ask, then why are you even bothering to post here?

  • Grace

    fws @ 70

    “So please do not feel free to assume that others suffer from your particular mental illness.”

    Did Alex say he had a “mental illness” or did you ASSUME he has one?

  • Grace

    fws @ 70

    “So please do not feel free to assume that others suffer from your particular mental illness.”

    Did Alex say he had a “mental illness” or did you ASSUME he has one?

  • Alex

    I’ve been called a lot of things, but I don’t think I’ve ever had someone seriously say I’m mental. I think you may be referring to the fact that I said – “I’m working to get rid of my internet access because I can’t resist temptation”. Because you have slandered me, I feel I have a need to clarify – I was trying to show you that I’m a sinner too, and on that level we can relate. The particular sin I have a problem with is pornography though, and it is heterosexual – therefore I struggle with a different sin than you do.

    To call me mental for indulging in a lustful behavior is quite an irrational statement. I may be incontinent sir, but I am not unethical – I would never take out my desires on any woman that I wasn’t married to. If I was married, I would make sure to treat my wife with respect, and we could both indulge our desires without shame or guilt. Also, keep in mind that 90% of men struggle with a pornographic addiction.

    The Bible is clear – homosexuality is a sin, and pornography is a sin (If you lust after a woman). I am on the path of spiritual revival and I am struggling with sin, but not giving up. You however are openly embracing one of the worst, and oldest sins in the book, and are accusing me of being mental. I hope you can see how ironically ridiculous this is.

    Pointing the finger at me will not erase your sin, only Jesus can.

  • Alex

    I’ve been called a lot of things, but I don’t think I’ve ever had someone seriously say I’m mental. I think you may be referring to the fact that I said – “I’m working to get rid of my internet access because I can’t resist temptation”. Because you have slandered me, I feel I have a need to clarify – I was trying to show you that I’m a sinner too, and on that level we can relate. The particular sin I have a problem with is pornography though, and it is heterosexual – therefore I struggle with a different sin than you do.

    To call me mental for indulging in a lustful behavior is quite an irrational statement. I may be incontinent sir, but I am not unethical – I would never take out my desires on any woman that I wasn’t married to. If I was married, I would make sure to treat my wife with respect, and we could both indulge our desires without shame or guilt. Also, keep in mind that 90% of men struggle with a pornographic addiction.

    The Bible is clear – homosexuality is a sin, and pornography is a sin (If you lust after a woman). I am on the path of spiritual revival and I am struggling with sin, but not giving up. You however are openly embracing one of the worst, and oldest sins in the book, and are accusing me of being mental. I hope you can see how ironically ridiculous this is.

    Pointing the finger at me will not erase your sin, only Jesus can.

  • Grace

    Alex,

    I am glad you have come back and posted on this thread. I hope you continue to post on this thread and other topis as well.

    It’s very strange, or should I say irrational when one can say they are homosexual, and then boldly state: – -

    “I do not believe that homosexuality, per se, is a sin.“

    But BOLDLY burst out with:

    “So please do not feel free to assume that others suffer from your particular mental illness”

    ODD, very ODD!

    This is a portion of what fws wrote @ 435 “Nominal Christians” – - LINK below:

    fws March 31, 2011 at 7:11 am
    “1)A good portion of the real manly men in hollywood were gay. Hollywood. Stereotypes. Most gay men I know are more masculine than most men I know. And they look for the same to pair off. You are contexting the accurracy of my statement and I have no proof other than my own observations.”

    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/03/23/nominal-christians/#comment-112003

    Below is my response, POST 458, to fws @435 on the same thread

    Grace March 31, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    “I have never stated my early life (late teens) Just a brief account — I was asked to participate in a haute couture fashion show when I was but 18 years old – I accepted. I lived in West L.A. and UCLA for some time, during my career (medicine) – Having lived in that area dating some of the those in the film industry – I can say with all honesty, your appraisal of “Most gay men I know are more masculine than most men I know.” couldn’t be further from the truth. When they strut down the street, flaunt their stuff, they look like, and act like wannabe women, or wannabe males – They may look at one another as being “masculine” but they have no idea how silly they look, trying to play either the female or male role as homosexuals….. all duded up. The mirror they look in doesn’t tell them the truth, they don’t see it, not in themselves or each other.

    Because I have lived in those areas, and then now very near Laguna Beach, known for its homosexual population, I can speak from experience, having observed the homosexual community for a very long time…… it’s not masculine whatsoever, and it doesn’t measure up to being a woman either – it’s sinful. HIV/AIDS, STD’s, are obvious as to how depraved the lifestyle is –

    Your observation of homosexuals, is not what the mass majority of the world sees. You look through clouded glasses.

    fws below @465 same thread and LINK writes:

    465 fws March 31, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    I say the confessions , and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life. Why?

    SO – the “Confessions” trump the “HOLY Scriptures” – The “Confessions” fws refers to are Lutheran. The entire thread is very long, but interesting.

    Martin Luther regarding Sodom and homosexuality:

    “the heinous conduct of the people of Sodom ” as “extraordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature.

    Luther’s Works Vol. 3 p. 255

  • Grace

    Alex,

    I am glad you have come back and posted on this thread. I hope you continue to post on this thread and other topis as well.

    It’s very strange, or should I say irrational when one can say they are homosexual, and then boldly state: – -

    “I do not believe that homosexuality, per se, is a sin.“

    But BOLDLY burst out with:

    “So please do not feel free to assume that others suffer from your particular mental illness”

    ODD, very ODD!

    This is a portion of what fws wrote @ 435 “Nominal Christians” – - LINK below:

    fws March 31, 2011 at 7:11 am
    “1)A good portion of the real manly men in hollywood were gay. Hollywood. Stereotypes. Most gay men I know are more masculine than most men I know. And they look for the same to pair off. You are contexting the accurracy of my statement and I have no proof other than my own observations.”

    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/03/23/nominal-christians/#comment-112003

    Below is my response, POST 458, to fws @435 on the same thread

    Grace March 31, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    “I have never stated my early life (late teens) Just a brief account — I was asked to participate in a haute couture fashion show when I was but 18 years old – I accepted. I lived in West L.A. and UCLA for some time, during my career (medicine) – Having lived in that area dating some of the those in the film industry – I can say with all honesty, your appraisal of “Most gay men I know are more masculine than most men I know.” couldn’t be further from the truth. When they strut down the street, flaunt their stuff, they look like, and act like wannabe women, or wannabe males – They may look at one another as being “masculine” but they have no idea how silly they look, trying to play either the female or male role as homosexuals….. all duded up. The mirror they look in doesn’t tell them the truth, they don’t see it, not in themselves or each other.

    Because I have lived in those areas, and then now very near Laguna Beach, known for its homosexual population, I can speak from experience, having observed the homosexual community for a very long time…… it’s not masculine whatsoever, and it doesn’t measure up to being a woman either – it’s sinful. HIV/AIDS, STD’s, are obvious as to how depraved the lifestyle is –

    Your observation of homosexuals, is not what the mass majority of the world sees. You look through clouded glasses.

    fws below @465 same thread and LINK writes:

    465 fws March 31, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    I say the confessions , and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life. Why?

    SO – the “Confessions” trump the “HOLY Scriptures” – The “Confessions” fws refers to are Lutheran. The entire thread is very long, but interesting.

    Martin Luther regarding Sodom and homosexuality:

    “the heinous conduct of the people of Sodom ” as “extraordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature.

    Luther’s Works Vol. 3 p. 255

  • Fws

    Alex @ 73

    Alex, I would not want to slander you. Slander is where you accuse someone of something that is not true. I am not sure where I did that Alex. I don’t know one blessed thing about you except what you have told me. If I have stepped outside of what you have revealed about your personal life, then I do need to apologize. And I do sincerely. But I am not seeing where I have done that. Help me out here.

    You said you had a problem with internet porn.
    You said you don’t want to look at it but the only way you will be able to stop is to do something so radical as to deny yourself ALL internet access. Most people don’t need to do that. I don’t. This is really, really radical. Desperate even. It doesn’t look like the “road to revival”. It looks like abject defeat. Normal people don’t need to do that do they? That looks like “victory” to you? It doesn’t to me.

    You have what psychiatrists would call a “compulsive behavioral problem”. Not everyone has that. And yes, when it interferes with one’s life in negative ways, they consider this an “illness”. You call it “sin”. Ok. Does that distinction matter Alex? Is THIS where you say I ‘slandered’ you? Why not seek out a trained medical professional for this? That is what God has placed them in the world for. This is not being ‘mental”. This is about being wise and seeking help from those God has provided to help.

    secondly , you say that your addiction to internet porn is not the same sin as homosexual lusting, or homosexuals who also suffer from the same addictive behavior. Really? How is it different? Educate me. Do you realize that most homosexuals don’t lust as you do? Gosh. I rarely even think about sex except in the abstract. I would have more sex and thoughts about it if I were a roman catholic nun or priest. At age 56 sex is a low priority for me. I covet/lust in lots of other ways. Did you know that the words “lust” and “covet” both come from the same single Greek word? The translators to english did us no favor by translating it as “lust” . That puts too much emphasis on sex and lets us ignore all the other ways we can covet. They are all deadly.

    You tell me that I am “embracing” some sin. What sin is that? I don’t struggle as you do with porn or with sexual desire for anyone else dear Alex. But then you said you don’t want to know me personally. Ok. We will leave it at that.

    You say 90% of men struggle with the same addiction you have. That is simply not true Alex. Alcoholics tell themselves the same lie: “everyone does it”. They hang out with other Alcoholics in support groups so it seems that 90% of the world is like them! Addictive behavior is abnormal behavior that will destroy your life if you let it take over. And cutting off your internet access will only make it worse. You will become a “dry drunk”. Alcoholics say that the problem is not drinking, it is addictive thinking. This is true.

    You said at the start that you didn’t want to get to know me personally for whatever reason. Ok. You don’t know anything about me or my life except to hear that I am Gay. Don’t feel free to read into that Alex that I have the same addiction you have. That is slander. And you are pot calling kettle black exactly here aren’t you? You heard that word “Gay” and then felt free to insert whatever content you wanted into that word. That is prejudice and it is wrong dear Alex.

    I can assure you that men who identify as Heterosexual do not automatically have the addiction to porn that you have . Not even close to 90%. And the same is true for Gay men.

    Ok. So you told me you were addicted to porn to say you were a sinner like me. But you aren’t really serious about that. How do I know that? You make excuses such as : “90% of men have the same problem”. This is not true.

  • Fws

    Alex @ 73

    Alex, I would not want to slander you. Slander is where you accuse someone of something that is not true. I am not sure where I did that Alex. I don’t know one blessed thing about you except what you have told me. If I have stepped outside of what you have revealed about your personal life, then I do need to apologize. And I do sincerely. But I am not seeing where I have done that. Help me out here.

    You said you had a problem with internet porn.
    You said you don’t want to look at it but the only way you will be able to stop is to do something so radical as to deny yourself ALL internet access. Most people don’t need to do that. I don’t. This is really, really radical. Desperate even. It doesn’t look like the “road to revival”. It looks like abject defeat. Normal people don’t need to do that do they? That looks like “victory” to you? It doesn’t to me.

    You have what psychiatrists would call a “compulsive behavioral problem”. Not everyone has that. And yes, when it interferes with one’s life in negative ways, they consider this an “illness”. You call it “sin”. Ok. Does that distinction matter Alex? Is THIS where you say I ‘slandered’ you? Why not seek out a trained medical professional for this? That is what God has placed them in the world for. This is not being ‘mental”. This is about being wise and seeking help from those God has provided to help.

    secondly , you say that your addiction to internet porn is not the same sin as homosexual lusting, or homosexuals who also suffer from the same addictive behavior. Really? How is it different? Educate me. Do you realize that most homosexuals don’t lust as you do? Gosh. I rarely even think about sex except in the abstract. I would have more sex and thoughts about it if I were a roman catholic nun or priest. At age 56 sex is a low priority for me. I covet/lust in lots of other ways. Did you know that the words “lust” and “covet” both come from the same single Greek word? The translators to english did us no favor by translating it as “lust” . That puts too much emphasis on sex and lets us ignore all the other ways we can covet. They are all deadly.

    You tell me that I am “embracing” some sin. What sin is that? I don’t struggle as you do with porn or with sexual desire for anyone else dear Alex. But then you said you don’t want to know me personally. Ok. We will leave it at that.

    You say 90% of men struggle with the same addiction you have. That is simply not true Alex. Alcoholics tell themselves the same lie: “everyone does it”. They hang out with other Alcoholics in support groups so it seems that 90% of the world is like them! Addictive behavior is abnormal behavior that will destroy your life if you let it take over. And cutting off your internet access will only make it worse. You will become a “dry drunk”. Alcoholics say that the problem is not drinking, it is addictive thinking. This is true.

    You said at the start that you didn’t want to get to know me personally for whatever reason. Ok. You don’t know anything about me or my life except to hear that I am Gay. Don’t feel free to read into that Alex that I have the same addiction you have. That is slander. And you are pot calling kettle black exactly here aren’t you? You heard that word “Gay” and then felt free to insert whatever content you wanted into that word. That is prejudice and it is wrong dear Alex.

    I can assure you that men who identify as Heterosexual do not automatically have the addiction to porn that you have . Not even close to 90%. And the same is true for Gay men.

    Ok. So you told me you were addicted to porn to say you were a sinner like me. But you aren’t really serious about that. How do I know that? You make excuses such as : “90% of men have the same problem”. This is not true.

  • Alex

    With all due respect sir, Jesus was a radical.

    “If your right hand offends you (causes you to do something that you don’t want to do), then cut it off…” -Matt 5:30

    I would shut-down my internet access long before I would cut my own hand off – I’m actually pretty un-radical compared to Jesus.

    I agree with what Grace says, and I believe this is a point where I must stop posting, because it all boils down to the most fundamental Christian belief there is – Sola Scriptura.

    Which, as I’m sure you are aware – means that the Bible is the final authority; to which I reply, your time in the film business means nothing to me, nor does your opinions/observations on the masculinity/femininity of homosexuals. It is not about opinion – it is a matter of faith in the Word of God, you have bought the lies that modern media and culture have told you:

    that homosexuality is genetic (despite much evidence to the contrary), that there is no reason to change your sexual orientation, that it is okay to be Christian and homosexual – the two are non-contradictory (which is quite obviously wrong), that people that have homosexual desires should learn to embrace them and recognize them as just the way they are, and that homosexuality shouldn’t be repressed like other sins (murder, rape, lust), and that you shouldn’t feel bad for committing acts of homosexuality.

    The list goes on and on.

    I shall conclude with this: Sodom and Gomorrah didn’t just commit acts of sin – they also helped strengthen the hand of evildoers, so that others would commit sin with them. Likewise, the homosexual movement today has gained a “counselor” like appearance, by helping bullied gay teens (the suicide rate among homosexuals is very high because of the lack of true love that can be found in such a relationship), advocating LGBT rights (which are non-existent), and promoting tolerance of all forms of wickedness.

    Ezekiel 13:22 (KJV)-
    Because with lies you have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not turn from his wicked way, to save his life:

    I may comment on other posts at this blog in the future but as far as this post is concerned, the continual arguments over trivial matters are pointless, and they don’t lead to any fruitful conversation. I suspect that you are just Christian because your parents were because the things you have said on this blog amount to heresy – and no true Bible-believing Christian would have said them.

    I will now unsubscribe from this post.
    Peace

  • Alex

    With all due respect sir, Jesus was a radical.

    “If your right hand offends you (causes you to do something that you don’t want to do), then cut it off…” -Matt 5:30

    I would shut-down my internet access long before I would cut my own hand off – I’m actually pretty un-radical compared to Jesus.

    I agree with what Grace says, and I believe this is a point where I must stop posting, because it all boils down to the most fundamental Christian belief there is – Sola Scriptura.

    Which, as I’m sure you are aware – means that the Bible is the final authority; to which I reply, your time in the film business means nothing to me, nor does your opinions/observations on the masculinity/femininity of homosexuals. It is not about opinion – it is a matter of faith in the Word of God, you have bought the lies that modern media and culture have told you:

    that homosexuality is genetic (despite much evidence to the contrary), that there is no reason to change your sexual orientation, that it is okay to be Christian and homosexual – the two are non-contradictory (which is quite obviously wrong), that people that have homosexual desires should learn to embrace them and recognize them as just the way they are, and that homosexuality shouldn’t be repressed like other sins (murder, rape, lust), and that you shouldn’t feel bad for committing acts of homosexuality.

    The list goes on and on.

    I shall conclude with this: Sodom and Gomorrah didn’t just commit acts of sin – they also helped strengthen the hand of evildoers, so that others would commit sin with them. Likewise, the homosexual movement today has gained a “counselor” like appearance, by helping bullied gay teens (the suicide rate among homosexuals is very high because of the lack of true love that can be found in such a relationship), advocating LGBT rights (which are non-existent), and promoting tolerance of all forms of wickedness.

    Ezekiel 13:22 (KJV)-
    Because with lies you have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not turn from his wicked way, to save his life:

    I may comment on other posts at this blog in the future but as far as this post is concerned, the continual arguments over trivial matters are pointless, and they don’t lead to any fruitful conversation. I suspect that you are just Christian because your parents were because the things you have said on this blog amount to heresy – and no true Bible-believing Christian would have said them.

    I will now unsubscribe from this post.
    Peace

  • Fws

    Alex @ 76

    ” … Your time in the film business… Arguments about masculilnity … Femininity of ….”

    Did you acidentally cut and paste a conversation you had with someone else here?

  • Fws

    Alex @ 76

    ” … Your time in the film business… Arguments about masculilnity … Femininity of ….”

    Did you acidentally cut and paste a conversation you had with someone else here?

  • wayne

    there are over 450 different animal species that exhibit homosexual behavior,this alone IS scientific proof that being gay is NOT a choice. The bible DOES NOT speak against homosexuality it speaks against domination through sexual practice like in the letters from paul to the roman emperor about the roman soldiers RAPING the survivors in battle as an act of dominance,same as in Ezekiel!the word homosexual was added to the bible in 1958 ,the biblical term for homosexuals is eunuch ,there is no word in arabic or ancient hebrew that translates directly to homosexual.this is just more hate b.s. spread by misinterpretations by the church .christian theory on the subject is flawed,on one hand we are suppose to believe that god is perfect and omnificent (knowing all even before it happens) and that we are created in ‘god’s image’ yet they are to be condemned for the way they are created?????…so your saying god is fallible(actually he is and admits to it in the flood story) how do i know this??? i ACTUALLY read the bible,the WHOLE bible ,not just one verse,the story and the meaning behind it.preaching ‘verse’ without the story behind it is blasphemy as ANY single verse from ANY book can be taken 100 different ways when taken out of context to the story.rather than gripe about what realy isn’t in the bible gripe about what is …like jesus standing AGAINST the church and organized religion…ohh ,won’t hear the church reading that one out loud will ya?if we are to take leviticus at face value (lev. was a health manual! and the last ‘verse’ says it all !)then even you must be dragged to the street and stoned to death !why?because i can bet you have done one of the following,got a tattoo!pierced or scared your body!cut your hair or shaved your beard! all of which ,according to the bible,carries a death sentence!the meaning is in the STORIES and history not the single verse.stop spreading hate and fallow God’s plan.the bible in all of it’s pages and stories says only three things 1.have faith in god 2.be true to yourself 3. be good to one another….that’s it ! the false prosecution of gay people is AGAINST God!but it isn’t against the CHURCH!…who are you going to follow?

  • wayne

    there are over 450 different animal species that exhibit homosexual behavior,this alone IS scientific proof that being gay is NOT a choice. The bible DOES NOT speak against homosexuality it speaks against domination through sexual practice like in the letters from paul to the roman emperor about the roman soldiers RAPING the survivors in battle as an act of dominance,same as in Ezekiel!the word homosexual was added to the bible in 1958 ,the biblical term for homosexuals is eunuch ,there is no word in arabic or ancient hebrew that translates directly to homosexual.this is just more hate b.s. spread by misinterpretations by the church .christian theory on the subject is flawed,on one hand we are suppose to believe that god is perfect and omnificent (knowing all even before it happens) and that we are created in ‘god’s image’ yet they are to be condemned for the way they are created?????…so your saying god is fallible(actually he is and admits to it in the flood story) how do i know this??? i ACTUALLY read the bible,the WHOLE bible ,not just one verse,the story and the meaning behind it.preaching ‘verse’ without the story behind it is blasphemy as ANY single verse from ANY book can be taken 100 different ways when taken out of context to the story.rather than gripe about what realy isn’t in the bible gripe about what is …like jesus standing AGAINST the church and organized religion…ohh ,won’t hear the church reading that one out loud will ya?if we are to take leviticus at face value (lev. was a health manual! and the last ‘verse’ says it all !)then even you must be dragged to the street and stoned to death !why?because i can bet you have done one of the following,got a tattoo!pierced or scared your body!cut your hair or shaved your beard! all of which ,according to the bible,carries a death sentence!the meaning is in the STORIES and history not the single verse.stop spreading hate and fallow God’s plan.the bible in all of it’s pages and stories says only three things 1.have faith in god 2.be true to yourself 3. be good to one another….that’s it ! the false prosecution of gay people is AGAINST God!but it isn’t against the CHURCH!…who are you going to follow?

  • Fws

    wayne @ 78

    Calm down and pull up a chair and chat with us about all

    Don’t do the same thing here many of the religious do to gays , which is lump everyone into a group and make prejudgements about that group.

    Stick around and read the posts. You will be surprised at the civility of most of the commentators. You will be welcome here Wayne is what I am saying.

    But there is no need to shout.

  • Fws

    wayne @ 78

    Calm down and pull up a chair and chat with us about all

    Don’t do the same thing here many of the religious do to gays , which is lump everyone into a group and make prejudgements about that group.

    Stick around and read the posts. You will be surprised at the civility of most of the commentators. You will be welcome here Wayne is what I am saying.

    But there is no need to shout.

  • Grace

    Wayne @78

    the biblical term for homosexuals is eunuch ,there is no word in arabic or ancient hebrew that translates directly to homosexual.”

    Your definition is false. Castration, does not result in homosexuality.

    The definition for “Eunuch” within the Bible is as follows. It means that a man has been “castrated” –

    Eunuch Strong’s Greek

    cariyc
    saw-reece’

    from an unused root meaning to castrate; a eunuch; by implication, valet (especially of the female apartments), and thus, a minister of state:–chamberlain, eunuch, officer.

    NOTE: castrate – To remove the testicles of (a male); geld or emasculate.

    Trinity — isn’t found in the Bible but we use it to describe the Godhead, God the Father, God the Son and God the HOLY Spirit.

    Atheism — isn’t used in the Bible but we use it to define those individuals who believe there is no God.

    Omnipotence — definition: all powerful this word is not in the Bible.

    Omniscience — definition: all knowing, again this isn’t found in the Bible.

    Omnipresence — definition: as being present everywhere again not found in the Bible.

    Because these terms are not found in the Bible does not negate their importance or correct Biblical use. I’m pointing this out to you in an attempt to show that there are terms which ARE used, which are CORRECT but are not found in the Bible, such as God the Son.

  • Grace

    Wayne @78

    the biblical term for homosexuals is eunuch ,there is no word in arabic or ancient hebrew that translates directly to homosexual.”

    Your definition is false. Castration, does not result in homosexuality.

    The definition for “Eunuch” within the Bible is as follows. It means that a man has been “castrated” –

    Eunuch Strong’s Greek

    cariyc
    saw-reece’

    from an unused root meaning to castrate; a eunuch; by implication, valet (especially of the female apartments), and thus, a minister of state:–chamberlain, eunuch, officer.

    NOTE: castrate – To remove the testicles of (a male); geld or emasculate.

    Trinity — isn’t found in the Bible but we use it to describe the Godhead, God the Father, God the Son and God the HOLY Spirit.

    Atheism — isn’t used in the Bible but we use it to define those individuals who believe there is no God.

    Omnipotence — definition: all powerful this word is not in the Bible.

    Omniscience — definition: all knowing, again this isn’t found in the Bible.

    Omnipresence — definition: as being present everywhere again not found in the Bible.

    Because these terms are not found in the Bible does not negate their importance or correct Biblical use. I’m pointing this out to you in an attempt to show that there are terms which ARE used, which are CORRECT but are not found in the Bible, such as God the Son.

  • wayne eckwright

    fws:sorry ,not shouting ,using caps to emphasis certain things.and i happen to be ‘a religious guy’ ordained minister even!(sorry for the sarcasm)i try not to prejudge PEOPLE but i do have my prejudgement of certain …organizations.

    Grace:lets start at the top ,in my using the word eunuch i was a bit incorrect for not elaborating.as the word is found in the bible and the word THAT IT COMES FROM IN HEBREW that was translated to mean eunuch has multiple meanings just like most of the language you have to see the context of the story not just the verse. to clarify here is the definition:A eunuch (play /ˈjuːnək/; Greek: Ευνούχος) is a person who (by the common definition of the term eunuch) may have been castrated, typically early enough in his life for this change to have major hormonal consequences. Less commonly, in translations of ancient texts, “eunuch” may refer to a man who is not castrated but who is impotent, celibate or ‘otherwise not inclined to marry and reproduce’.
    this is a Greek word not Hebrew or Aramaic ,the Hebrew word ‘saris’ which is what eunuch was translated from was used to refer to men and women alike that found companionship in others of the same sex as well as chamberlain,priest,or higher official it did not ONLY mean those that were physically castrated.
    the old Hebrew language is pretty primitive compared to the languages it was translated into ,the translators took liberties in there translations if you read the preface that was written by the Septuagint you would see that they even made this statement!

    the holy trinity is a church fabrication to address the false belief that Jesus “from the FLESH of Joseph’ was the literal ‘son’ of god.bible prophecy FROM GOD TO ABRAHAM stating that it would be from Abraham’s seed that the messiah would come.nothing much else to say here,the trinity is false.

    didn’t mention ‘atheist’ must be for another poster

    my reference to the ‘omni…’ is a reference to WHAT WE ARE TAUGHT about god,and that if God is omnificant (i know i keep spelling that wrong) then gay people are created with god knowing they are to be that way because he created them that way.

    my point is that we translated the text from a primitive language to a more advanced language to a more advanced language to our language,along the way books were added,taken away,passages re-wrote,words and there meanings changed,doctrine added and truth shadowed all to the thoughts and morel convictions of those that translated it(as well as there own aspirations of power over men).the most common example of this is in the word ‘suffer’ which is how we see it in text today ,the word in the bible means ‘to let’ yet OUR definition of THAT WORD is quite different.in Hebrew the word it was translated from has many meanings.

    the word ‘begotten’ also is a miss translation,going back to it’s translation from Greek with reference to the old text and language into the Septuagint we see it is translated to ‘beloved’ a more accurate translation from the old language as it does not ONLY mean sired it also means taken unto or today we would say adopted,this is the reference to Jesus as he was “from the flesh of Joseph”the true ‘son of God’ can be found at the end of the second linage in Luke 3:23-38,in 38 we see the only reference in the genealogy of Jesus that has a connection to god …and it is Adam not Jesus that is the ‘son of god’ in the literal sense.of course the angels were also ‘the sons of God’ else where in the book and in the book of Enoch.

  • wayne eckwright

    fws:sorry ,not shouting ,using caps to emphasis certain things.and i happen to be ‘a religious guy’ ordained minister even!(sorry for the sarcasm)i try not to prejudge PEOPLE but i do have my prejudgement of certain …organizations.

    Grace:lets start at the top ,in my using the word eunuch i was a bit incorrect for not elaborating.as the word is found in the bible and the word THAT IT COMES FROM IN HEBREW that was translated to mean eunuch has multiple meanings just like most of the language you have to see the context of the story not just the verse. to clarify here is the definition:A eunuch (play /ˈjuːnək/; Greek: Ευνούχος) is a person who (by the common definition of the term eunuch) may have been castrated, typically early enough in his life for this change to have major hormonal consequences. Less commonly, in translations of ancient texts, “eunuch” may refer to a man who is not castrated but who is impotent, celibate or ‘otherwise not inclined to marry and reproduce’.
    this is a Greek word not Hebrew or Aramaic ,the Hebrew word ‘saris’ which is what eunuch was translated from was used to refer to men and women alike that found companionship in others of the same sex as well as chamberlain,priest,or higher official it did not ONLY mean those that were physically castrated.
    the old Hebrew language is pretty primitive compared to the languages it was translated into ,the translators took liberties in there translations if you read the preface that was written by the Septuagint you would see that they even made this statement!

    the holy trinity is a church fabrication to address the false belief that Jesus “from the FLESH of Joseph’ was the literal ‘son’ of god.bible prophecy FROM GOD TO ABRAHAM stating that it would be from Abraham’s seed that the messiah would come.nothing much else to say here,the trinity is false.

    didn’t mention ‘atheist’ must be for another poster

    my reference to the ‘omni…’ is a reference to WHAT WE ARE TAUGHT about god,and that if God is omnificant (i know i keep spelling that wrong) then gay people are created with god knowing they are to be that way because he created them that way.

    my point is that we translated the text from a primitive language to a more advanced language to a more advanced language to our language,along the way books were added,taken away,passages re-wrote,words and there meanings changed,doctrine added and truth shadowed all to the thoughts and morel convictions of those that translated it(as well as there own aspirations of power over men).the most common example of this is in the word ‘suffer’ which is how we see it in text today ,the word in the bible means ‘to let’ yet OUR definition of THAT WORD is quite different.in Hebrew the word it was translated from has many meanings.

    the word ‘begotten’ also is a miss translation,going back to it’s translation from Greek with reference to the old text and language into the Septuagint we see it is translated to ‘beloved’ a more accurate translation from the old language as it does not ONLY mean sired it also means taken unto or today we would say adopted,this is the reference to Jesus as he was “from the flesh of Joseph”the true ‘son of God’ can be found at the end of the second linage in Luke 3:23-38,in 38 we see the only reference in the genealogy of Jesus that has a connection to god …and it is Adam not Jesus that is the ‘son of god’ in the literal sense.of course the angels were also ‘the sons of God’ else where in the book and in the book of Enoch.

  • fws

    Wayne @ 81
    Again welcome. Lot’s of folks here mostly shout. Check out “grace”. But it is really not necessary. Most here will consider a nuanced and reasoned argument and actually enjoy it.

    So you are an ordained minister and religious guy. And you seem to know lots of greek and hebrew. Are you fluent in those enough to translate the Bible? What is your religious background and where are you at now with all that Wayne.

    I am a Lutheran as is the owner and host of this blog Dr Gene Vieth. I also happen to be Gay. It is not really an issue here. That is what I meant about not needing to shout here. Thoughtful discussions can be had about that topic, or a denial of the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity or even the Divinity of Christ.

    I happen to believe, with great certaintly in the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Eternal Divinity of Jesus. But then that is me. And so my public confessions as to what the Bible says is contained here” http://www.bookofconcord.org It makes it easy to just point to a book. You can quiz me if it seems hard to believe that such a thick book exactly matches everything I believe about God.

    It’s sorta quirky and unusual I know….

    It would be interesting for you to tell us more about your beliefs. Maybe a good start would be to write to the host here Dr Veith with a concise outline of your views as you have done here. He could ask the rest of us Luthruns to dialog with you on all this.

    It could be both fun and educational for me and the others Wayne. Lemme know!

  • fws

    Wayne @ 81
    Again welcome. Lot’s of folks here mostly shout. Check out “grace”. But it is really not necessary. Most here will consider a nuanced and reasoned argument and actually enjoy it.

    So you are an ordained minister and religious guy. And you seem to know lots of greek and hebrew. Are you fluent in those enough to translate the Bible? What is your religious background and where are you at now with all that Wayne.

    I am a Lutheran as is the owner and host of this blog Dr Gene Vieth. I also happen to be Gay. It is not really an issue here. That is what I meant about not needing to shout here. Thoughtful discussions can be had about that topic, or a denial of the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity or even the Divinity of Christ.

    I happen to believe, with great certaintly in the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Eternal Divinity of Jesus. But then that is me. And so my public confessions as to what the Bible says is contained here” http://www.bookofconcord.org It makes it easy to just point to a book. You can quiz me if it seems hard to believe that such a thick book exactly matches everything I believe about God.

    It’s sorta quirky and unusual I know….

    It would be interesting for you to tell us more about your beliefs. Maybe a good start would be to write to the host here Dr Veith with a concise outline of your views as you have done here. He could ask the rest of us Luthruns to dialog with you on all this.

    It could be both fun and educational for me and the others Wayne. Lemme know!

  • fws

    wayne.

    Interesting take on the word eunuch. In some ways I find Hebrew to be more complex and profound than english. Such that it defies translation. I would never try to translate the book of Job for that reason. very very complex. Not that my Hebrew is anywhere close to being up to that task…. ahem.

    I think your view on homosexuality and God’s knowing is not quite it. Just because God knows something does not mean he wills something. That alone could be a very very deep conversation eh? It touches on so much.

    There is another way I would go about the homosexual issue. And I too know a some Greek and Hebrew along with latin and classical german to cover the historical development of doctrines. I am not an ordained minister nor even close nor do I know Greek and Hebrew as well as you seem to know them.

    anyhow I hope you stick around Wayne. You are among folks who will not be offended and shout at you for disagreeing with us, along with a few here who will do nothing BUT shout.

    Stick around. Please.

  • fws

    wayne.

    Interesting take on the word eunuch. In some ways I find Hebrew to be more complex and profound than english. Such that it defies translation. I would never try to translate the book of Job for that reason. very very complex. Not that my Hebrew is anywhere close to being up to that task…. ahem.

    I think your view on homosexuality and God’s knowing is not quite it. Just because God knows something does not mean he wills something. That alone could be a very very deep conversation eh? It touches on so much.

    There is another way I would go about the homosexual issue. And I too know a some Greek and Hebrew along with latin and classical german to cover the historical development of doctrines. I am not an ordained minister nor even close nor do I know Greek and Hebrew as well as you seem to know them.

    anyhow I hope you stick around Wayne. You are among folks who will not be offended and shout at you for disagreeing with us, along with a few here who will do nothing BUT shout.

    Stick around. Please.

  • Grace

    wayne eckwright @ 81

    “i happen to be ‘a religious guy’ ordained minister even!(sorry for the sarcasm)i try not to prejudge PEOPLE but i do have my prejudgement of certain …organizations.”

    You are very confused, not just with the word “eunuch” but the Trinity, Translations of the Bible, languages, etc..

    “Greek word not Hebrew or Aramaic ,the Hebrew word ‘saris’ which is what eunuch was translated from was used to refer to men and women alike that found companionship in others of the same sex as well as chamberlain,priest,or higher official it did not ONLY mean those that were physically castrated.”

    Homosexuals love to try and persuade anyone who would listen to believe a “castrated” person is homosexual. You tried the same approach earlier.

    Wayne post 78 ““the biblical term for homosexuals is eunuch ,there is no word in arabic or ancient hebrew that translates directly to homosexual.”

    Eunuch Strong’s Hebrew
    cariyc — saw-reece’
    castrate; a eunuch; by implication, valet (especially of the female apartments), and thus, a minister of state:–chamberlain, eunuch, officer.

    Eunuch Strong’s Greek
    eunouchos — yoo-noo’-khos
    a castrated person (such being employed in Oriental bed-chambers);

  • Grace

    wayne eckwright @ 81

    “i happen to be ‘a religious guy’ ordained minister even!(sorry for the sarcasm)i try not to prejudge PEOPLE but i do have my prejudgement of certain …organizations.”

    You are very confused, not just with the word “eunuch” but the Trinity, Translations of the Bible, languages, etc..

    “Greek word not Hebrew or Aramaic ,the Hebrew word ‘saris’ which is what eunuch was translated from was used to refer to men and women alike that found companionship in others of the same sex as well as chamberlain,priest,or higher official it did not ONLY mean those that were physically castrated.”

    Homosexuals love to try and persuade anyone who would listen to believe a “castrated” person is homosexual. You tried the same approach earlier.

    Wayne post 78 ““the biblical term for homosexuals is eunuch ,there is no word in arabic or ancient hebrew that translates directly to homosexual.”

    Eunuch Strong’s Hebrew
    cariyc — saw-reece’
    castrate; a eunuch; by implication, valet (especially of the female apartments), and thus, a minister of state:–chamberlain, eunuch, officer.

    Eunuch Strong’s Greek
    eunouchos — yoo-noo’-khos
    a castrated person (such being employed in Oriental bed-chambers);

  • wayne

    grace,
    you realy need to get off ‘fred’s bible’ website,this man is realy insane,he tells the people of his church to actually harm and kill homosexuals,which they have done in HIS name not God’s.
    never said that a castrated person is homosexual,you only see what YOU want to see,(what i said was the word references to different things according to the context of the story ,like many ancient hebrew words)the old saying “you will only find what you are looking for” holds true for you,such as only going back to the translation that agrees with your beliefs,or only looking at the deffinition that agrees with you(ignoring true definition). try to find definition in non biased translations(neither christian of homosexual related sites etc…)i do believe it was Robert Gaydon (one of the foremost authorities on the bible and biblical language) that when asked directly ‘does the bible condemn homosexuality’ his answer was ”no” he was not alone in this statement as most linguists say the same.
    strong’s biblical definitions are as related to the church and there beliefs not actual definition.again the problem arises from mistranslation starting in greek and most re-writes of the bible only go back this far for the same reasons,a re-translation based on the miss-translation.
    once again if this is what you truly believe and that the laws in the bible are to be fallowed directly and without question then you are in violation of gods laws,i’m guessing you are a woman from your post name,maybe you should read what Gods laws are for women!maybe you should read timothy 2:10-14! or any of the other passages that state that a woman can not even contradict a man.the punishment for this is much the same as what you believe for homosexuals,so is tatoos,cutting ones hair or beard and of course if we are to take “the laws given to the people of Israel” as ours then you have sinned every time you ate a t.v. dinner or any meat that has been longer than 2 days prepared,pork….big no no !it’s not just the jews and musslims that have this in there bible as ours comes from them.remember when we were all in uproar over those poor people that were beheaded for adultery…well read that book your touting as it is stated there to.
    so i guess a quote from another is in order “let the one among you that has not sinned cast the first stone” sorry hun,but that ain’t you.

  • wayne

    grace,
    you realy need to get off ‘fred’s bible’ website,this man is realy insane,he tells the people of his church to actually harm and kill homosexuals,which they have done in HIS name not God’s.
    never said that a castrated person is homosexual,you only see what YOU want to see,(what i said was the word references to different things according to the context of the story ,like many ancient hebrew words)the old saying “you will only find what you are looking for” holds true for you,such as only going back to the translation that agrees with your beliefs,or only looking at the deffinition that agrees with you(ignoring true definition). try to find definition in non biased translations(neither christian of homosexual related sites etc…)i do believe it was Robert Gaydon (one of the foremost authorities on the bible and biblical language) that when asked directly ‘does the bible condemn homosexuality’ his answer was ”no” he was not alone in this statement as most linguists say the same.
    strong’s biblical definitions are as related to the church and there beliefs not actual definition.again the problem arises from mistranslation starting in greek and most re-writes of the bible only go back this far for the same reasons,a re-translation based on the miss-translation.
    once again if this is what you truly believe and that the laws in the bible are to be fallowed directly and without question then you are in violation of gods laws,i’m guessing you are a woman from your post name,maybe you should read what Gods laws are for women!maybe you should read timothy 2:10-14! or any of the other passages that state that a woman can not even contradict a man.the punishment for this is much the same as what you believe for homosexuals,so is tatoos,cutting ones hair or beard and of course if we are to take “the laws given to the people of Israel” as ours then you have sinned every time you ate a t.v. dinner or any meat that has been longer than 2 days prepared,pork….big no no !it’s not just the jews and musslims that have this in there bible as ours comes from them.remember when we were all in uproar over those poor people that were beheaded for adultery…well read that book your touting as it is stated there to.
    so i guess a quote from another is in order “let the one among you that has not sinned cast the first stone” sorry hun,but that ain’t you.

  • fws

    wayne @ 85

    Best to just ignore grace. You really think she is going to even listen to what you have to say or respond to it really?

    You are shouting again. Grace brings that out in all of us here from time to time.

    I disagree with your point on translation of a retranslation.

    And I disagree with why you think the Bible does not condemn homosexuality Wayne.

    Can we talk?

  • fws

    wayne @ 85

    Best to just ignore grace. You really think she is going to even listen to what you have to say or respond to it really?

    You are shouting again. Grace brings that out in all of us here from time to time.

    I disagree with your point on translation of a retranslation.

    And I disagree with why you think the Bible does not condemn homosexuality Wayne.

    Can we talk?

  • Grace

    Wayne @ 85

    YOU WROTE: you realy need to get off ‘fred’s bible’ website,this man is realy insane,he tells the people of his church to actually harm and kill homosexuals,which they have done in HIS name not God’s.”

    CONFUSED AGAIN? I have no idea who ‘fred’s bible’ is, never visited a website by that name. Get your facts straught, if you can.

  • Grace

    Wayne @ 85

    YOU WROTE: you realy need to get off ‘fred’s bible’ website,this man is realy insane,he tells the people of his church to actually harm and kill homosexuals,which they have done in HIS name not God’s.”

    CONFUSED AGAIN? I have no idea who ‘fred’s bible’ is, never visited a website by that name. Get your facts straught, if you can.

  • wayne

    fws,
    ya i know a few people like grace…i used to be one of them.
    if we break down lev.18:22 the verse that all the anti homosexual Christians use,we see that the verse prior “and thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to mo’lech,neither shalt thou profane the name of god,i am the lord”
    mo’lech was a fertility god of the day,fertility cults (and this is going to sound funny but you can look it up) fertility cults practiced a ritual where when you went to these cults because you couldn’t get your wife pregnant(these cults were almost exclusively male only cults) you would prostitute yourself to members of the cult,they would have sex with you and in so doing ‘give you there seed’ so then you would go home and have sex with your wife to use the seed that was given you to impregnate her.(see ,told ya it would sound funny) this is of coarse b.s. as we know now and god knew then this wouldn’t work…(well maybe it would if you figure in the dribble factor….gross i know)the next verse ,18, is confirmation of this,to lay with a man(for this reason)was abomination to god as it was a falsehood and was against god as you were placing another belief above god.simple as that.
    there is another thought of reference in that along the story line we read here other forms of what god considered adultery (an abomination to god)such as laying with an animal…when you are married you are married,period.sex outside of wedlock,regardless of with who or what is adultery.the exception to this is found in the story of abraham when god told him and his wife they would have a child,they thought they were to old so Abraham’s wife came up with a plan to fulfill gods prophecy and allowed her hand maiden to sleep with her husband to produce a child.this ACT was not a sin as BOTH agreed to it,the sin was that they did not believe god!but it was forgiven and they did have a child after all.so the bible says swinging is o.k. in the eyes of god…or at least in Abraham’s case.
    these fertility cults continued through to jesus’s day and he spoke of it again in the same reference.of course none of this means jack to you and me (i am assuming) as it is stated at the END of leviticus 27:34″these are the comandments god gave to MOSES AND FOR THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL in mount si’nai” guess i don’t know about you but i am not a child of israel or of the jewish faith…these laws were not meant for us so regardless of the text and translation it simply does not apply to christianic faith as we see it today.as Jesus taught us he was not there to denounce the old laws but we had only to follow those that he affirmed.(Jesus was STILL talking to his people…the jews).the belief that this is just against gays is ludicrous and not founded by the text.
    here is a bit of FACT for ya(just to get away from arguments about miss translations) the first documented persecution of homosexuals, under the bible, didn’t happen until 6th century bc when emperor Justinian the first , in his novels no. 77 (dating 538) and no. 141 (dating 559) amended to his Corpus iuris civilis, and declared that Sodom’s sin had been specifically same-sex activities and desire for them.(in fact the deffinition of sodomite was one filled with greed and self righteousness…look it up) He also linked “famines, earthquakes, and pestilences” upon cities as being due to “such crimes”, during a time of recent earthquakes and other disasters . It is understood that he was able to use the anti-homosexual laws he enacted upon personal as well as political opponents in case he could not prove them guilty of anything else.prior to this biblical meaning of sodomy was a man RAPING a man,sex with beasts…prior to 6th century bc there is no documentation anywhere about biblical prosecution of homosexuals,it was frowned upon though by the church(doctrine not the officials) and people as it went against the natural order of reproduction…and was just creepy…but up to this point (and after) documented history shows us that most priests and higher clergy were in fact gay or at the least had homosexual tenancies…this is why jus 1 RE-DEFINITION worked.this is FACT and HISTORY there is no question of the facts.

    of course ALL of this is off topic as the blog is about science and genetics.as i said at first over 450 different species of animals exibit homosexuality(this is proof as animals don’t operate on morality as we do) and science has identified the genetic marker leaning people towards homosexuality re defining how we look at sexing from being outward physical traits to more inner physical state or abnormalities.people are born every day that have both male and female organs and men producing female hormones as well as women producing male hormones proving sex is not definite according to the equipment you have between your legs.God would have known this don’t you think?

    noticed that grace avoided the questions about HER ability to follow ALL the laws in the bible,Christianity…the pick and choose religion.

  • wayne

    fws,
    ya i know a few people like grace…i used to be one of them.
    if we break down lev.18:22 the verse that all the anti homosexual Christians use,we see that the verse prior “and thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to mo’lech,neither shalt thou profane the name of god,i am the lord”
    mo’lech was a fertility god of the day,fertility cults (and this is going to sound funny but you can look it up) fertility cults practiced a ritual where when you went to these cults because you couldn’t get your wife pregnant(these cults were almost exclusively male only cults) you would prostitute yourself to members of the cult,they would have sex with you and in so doing ‘give you there seed’ so then you would go home and have sex with your wife to use the seed that was given you to impregnate her.(see ,told ya it would sound funny) this is of coarse b.s. as we know now and god knew then this wouldn’t work…(well maybe it would if you figure in the dribble factor….gross i know)the next verse ,18, is confirmation of this,to lay with a man(for this reason)was abomination to god as it was a falsehood and was against god as you were placing another belief above god.simple as that.
    there is another thought of reference in that along the story line we read here other forms of what god considered adultery (an abomination to god)such as laying with an animal…when you are married you are married,period.sex outside of wedlock,regardless of with who or what is adultery.the exception to this is found in the story of abraham when god told him and his wife they would have a child,they thought they were to old so Abraham’s wife came up with a plan to fulfill gods prophecy and allowed her hand maiden to sleep with her husband to produce a child.this ACT was not a sin as BOTH agreed to it,the sin was that they did not believe god!but it was forgiven and they did have a child after all.so the bible says swinging is o.k. in the eyes of god…or at least in Abraham’s case.
    these fertility cults continued through to jesus’s day and he spoke of it again in the same reference.of course none of this means jack to you and me (i am assuming) as it is stated at the END of leviticus 27:34″these are the comandments god gave to MOSES AND FOR THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL in mount si’nai” guess i don’t know about you but i am not a child of israel or of the jewish faith…these laws were not meant for us so regardless of the text and translation it simply does not apply to christianic faith as we see it today.as Jesus taught us he was not there to denounce the old laws but we had only to follow those that he affirmed.(Jesus was STILL talking to his people…the jews).the belief that this is just against gays is ludicrous and not founded by the text.
    here is a bit of FACT for ya(just to get away from arguments about miss translations) the first documented persecution of homosexuals, under the bible, didn’t happen until 6th century bc when emperor Justinian the first , in his novels no. 77 (dating 538) and no. 141 (dating 559) amended to his Corpus iuris civilis, and declared that Sodom’s sin had been specifically same-sex activities and desire for them.(in fact the deffinition of sodomite was one filled with greed and self righteousness…look it up) He also linked “famines, earthquakes, and pestilences” upon cities as being due to “such crimes”, during a time of recent earthquakes and other disasters . It is understood that he was able to use the anti-homosexual laws he enacted upon personal as well as political opponents in case he could not prove them guilty of anything else.prior to this biblical meaning of sodomy was a man RAPING a man,sex with beasts…prior to 6th century bc there is no documentation anywhere about biblical prosecution of homosexuals,it was frowned upon though by the church(doctrine not the officials) and people as it went against the natural order of reproduction…and was just creepy…but up to this point (and after) documented history shows us that most priests and higher clergy were in fact gay or at the least had homosexual tenancies…this is why jus 1 RE-DEFINITION worked.this is FACT and HISTORY there is no question of the facts.

    of course ALL of this is off topic as the blog is about science and genetics.as i said at first over 450 different species of animals exibit homosexuality(this is proof as animals don’t operate on morality as we do) and science has identified the genetic marker leaning people towards homosexuality re defining how we look at sexing from being outward physical traits to more inner physical state or abnormalities.people are born every day that have both male and female organs and men producing female hormones as well as women producing male hormones proving sex is not definite according to the equipment you have between your legs.God would have known this don’t you think?

    noticed that grace avoided the questions about HER ability to follow ALL the laws in the bible,Christianity…the pick and choose religion.

  • Grace

    Wayne @ 87

    Romans is very explicit about same sex. You might want to study it, it can be found in the New Testament, right after Acts.

    26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

    27 And likewise also, the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

    29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

    30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

    31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

    32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

    28 And even as they did not like to retain GOD in their knowledge, GOD gave them over to a REPROBATE MIND, to do those things which are not convenient.

    29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers.

    30 Backbiters, haters of GOD, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil tings, disobedient to parents.

    A REPROBATE MIND is a mind void of conscience, it has been seared and no longer looks at evil, as evil………but goes along as in verse 28 “And even as they did not like to retain GOD in their knowledge, GOD gave them over to a REPROBATE MIND.

  • Grace

    Wayne @ 87

    Romans is very explicit about same sex. You might want to study it, it can be found in the New Testament, right after Acts.

    26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

    27 And likewise also, the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

    29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

    30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

    31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

    32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

    28 And even as they did not like to retain GOD in their knowledge, GOD gave them over to a REPROBATE MIND, to do those things which are not convenient.

    29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers.

    30 Backbiters, haters of GOD, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil tings, disobedient to parents.

    A REPROBATE MIND is a mind void of conscience, it has been seared and no longer looks at evil, as evil………but goes along as in verse 28 “And even as they did not like to retain GOD in their knowledge, GOD gave them over to a REPROBATE MIND.

  • Grace

    Oh Wayne, it’s Romans 1 -

  • Grace

    Oh Wayne, it’s Romans 1 -

  • Grace

    One can try and reason with those who oppose Scripture, however, the passage below is the answer. The answer being those who turn their back on God, HIS Word as in Romans 1, have become a “reprobate mind” which has no conscience. They don’t retain God in their knowledge, they retain the sins they covet, making excuses. When God makes clear what HE will do with such a person, how can you or I change their minds, when the very words of Scripture have no meaning to such an individual?

    And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
    Romans 1:28

    reprobate – Strong’s Greek Dictionary

    adokimos – ad-ok’-ee-mos
    unapproved, i.e. rejected; by implication, worthless (literally or morally):–castaway, rejected, reprobate.

  • Grace

    One can try and reason with those who oppose Scripture, however, the passage below is the answer. The answer being those who turn their back on God, HIS Word as in Romans 1, have become a “reprobate mind” which has no conscience. They don’t retain God in their knowledge, they retain the sins they covet, making excuses. When God makes clear what HE will do with such a person, how can you or I change their minds, when the very words of Scripture have no meaning to such an individual?

    And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
    Romans 1:28

    reprobate – Strong’s Greek Dictionary

    adokimos – ad-ok’-ee-mos
    unapproved, i.e. rejected; by implication, worthless (literally or morally):–castaway, rejected, reprobate.

  • wayne

    fws,
    i forgot to answer your other question about the complexity of the ancient Hebrew language(Sumerian),what i am getting at is that the English language has …about…1 million words that comprise our understanding,ancient Hebrew during biblical times is estimated to be around 5,000 words taken from Sumerian with about half of those words in root.
    fact is they had many meanings that came from one word where as we have many words for the same meaning ,trying to find a literal translation Hebrew to English (by the way of Greek and Latin) has proven to be very difficult ,as we progress as a society and in science and understanding we find that (in all dead and ancient languages) as we progress so does our understanding that what we translated just 50 years ago in fact has a completely different meaning when we look at how the old language was used.ie. from a word that in the old lingo that means all of these, son,sevant,slave defined only by the context of the sentence or story it was taken from.now translate that word …word for word…it simply is not possible ,but that is what Greek translators tried to do and then again to Latin (begotten is an English word with a singular meaning of(born of,to sire) where as the word it comes from in Greek means (one and only)this SAME word when translated to Latin means (beloved) the way it ended up in our language….one and only son…actually a combo of 2 DIFFERENT translations…starting to see my point? the complexity of ancient Hebrew(not referring to current Hebrew which is a different language) is in finding the true meaning of that word,which is only found through context,so how do you find the context in a sentence where it is being translated word for word before it is being translated?that is without having a predetermined out look on what it is SUPPOSE to say?

    the church says”analytical thinking will take you away from God” because if you analyze it then you see who the real liars are.analytical thinking takes you away from the CHURCH,who is realy who the church sees as God…themselves,this kind of thinking leads you TO God,God is truth.

  • wayne

    fws,
    i forgot to answer your other question about the complexity of the ancient Hebrew language(Sumerian),what i am getting at is that the English language has …about…1 million words that comprise our understanding,ancient Hebrew during biblical times is estimated to be around 5,000 words taken from Sumerian with about half of those words in root.
    fact is they had many meanings that came from one word where as we have many words for the same meaning ,trying to find a literal translation Hebrew to English (by the way of Greek and Latin) has proven to be very difficult ,as we progress as a society and in science and understanding we find that (in all dead and ancient languages) as we progress so does our understanding that what we translated just 50 years ago in fact has a completely different meaning when we look at how the old language was used.ie. from a word that in the old lingo that means all of these, son,sevant,slave defined only by the context of the sentence or story it was taken from.now translate that word …word for word…it simply is not possible ,but that is what Greek translators tried to do and then again to Latin (begotten is an English word with a singular meaning of(born of,to sire) where as the word it comes from in Greek means (one and only)this SAME word when translated to Latin means (beloved) the way it ended up in our language….one and only son…actually a combo of 2 DIFFERENT translations…starting to see my point? the complexity of ancient Hebrew(not referring to current Hebrew which is a different language) is in finding the true meaning of that word,which is only found through context,so how do you find the context in a sentence where it is being translated word for word before it is being translated?that is without having a predetermined out look on what it is SUPPOSE to say?

    the church says”analytical thinking will take you away from God” because if you analyze it then you see who the real liars are.analytical thinking takes you away from the CHURCH,who is realy who the church sees as God…themselves,this kind of thinking leads you TO God,God is truth.

  • wayne

    grace,
    i wont bother to answer you after this,pointless,Romans is a book taken from a letter(2) from paul to the roman …clergy/emperor.it was written to let them know that God stood against the roman empire and the false church ,all references are found to be of the time directed specifically at them.pauls statement was “how can you enforce these laws when you yourself commit them?”and that God would stand for him and his people against the influx of the roman empire and there falsified christian religion.

    Jesus said it best when he stated ‘don’t judge least you condemn yourself for you will be judged as you have judged’ god also has some notes on taking his right of judgement unto yourself (judging others in gods place) and i gotta say ,he’s not to lenient on it! mans judgement STOPS at mans law,God is the only one that has the right to judge man for his innermost (sins) being.
    in one supposed reference to homosexuality in the bible god makes the statement (actually in reference to all sexual deviations such as bestiality etc…you can add homosexuality here if you want as it does apply) ‘then (if it is needed) will they not be stricken with disease and be forbidden entry into my house?this is my place to judge,not mankind.” that is paraphrased (i hate to do that,but for you,i realy don’t care) it appears later than lev so i guess that may be an over ruling of lev law.and i do think that Jesus said something similar,didn’t he?

    i will agree with this from romans,
    And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;(you should dwell on this for a bit)
    i’m not casting away god’s word ,i stand by the truth of it.
    you also made a reference that i take it as you are suggesting I am gay?well if that IS the case i hate to burst your bubble,been married for bout 20 years now to the same beautiful woman,we have 3 sons,7 grandkids and just to clarify …no ,i am not gay,i have no hidden addenda in defending them as far as the bible goes..cept that of truth.
    i defend gods truth and the teachings of the prophet Jesus unlike the church that teaches love ,understanding and forgiveness yet preaches hate ,retribution and condemnation.
    once again there are only 3 lessons ,3laws in the bible (and most other religions)1.have faith in god 2.be true to yourself 3.be good to one another…i dare you to find any other! if what you are reading says anything else to you then you are truthfully reading it wrong and have no true understanding of Gods plan for us.(you have missed the whole point)

  • wayne

    grace,
    i wont bother to answer you after this,pointless,Romans is a book taken from a letter(2) from paul to the roman …clergy/emperor.it was written to let them know that God stood against the roman empire and the false church ,all references are found to be of the time directed specifically at them.pauls statement was “how can you enforce these laws when you yourself commit them?”and that God would stand for him and his people against the influx of the roman empire and there falsified christian religion.

    Jesus said it best when he stated ‘don’t judge least you condemn yourself for you will be judged as you have judged’ god also has some notes on taking his right of judgement unto yourself (judging others in gods place) and i gotta say ,he’s not to lenient on it! mans judgement STOPS at mans law,God is the only one that has the right to judge man for his innermost (sins) being.
    in one supposed reference to homosexuality in the bible god makes the statement (actually in reference to all sexual deviations such as bestiality etc…you can add homosexuality here if you want as it does apply) ‘then (if it is needed) will they not be stricken with disease and be forbidden entry into my house?this is my place to judge,not mankind.” that is paraphrased (i hate to do that,but for you,i realy don’t care) it appears later than lev so i guess that may be an over ruling of lev law.and i do think that Jesus said something similar,didn’t he?

    i will agree with this from romans,
    And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;(you should dwell on this for a bit)
    i’m not casting away god’s word ,i stand by the truth of it.
    you also made a reference that i take it as you are suggesting I am gay?well if that IS the case i hate to burst your bubble,been married for bout 20 years now to the same beautiful woman,we have 3 sons,7 grandkids and just to clarify …no ,i am not gay,i have no hidden addenda in defending them as far as the bible goes..cept that of truth.
    i defend gods truth and the teachings of the prophet Jesus unlike the church that teaches love ,understanding and forgiveness yet preaches hate ,retribution and condemnation.
    once again there are only 3 lessons ,3laws in the bible (and most other religions)1.have faith in god 2.be true to yourself 3.be good to one another…i dare you to find any other! if what you are reading says anything else to you then you are truthfully reading it wrong and have no true understanding of Gods plan for us.(you have missed the whole point)

  • fws

    wayne @ 88

    We can save some time here Wayne. I am a gay man. That is why Grace responds to me as she does. You will notice that the others here who are Lutherans respond in a very different way. Please do notice that.

    I am a Lutheran christian wayne. So what I believe is what you would read here: http://www.bookofconcord.org I am trinitarian, etc.

    As for Lev 18 and the 1 cor passage that seems (by way of the septuagint0 to directly refer to it: Lutherans believe, along with you , that the OT Laws and Moses apply to the Jews and are not addressed to us. This includes the Decalog. I agree that the most likely reading of Lev 18/I cor is about pagan temple rites.

    I don’t believe there is a single passage in the entire bible that has anything to say about homosexuality per se. Per se meaning homosexuals are human sinners like anyone else. So in that sense the Bible has lots to say to a homosexual.To say otherwise would be to make an anachronism. The Biblical assumption is that all males are what we would call today married heterosexuals. But of course even the category heterosexual did not exist in the Bible. That category only exists because moderns also have a category called homosexual.

    I don’t think science and genetics matter Wayne. what is right and wrong is not determined by whether or not something is natural or normal. or not.

  • fws

    wayne @ 88

    We can save some time here Wayne. I am a gay man. That is why Grace responds to me as she does. You will notice that the others here who are Lutherans respond in a very different way. Please do notice that.

    I am a Lutheran christian wayne. So what I believe is what you would read here: http://www.bookofconcord.org I am trinitarian, etc.

    As for Lev 18 and the 1 cor passage that seems (by way of the septuagint0 to directly refer to it: Lutherans believe, along with you , that the OT Laws and Moses apply to the Jews and are not addressed to us. This includes the Decalog. I agree that the most likely reading of Lev 18/I cor is about pagan temple rites.

    I don’t believe there is a single passage in the entire bible that has anything to say about homosexuality per se. Per se meaning homosexuals are human sinners like anyone else. So in that sense the Bible has lots to say to a homosexual.To say otherwise would be to make an anachronism. The Biblical assumption is that all males are what we would call today married heterosexuals. But of course even the category heterosexual did not exist in the Bible. That category only exists because moderns also have a category called homosexual.

    I don’t think science and genetics matter Wayne. what is right and wrong is not determined by whether or not something is natural or normal. or not.

  • fws

    wayne @ 92

    I speak a few languages, and have studied classical latin, koine greek, classical german for over 30 years now. My hebrew is really deficient but i know a little there too.

    What you state as to facts seems pretty much true. What you state as conclusions I would beg to differ. We can know what is intended by “eternally begotten of the Father” in Scriptures I would suggest.

    And there are really at least two topics here arent there? one is whether or not the old and new testaments were faithfully transmitted to us from the originals (which no longer exist) to now. IE: Can we claim that what we have now is extremely close to the original manuscripts or not? I say yes.

    the second topic is this: (assuming that the transmission was faithful. and maybe you dont think so… ) can we believe what we read or not? were the apostles liars for example/

    and the third: what do we drag into the text of our own presuppositions cultural and otherwise?

    and there are probably more points here…..

  • fws

    wayne @ 92

    I speak a few languages, and have studied classical latin, koine greek, classical german for over 30 years now. My hebrew is really deficient but i know a little there too.

    What you state as to facts seems pretty much true. What you state as conclusions I would beg to differ. We can know what is intended by “eternally begotten of the Father” in Scriptures I would suggest.

    And there are really at least two topics here arent there? one is whether or not the old and new testaments were faithfully transmitted to us from the originals (which no longer exist) to now. IE: Can we claim that what we have now is extremely close to the original manuscripts or not? I say yes.

    the second topic is this: (assuming that the transmission was faithful. and maybe you dont think so… ) can we believe what we read or not? were the apostles liars for example/

    and the third: what do we drag into the text of our own presuppositions cultural and otherwise?

    and there are probably more points here…..

  • fws

    wayne: tell me about your spiritual journey. It will allow us to save time talking to each other and not assume things. I pointed you to where you can go to see exactly what I believe the Bible says. http://www.bookofconcord.org for that very reason.

  • fws

    wayne: tell me about your spiritual journey. It will allow us to save time talking to each other and not assume things. I pointed you to where you can go to see exactly what I believe the Bible says. http://www.bookofconcord.org for that very reason.

  • fws

    wayne @ 92

    “the church says”analytical thinking will take you away from God””

    which church Wayne? My Lutheran Church does not say this.

  • fws

    wayne @ 92

    “the church says”analytical thinking will take you away from God””

    which church Wayne? My Lutheran Church does not say this.

  • wayne

    actually all christian/catholic church belief says this,denouncing science and history to confirm there faith when it speaks against them.when i say ‘the church’ i am referring to every christianic church.
    AS A WHOLE not individual churches as individual churches ,even of the same branch,will preach differently according to the pastors personal beliefs and those of there congregation.an example would be the christian and Judaic churches that would allow homosexual marriage if it were legal.
    my view on the marriage thing……well thats a tuffy,see as a believer in the teachings of Jesus ,and the truth of the bible,biblical definition is pretty clear ‘marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of reproduction’ i however also know that not ALL religious beliefs feel this way, such as Hinduism, and then there is the FACT that as a resident of this fine country that we were founded on religious freedom and our first amendment rights give us the right to worship as we see fit and the gov. is suppose to stay out of it ,so if your individual church ,regardless of biblical truth or knowledge, is willing to do so then by the laws of this COUNTRY they are supposed to have the right to do so under there beliefs.so this is a morel dilemma for me as i believe in the scripture but i also believe in other religious beliefs as well,they all realy interconnect anyway all the way back to Sumeria.

    my journey?(do i have time?) i was conceived out of sin as my father was married to another,he WAS catholic she was …..well i got to say she was raised more protestant than anything but because of my father being catholic i was raised and confirmed Lutheran (catholic lite! just as filling with half the guilt) my mom dabbled in different churches ,when i was youngand we went to alot of different churches and quite a few ‘circus tent shows’(you get that?) was enrolled in a catholic school in the 6th grade but was ‘exempted’ from religion class when they found me to contradictory to what they were teaching…i asked questions,and questioning the catholic church is a big no no, and finally settled in to a born again church centering on more the apocalyptic outlook (they said apocalyptic Evangeline) i was baptized in all 3.when i joined the military i gravitated more towards Judaism (no it wasn’t to get out of k.p. duty) in my search to find truth.after my tour was up i went towards the pagan beliefs and the Celts because that was more in line with my heritage than Christianity, even though i found a lot that i liked about it and the link to Christianity and Sumeria most of that stuff just wasn’t for me but one thing[ i did take from it is that God is the father but the earth IS our mother (gen2:7 )God created us from the dust of the earth. for what is a woman but fertile ground in which man is to plant his seed,funny how the bible teaches to honor the father but not the mother ]
    but to realy understand my journey you have to understand HOW i was raised in relation to God…very strict…the word of God was literally beaten into me,especially when at the age of 5 i was questioning things in the bible,yes i was already finding contradictions in the text (but not in translation that came later) the ‘TRUTH’ was then given to me by the rod,if you catch the meaning.when i was ‘exempted’ from class i still remember the day (i will never forget) i had to be picked up from school 2 hours late because after my ‘blasphemy’ that i committed in class i was taken to see father, where i sat for 7 hours being force fed catholic mantra (i called it my personal inquisition because that is how it felt,i had no choice and father was not going to let me leave until i “seen things his way”) so no matter which way i turned i was bombarded by different ‘truths’.

  • wayne

    actually all christian/catholic church belief says this,denouncing science and history to confirm there faith when it speaks against them.when i say ‘the church’ i am referring to every christianic church.
    AS A WHOLE not individual churches as individual churches ,even of the same branch,will preach differently according to the pastors personal beliefs and those of there congregation.an example would be the christian and Judaic churches that would allow homosexual marriage if it were legal.
    my view on the marriage thing……well thats a tuffy,see as a believer in the teachings of Jesus ,and the truth of the bible,biblical definition is pretty clear ‘marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of reproduction’ i however also know that not ALL religious beliefs feel this way, such as Hinduism, and then there is the FACT that as a resident of this fine country that we were founded on religious freedom and our first amendment rights give us the right to worship as we see fit and the gov. is suppose to stay out of it ,so if your individual church ,regardless of biblical truth or knowledge, is willing to do so then by the laws of this COUNTRY they are supposed to have the right to do so under there beliefs.so this is a morel dilemma for me as i believe in the scripture but i also believe in other religious beliefs as well,they all realy interconnect anyway all the way back to Sumeria.

    my journey?(do i have time?) i was conceived out of sin as my father was married to another,he WAS catholic she was …..well i got to say she was raised more protestant than anything but because of my father being catholic i was raised and confirmed Lutheran (catholic lite! just as filling with half the guilt) my mom dabbled in different churches ,when i was youngand we went to alot of different churches and quite a few ‘circus tent shows’(you get that?) was enrolled in a catholic school in the 6th grade but was ‘exempted’ from religion class when they found me to contradictory to what they were teaching…i asked questions,and questioning the catholic church is a big no no, and finally settled in to a born again church centering on more the apocalyptic outlook (they said apocalyptic Evangeline) i was baptized in all 3.when i joined the military i gravitated more towards Judaism (no it wasn’t to get out of k.p. duty) in my search to find truth.after my tour was up i went towards the pagan beliefs and the Celts because that was more in line with my heritage than Christianity, even though i found a lot that i liked about it and the link to Christianity and Sumeria most of that stuff just wasn’t for me but one thing[ i did take from it is that God is the father but the earth IS our mother (gen2:7 )God created us from the dust of the earth. for what is a woman but fertile ground in which man is to plant his seed,funny how the bible teaches to honor the father but not the mother ]
    but to realy understand my journey you have to understand HOW i was raised in relation to God…very strict…the word of God was literally beaten into me,especially when at the age of 5 i was questioning things in the bible,yes i was already finding contradictions in the text (but not in translation that came later) the ‘TRUTH’ was then given to me by the rod,if you catch the meaning.when i was ‘exempted’ from class i still remember the day (i will never forget) i had to be picked up from school 2 hours late because after my ‘blasphemy’ that i committed in class i was taken to see father, where i sat for 7 hours being force fed catholic mantra (i called it my personal inquisition because that is how it felt,i had no choice and father was not going to let me leave until i “seen things his way”) so no matter which way i turned i was bombarded by different ‘truths’.

  • fws

    Wayne @98

    “,funny how the bible teaches to honor the father but not the mother ”

    The Fourth Commandment.
    Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother [that it may be well with thee and thou mayest live long upon the earth].

    Yeah I know you mean “Mother Earth”.

    Here is what Lutheran’s believe. And what I believe that the Bible says.
    www. bookofconcord.org

    I would welcome you to question anything or everything in the book.

  • fws

    Wayne @98

    “,funny how the bible teaches to honor the father but not the mother ”

    The Fourth Commandment.
    Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother [that it may be well with thee and thou mayest live long upon the earth].

    Yeah I know you mean “Mother Earth”.

    Here is what Lutheran’s believe. And what I believe that the Bible says.
    www. bookofconcord.org

    I would welcome you to question anything or everything in the book.

  • wayne

    going to see the base rabbi did answer a lot of my questions but it raised even more,like the contradictions between the original text of the scriptures and the ‘modified’ text of the geneva,king james and new international versions of the bible (in the scriptures it is very clear that the messiah was to be from the seed of man not God) so when i got out the move to paganism was more or less me getting fed up with what i was being forced to believe and started me searching(for more reasons than one…i’ll get into that in a bit) even though i knew differently…how did i know?well here is where you are going to think i am off my rocker but starting when i was 3 or 4,before i even started to read well, i had this voice in my head that was telling me things,now not like what you hear on t.v. !that voice not once told me to put my kids in the trunk of a car and drive it into a river not once did it say to bring pain or hardship to another not once did it say anything to me other than telling me that what i was hearing was not the whole truth.this voice ,at times, got so load in my head that it actually made me physically ill when i was around ‘falsifiers’ and what they said.
    in my teen years i realy thought i was going insane and learned to hid it very well,i even went through a time where i tried to prove that voice( and the path it was telling me to take) wrong.but it kept talking to me.as it turns out i was following the path that was laid out for me regardless of what i thought.for all of this was to lead me to the truth and the truth is in the meaning not the word,but without the true words how do you find meaning?so i started looking into that.
    now i do not ‘speak’ any other language than American English,and probably poorly at that,but i can read.i rely on experts in there field to translate for me ,there are many books written by many authors on the subject (i have had 23 copies of translational text in my library,Hebrew(old and new),Greek,Sumerian,Latin etc.. now most of this can be found online)i learned quickly that if you reference translation from a devote catholic you will get a catholic opinion of the text etc…so i tried to find those books that offered non biased translations based on linguistics,history,and fact rather than religious people trying to re define text to fit there belief…but like i said this is all found online now making most of my personal collection out of date and slow to reference.
    now you might say “no wonder he’s so screwed up” but i see it a different way.most people are raised to believe in a specific religion so that is ALL they can see (if you home school a child and teach him 2+2=5 what will that child teach there children? this is how lies and misconceptions proliferated through history) i ,on the other hand,had the misfortune/advantage of seeing it many different ways and through this found the connection and truth of God.
    i lasted all of one week at Bethel,i left and got ordained through another source that allowed me to believe as you believe not only the way they wanted you to believe,so i am now considered non denominational (however i still can not get behind Scientology…just can’t)
    so that’s about it i guess,there is more to it but my fingers are already getting tired from ‘talking’ so much.
    currently i am continuing my research and compiling for my own testament to God while working in my ministry(don’t have a building to call a church) .whether anyone will ever read it or follow it isn’t up to me ,it’s just the path that i must follow.
    my ministry (one of them ,don’t laugh) is listed as ‘the church of the American Hotrod’ (yes i know how that sounds and it was meant to sound that way,but it is a christian church in that we follow the teachings of Jesus) where i do give services according to the 4 houses (ford,chevrolet,dodge and the all mighty AMC) i also manage to work in a few bits about God (whatever it takes to get people to understand the truth)and we are trying to write an ‘aftermarket’ bible (pun intended,but not the same as my testament) about the 4 house and the lessons we can learn from them.
    the bible is a book full of stories that you can find meaning and examples to lead your life ,our bible will be the same,but it is a supplementary text not meant to take away or overshadow the real bible.as simple as it sounds it isn’t ,i don’t expect it to be completed any time soon as finding ‘apostles and disciples’ to write the history of the houses in a non biased manor is proving to be difficult.it is a lesson in understanding.
    well i guess that’s about it,by now your probably thinking i’m a nut job but that’s o.k. ,to each his own.

  • wayne

    going to see the base rabbi did answer a lot of my questions but it raised even more,like the contradictions between the original text of the scriptures and the ‘modified’ text of the geneva,king james and new international versions of the bible (in the scriptures it is very clear that the messiah was to be from the seed of man not God) so when i got out the move to paganism was more or less me getting fed up with what i was being forced to believe and started me searching(for more reasons than one…i’ll get into that in a bit) even though i knew differently…how did i know?well here is where you are going to think i am off my rocker but starting when i was 3 or 4,before i even started to read well, i had this voice in my head that was telling me things,now not like what you hear on t.v. !that voice not once told me to put my kids in the trunk of a car and drive it into a river not once did it say to bring pain or hardship to another not once did it say anything to me other than telling me that what i was hearing was not the whole truth.this voice ,at times, got so load in my head that it actually made me physically ill when i was around ‘falsifiers’ and what they said.
    in my teen years i realy thought i was going insane and learned to hid it very well,i even went through a time where i tried to prove that voice( and the path it was telling me to take) wrong.but it kept talking to me.as it turns out i was following the path that was laid out for me regardless of what i thought.for all of this was to lead me to the truth and the truth is in the meaning not the word,but without the true words how do you find meaning?so i started looking into that.
    now i do not ‘speak’ any other language than American English,and probably poorly at that,but i can read.i rely on experts in there field to translate for me ,there are many books written by many authors on the subject (i have had 23 copies of translational text in my library,Hebrew(old and new),Greek,Sumerian,Latin etc.. now most of this can be found online)i learned quickly that if you reference translation from a devote catholic you will get a catholic opinion of the text etc…so i tried to find those books that offered non biased translations based on linguistics,history,and fact rather than religious people trying to re define text to fit there belief…but like i said this is all found online now making most of my personal collection out of date and slow to reference.
    now you might say “no wonder he’s so screwed up” but i see it a different way.most people are raised to believe in a specific religion so that is ALL they can see (if you home school a child and teach him 2+2=5 what will that child teach there children? this is how lies and misconceptions proliferated through history) i ,on the other hand,had the misfortune/advantage of seeing it many different ways and through this found the connection and truth of God.
    i lasted all of one week at Bethel,i left and got ordained through another source that allowed me to believe as you believe not only the way they wanted you to believe,so i am now considered non denominational (however i still can not get behind Scientology…just can’t)
    so that’s about it i guess,there is more to it but my fingers are already getting tired from ‘talking’ so much.
    currently i am continuing my research and compiling for my own testament to God while working in my ministry(don’t have a building to call a church) .whether anyone will ever read it or follow it isn’t up to me ,it’s just the path that i must follow.
    my ministry (one of them ,don’t laugh) is listed as ‘the church of the American Hotrod’ (yes i know how that sounds and it was meant to sound that way,but it is a christian church in that we follow the teachings of Jesus) where i do give services according to the 4 houses (ford,chevrolet,dodge and the all mighty AMC) i also manage to work in a few bits about God (whatever it takes to get people to understand the truth)and we are trying to write an ‘aftermarket’ bible (pun intended,but not the same as my testament) about the 4 house and the lessons we can learn from them.
    the bible is a book full of stories that you can find meaning and examples to lead your life ,our bible will be the same,but it is a supplementary text not meant to take away or overshadow the real bible.as simple as it sounds it isn’t ,i don’t expect it to be completed any time soon as finding ‘apostles and disciples’ to write the history of the houses in a non biased manor is proving to be difficult.it is a lesson in understanding.
    well i guess that’s about it,by now your probably thinking i’m a nut job but that’s o.k. ,to each his own.

  • wayne

    i think i have a ‘book of concord’ in german, somewhere in my collection(don’t have one in english) .i have 163 different bibles in different languages (always thought it would be a good way to learn a different language) and versions along with well over 300 books on different religious beliefs and practices,most of which i use for comparison of text.my most prized are my family bible from my mothers side it is a 1680 geneva (valued at more than my house) and a 1640 king james ,unmarked!(also worth more than my house) but ,and don’t ask me why cause i don’t realy know,my favorite is my 1735 printed in amsterdam holland printed in english.i think it’s more the fact that i just like the ‘feel’ of it for some reason.it’s old with a few loose pages in the front but the cover page print is just beautiful in it’s simplicity (unlike my almost unreadable king james) most of my bibles are 1880 and older with most in the 1800,s (got an OCD thing about bibles) and i still have my good news bible from confirmation.i also have a torah,book form not scroll,that is fairly new printed in Israel 1970 in Hebrew (back to front…that always gets people)

  • wayne

    i think i have a ‘book of concord’ in german, somewhere in my collection(don’t have one in english) .i have 163 different bibles in different languages (always thought it would be a good way to learn a different language) and versions along with well over 300 books on different religious beliefs and practices,most of which i use for comparison of text.my most prized are my family bible from my mothers side it is a 1680 geneva (valued at more than my house) and a 1640 king james ,unmarked!(also worth more than my house) but ,and don’t ask me why cause i don’t realy know,my favorite is my 1735 printed in amsterdam holland printed in english.i think it’s more the fact that i just like the ‘feel’ of it for some reason.it’s old with a few loose pages in the front but the cover page print is just beautiful in it’s simplicity (unlike my almost unreadable king james) most of my bibles are 1880 and older with most in the 1800,s (got an OCD thing about bibles) and i still have my good news bible from confirmation.i also have a torah,book form not scroll,that is fairly new printed in Israel 1970 in Hebrew (back to front…that always gets people)

  • fws

    on left side of this blog is something “on those broken by the church” by rod rosemblat. you might want to listen to it wayne.

  • fws

    on left side of this blog is something “on those broken by the church” by rod rosemblat. you might want to listen to it wayne.

  • wayne

    fws,
    broken? sorry to say but i realy resent that,probably as much as someone telling you that homosexuality can be ‘cured’!
    no matter what happened as i was growing up i wouldn’t change one single thing about it because it was those experiences that make me who i am today,and have lead me TO God,and like you,i am fine with who i am.

  • wayne

    fws,
    broken? sorry to say but i realy resent that,probably as much as someone telling you that homosexuality can be ‘cured’!
    no matter what happened as i was growing up i wouldn’t change one single thing about it because it was those experiences that make me who i am today,and have lead me TO God,and like you,i am fine with who i am.