Denying Communion to a lesbian

This story marshalled so much outrage that it made the front page of the Washington Post:

Deep in grief, Barbara Johnson stood first in the line for Communion at her mother’s funeral Saturday morning. But the priest in front of her immediately made it clear that she would not receive the sacramental bread and wine.

Johnson, an art-studio owner from the District, had come to St. John Neumann Catholic Church in Gaithersburg with her lesbian partner. The Rev. Marcel Guarnizo had learned of their relationship just before the service.

“He put his hand over the body of Christ and looked at me and said, ‘I can’t give you Communion because you live with a woman, and in the eyes of the church, that is a sin,’ ” she recalled Tuesday.

She reacted with stunned silence. Her anger and outrage have now led her and members of her family to demand that Guarnizo be removed from his ministry.

Family members said the priest left the altar while Johnson, 51, was delivering a eulogy and did not attend the burial or find another priest to be there.

“You brought your politics, not your God into that Church yesterday, and you will pay dearly on the day of judgment for judging me,” she wrote in a letter to Guarnizo. “I will pray for your soul, but first I will do everything in my power to see that you are removed from parish life so that you will not be permitted to harm any more families.”

Late Tuesday, Johnson received a letter of apology from the Rev. Barry Knestout, one of the archdiocese’s highest-ranking administrators, who said the lack of “kindness” she and her family received “is a cause of great concern and personal regret to me.” . . .

Johnson called the letter “comforting” and said she greatly appreciates the apology. But, she added, “I will not be satisfied” until Guarnizo is removed.

via D.C. archdiocese: Denying Communion to lesbian at funeral was against ‘policy’ – The Washington Post.

So church discipline is now the business of the news media, the public, and people who do not belong to the church.   I wonder if the person who was denied communion could sue for having her rights violated.

Having said that, the incident seems to bring up some differences between the Roman Catholic use of the Sacrament and that of, for instance, Lutherans.  (I’d like to hear from Reformed, Baptist, Orthodox, and other traditions about how they would handle this.)

For Catholics, one should be free from sin–confessed, absolved, penance performed–before receiving the Sacrament.  Lutherans, in contrast, see the Sacrament as being specifically for sinners.  To receive the Sacrament unworthily is to receive it without faith (Small Catechism vi).

And yet, I’m not sure how this is handled pastorally.  Perhaps someone living in open and unrepentant sin is likely not in a state of faith.  On the other hand, perhaps she has repented.  If she confessed her sin in the rite of confession and she was absolved, hasn’t she, in fact, been objectively forgiven?  Lutheran pastors, how would you have dealt with this woman?  Again, I’d like to hear from pastors of other traditions also.  (For those of you who think communion is only symbolic, would this not be an issue at all since it doesn’t really matter?)

For this discussion, please do me a favor:  Please leave out complaints about Lutheran churches that practice closed communion!  (“You’d commune that lesbian, but not me because I’m a Methodist!”)  We have had that discussion.  Your complaint is registered.  Let’s stick to the issues raised in this story.

HT:  Aaron Lewis

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.

  • SKPeterson

    Well lesbian Methodists are right out, then.

    I will point out though that Lutherans always (?) precede the Eucharist with the Absolution in the liturgy. The problem becomes ascertaining repentance and continuance of sin or the intent to sin. This is troubling because so much of our sin is willful and repetitive. When does it cross the line? Where and when does remorse for willful and repetitive sin end and when does it become unrepentant? I think the problem the Church faces with homosexuality is not its sinfulness per se, but its demand to be “unsinned” and its unrepentance excused.

  • SKPeterson

    Well lesbian Methodists are right out, then.

    I will point out though that Lutherans always (?) precede the Eucharist with the Absolution in the liturgy. The problem becomes ascertaining repentance and continuance of sin or the intent to sin. This is troubling because so much of our sin is willful and repetitive. When does it cross the line? Where and when does remorse for willful and repetitive sin end and when does it become unrepentant? I think the problem the Church faces with homosexuality is not its sinfulness per se, but its demand to be “unsinned” and its unrepentance excused.

  • Dan Kempin

    “So church discipline is now the business of the news media, the public, and people who do not belong to the church.”

    Actually, this smacks of pre-election media campaigning to me. “Religious people are scary! They want to ban contraception! They hate homosexuals!” That sort of thing. I expect a steady barrage of this sort of coverage through the year.

    That said, I think your question is very good: How is (and should) this be handled pastorally? This gives an opportunity to discuss the role of the pastor in the sacrament and in general.

    “If she confessed her sin in the rite of confession and she was absolved, hasn’t she, in fact, been objectively forgiven?”

    One could make the argument here that confession and absolution should not be done in an every-week-sunday-service corporate setting. Such a practice actually works against just this sort of situation for pastoral care. (As does the policy driven check-here-if-you-believe-this-or-are-a-member-of-an-LCMS-church self diagnostic for communion admission. Policy driven practice cuts out the pastor almost entirely.)

    Short answer: The pastor should engage the situation as a sympathetic fellow sinner. If, in the course of his ministry, he judges that she should receive the Lord’s supper, then she should receive it. If he is persuaded that she should not, then she should not.

    In the case study above, the priest already knew about her situation in refusing her. That indicates that there was probably some level of pastoral care previously. And that this was likely a set-up. I mean, refusing a lesbian at her own mother’s funeral? You can’t pass up a story like that.

  • Dan Kempin

    “So church discipline is now the business of the news media, the public, and people who do not belong to the church.”

    Actually, this smacks of pre-election media campaigning to me. “Religious people are scary! They want to ban contraception! They hate homosexuals!” That sort of thing. I expect a steady barrage of this sort of coverage through the year.

    That said, I think your question is very good: How is (and should) this be handled pastorally? This gives an opportunity to discuss the role of the pastor in the sacrament and in general.

    “If she confessed her sin in the rite of confession and she was absolved, hasn’t she, in fact, been objectively forgiven?”

    One could make the argument here that confession and absolution should not be done in an every-week-sunday-service corporate setting. Such a practice actually works against just this sort of situation for pastoral care. (As does the policy driven check-here-if-you-believe-this-or-are-a-member-of-an-LCMS-church self diagnostic for communion admission. Policy driven practice cuts out the pastor almost entirely.)

    Short answer: The pastor should engage the situation as a sympathetic fellow sinner. If, in the course of his ministry, he judges that she should receive the Lord’s supper, then she should receive it. If he is persuaded that she should not, then she should not.

    In the case study above, the priest already knew about her situation in refusing her. That indicates that there was probably some level of pastoral care previously. And that this was likely a set-up. I mean, refusing a lesbian at her own mother’s funeral? You can’t pass up a story like that.

  • Michael B.

    Before we say what the pastor should do, we have to first say that the pastor has a right to discriminate against this homosexual. If the pastor wanted to, he should be able to stop her from even entering the church, in addition to taking sacraments. If however, the church was trying to promote its anti-homosexual policy as a matter of government policy, that would be a different scenario, such as in the case of forbidding gays to marry.

  • Michael B.

    Before we say what the pastor should do, we have to first say that the pastor has a right to discriminate against this homosexual. If the pastor wanted to, he should be able to stop her from even entering the church, in addition to taking sacraments. If however, the church was trying to promote its anti-homosexual policy as a matter of government policy, that would be a different scenario, such as in the case of forbidding gays to marry.

  • Philip Larson

    Ours is a Reformed church, and we practice semi-closed communion: communicant members may come, as well as others who speak with the session earlier. During that conversation, we seek to find if visitors are members of an evangelical church, and if they are under discipline. If we knew they were living in open sin, they could not come.

  • Philip Larson

    Ours is a Reformed church, and we practice semi-closed communion: communicant members may come, as well as others who speak with the session earlier. During that conversation, we seek to find if visitors are members of an evangelical church, and if they are under discipline. If we knew they were living in open sin, they could not come.

  • Joe

    If the pastor knows the person is in a persistent state of unrepentant sin, he should refuse to commune the person until such time as there is repentance. The withholding of the sacrament is not a punishment. It is done out of love, lest the person drink damnation unto herself. It is done to work repentance, to show her her sin so that she might repent and be forgiven.

    “manifest and obstinate sinners are not admitted to the Sacrament and other communion of the Church until they amend their lives and avoid sin.” Smalcald Articles. Part III, Art. IX

    Of course, this is best handled with discussion and counseling before hand. The person should have been instructed not to come to the rail and should have then entered into a period of counseling with the pastor.

  • Joe

    If the pastor knows the person is in a persistent state of unrepentant sin, he should refuse to commune the person until such time as there is repentance. The withholding of the sacrament is not a punishment. It is done out of love, lest the person drink damnation unto herself. It is done to work repentance, to show her her sin so that she might repent and be forgiven.

    “manifest and obstinate sinners are not admitted to the Sacrament and other communion of the Church until they amend their lives and avoid sin.” Smalcald Articles. Part III, Art. IX

    Of course, this is best handled with discussion and counseling before hand. The person should have been instructed not to come to the rail and should have then entered into a period of counseling with the pastor.

  • palauer

    First off, I don’t think many Lutherans would be offering the Sacrament at a funeral which is most often attended by many non-members and non-Lutherans.

    I am also beginning to wonder if we are coming to the time when the sacrament will no longer be offered in a “public” service but, as with the ancient church, be celebrated in a “closed door” assembly where only those who are in fellowship with the congregation are present. In the Didache (circa 100 A.D.?) those not communing were excused and the doors were locked prior to the celebration of the sacrament.

    Personally, I have experienced increasing difficulty in my 20 years of administrating the sacrament; especially in a congregation of more than 1,200 members as church-hopping and frequent relocation create constant and sizable turnovers in membership. I can only see much smaller congregations or less frequent, less public celebrations of the Sacrament as the only alternatives to open communion.

    Finally, I can’t help but think that we are coming to another schism within Western Christianity between those who believe that doctrine and practice should conform to the culture vs. those who believe that practice should conform to doctrine. Such a divide might realign denominations completely and probably split every one just as we have experienced in American Lutheranism and is increasingly apparent in American Catholicism — a whole new “conservative” vs. “secular” reformation?

  • palauer

    First off, I don’t think many Lutherans would be offering the Sacrament at a funeral which is most often attended by many non-members and non-Lutherans.

    I am also beginning to wonder if we are coming to the time when the sacrament will no longer be offered in a “public” service but, as with the ancient church, be celebrated in a “closed door” assembly where only those who are in fellowship with the congregation are present. In the Didache (circa 100 A.D.?) those not communing were excused and the doors were locked prior to the celebration of the sacrament.

    Personally, I have experienced increasing difficulty in my 20 years of administrating the sacrament; especially in a congregation of more than 1,200 members as church-hopping and frequent relocation create constant and sizable turnovers in membership. I can only see much smaller congregations or less frequent, less public celebrations of the Sacrament as the only alternatives to open communion.

    Finally, I can’t help but think that we are coming to another schism within Western Christianity between those who believe that doctrine and practice should conform to the culture vs. those who believe that practice should conform to doctrine. Such a divide might realign denominations completely and probably split every one just as we have experienced in American Lutheranism and is increasingly apparent in American Catholicism — a whole new “conservative” vs. “secular” reformation?

  • Edward Bryant

    The administration of the Sacrament of Holy Communion is a pastoral responsibility. For this reason we don’t offer the Lord’s Supper at funerals and weddings: Many of those present are not under the pastor’s care and presumably would be communed by their own pastor in their own parish.

    I have always maintained the practice of communion registration, which gives the opportunity to address issues that come to our attention at that awkward time just before the service starts. We always hope that those who need to be subject to church discipline will meet with us in their living room or kitchen over a cup of coffee.

    For a pastor to ALWAYS give communion to those who demand (!) it and NEVER to withold it is the same as saying we must always preach the gospel and never the law. Surely the gospel is our first calling, but Jesus also engaged in the “alien work” of calling to repentance.

  • Edward Bryant

    The administration of the Sacrament of Holy Communion is a pastoral responsibility. For this reason we don’t offer the Lord’s Supper at funerals and weddings: Many of those present are not under the pastor’s care and presumably would be communed by their own pastor in their own parish.

    I have always maintained the practice of communion registration, which gives the opportunity to address issues that come to our attention at that awkward time just before the service starts. We always hope that those who need to be subject to church discipline will meet with us in their living room or kitchen over a cup of coffee.

    For a pastor to ALWAYS give communion to those who demand (!) it and NEVER to withold it is the same as saying we must always preach the gospel and never the law. Surely the gospel is our first calling, but Jesus also engaged in the “alien work” of calling to repentance.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    I never offer communion at a funeral, and rarely at a wedding. Simply because there are going to be a bunch of people I don’t know and it is already an emotionally charged time. Don’t need to throw gasoline on the fire, you know.

    I only take steps such as the minor ban only after other avenues have been exhausted

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    I never offer communion at a funeral, and rarely at a wedding. Simply because there are going to be a bunch of people I don’t know and it is already an emotionally charged time. Don’t need to throw gasoline on the fire, you know.

    I only take steps such as the minor ban only after other avenues have been exhausted

  • Joe

    I would also point out the title of this post is a bit concerning. She was not denied communion do too her sexual orientation. She was denied communication because she was opening living in a state of public sin.

  • Joe

    I would also point out the title of this post is a bit concerning. She was not denied communion do too her sexual orientation. She was denied communication because she was opening living in a state of public sin.

  • Dan Kempin

    Joe, #5,

    “If the pastor knows the person is in a persistent state of unrepentant sin, he should refuse to commune the person until such time as there is repentance. . . The person should have been instructed not to come to the rail and should have then entered into a period of counseling with the pastor.”

    True. Even better, the pastor should be the one to seek to counsel the person.

    palauer, #6,

    “I can only see much smaller congregations or less frequent, less public celebrations of the Sacrament as the only alternatives to open communion. ”

    Interesting. I was beginning to think I was the only one to have concerns over increasing the frequency of the Sacrament without adequate pastoral care. The confessions emphasize the latter much more than the former.

    Edward Bryant, #7,

    I’d be interested to hear how you carry out your practice of registration and pastoral care. We are striving to re-discover that at my church, and I am curious to know what is working for you.

    We currently have scheduled “chapel” hours with the pastors and encourage all those who commune regularly to stop by at least occasionally for a visit. We are hoping to demonstrate in practice the positive role of the pastor in the spiritual journey rather than just seeing him as an authoratative gate-keeper. We are also encouraging the same sort of proactive communication that you suggest about upcoming visitors, etc., with some result, though very marginal.

    In general, I think communion reception needs to be shifted away from policy and to the pastor. That is our theology, after all.

  • Dan Kempin

    Joe, #5,

    “If the pastor knows the person is in a persistent state of unrepentant sin, he should refuse to commune the person until such time as there is repentance. . . The person should have been instructed not to come to the rail and should have then entered into a period of counseling with the pastor.”

    True. Even better, the pastor should be the one to seek to counsel the person.

    palauer, #6,

    “I can only see much smaller congregations or less frequent, less public celebrations of the Sacrament as the only alternatives to open communion. ”

    Interesting. I was beginning to think I was the only one to have concerns over increasing the frequency of the Sacrament without adequate pastoral care. The confessions emphasize the latter much more than the former.

    Edward Bryant, #7,

    I’d be interested to hear how you carry out your practice of registration and pastoral care. We are striving to re-discover that at my church, and I am curious to know what is working for you.

    We currently have scheduled “chapel” hours with the pastors and encourage all those who commune regularly to stop by at least occasionally for a visit. We are hoping to demonstrate in practice the positive role of the pastor in the spiritual journey rather than just seeing him as an authoratative gate-keeper. We are also encouraging the same sort of proactive communication that you suggest about upcoming visitors, etc., with some result, though very marginal.

    In general, I think communion reception needs to be shifted away from policy and to the pastor. That is our theology, after all.

  • TE Schroeder

    The reported exchange between Rev. Marcel Guarnizo and Miss Johnson was interesting. Rev. Guarnizo is reported to have said, “I can’t give you Communion because you live with a woman, and in the eyes of the church, that is a sin. ” In her subsequent letter, Miss Johnson retorted, “You brought your politics, not your God into that Church yesterday, and you will pay dearly on the day of judgment for judging me.”

    If, indeed, Rev. Guarnizo based his judgment and practice on “what the Church says,” it sounds like a political issue. It would have been better and clearer to state, “this is what the Lord says,” though to be fair, I suspect that is what Rev. Guarnizo had in mind if he referred to the Church. If Rev. Guarnizo had based his words on God’s word, Miss Johnson would have been in the difficult position of trying to defend her manifest sins by defying God’s word.

    Unfortunately, way too many alleged Christians invoke a “God” who does not exist — one who will not condemn anyone except the people who correctly quote him and hold to his word.

    From everything I gather from this report, Rev. Guarnizo handled this situation correctly. Sure, the timing was unfortunate (mom’s funeral), but Miss Johnson should have recognized the church’s practice and acted accordingly. She forced the issue, and she is livid that she was called to repent — that the church actually did what the church is supposed to do! I commend Rev. Guarnizo for his courage and faithfulness in this instance.

  • TE Schroeder

    The reported exchange between Rev. Marcel Guarnizo and Miss Johnson was interesting. Rev. Guarnizo is reported to have said, “I can’t give you Communion because you live with a woman, and in the eyes of the church, that is a sin. ” In her subsequent letter, Miss Johnson retorted, “You brought your politics, not your God into that Church yesterday, and you will pay dearly on the day of judgment for judging me.”

    If, indeed, Rev. Guarnizo based his judgment and practice on “what the Church says,” it sounds like a political issue. It would have been better and clearer to state, “this is what the Lord says,” though to be fair, I suspect that is what Rev. Guarnizo had in mind if he referred to the Church. If Rev. Guarnizo had based his words on God’s word, Miss Johnson would have been in the difficult position of trying to defend her manifest sins by defying God’s word.

    Unfortunately, way too many alleged Christians invoke a “God” who does not exist — one who will not condemn anyone except the people who correctly quote him and hold to his word.

    From everything I gather from this report, Rev. Guarnizo handled this situation correctly. Sure, the timing was unfortunate (mom’s funeral), but Miss Johnson should have recognized the church’s practice and acted accordingly. She forced the issue, and she is livid that she was called to repent — that the church actually did what the church is supposed to do! I commend Rev. Guarnizo for his courage and faithfulness in this instance.

  • Jon

    It’s always a good feeling to know that your boss has got your back and won’t throw you under the bus!

    “Late Tuesday, Johnson received a letter of apology from the Rev. Barry Knestout, one of the archdiocese’s highest-ranking administrators, who said the lack of “kindness” she and her family received “is a cause of great concern and personal regret to me.”

  • Jon

    It’s always a good feeling to know that your boss has got your back and won’t throw you under the bus!

    “Late Tuesday, Johnson received a letter of apology from the Rev. Barry Knestout, one of the archdiocese’s highest-ranking administrators, who said the lack of “kindness” she and her family received “is a cause of great concern and personal regret to me.”

  • D’Arcy

    One of the most disheartening things is that the family decided to take what happened to the press (print & television) rather than handle the matter through the Archdiocese.

    One doesn’t get press coverage that fast unless you have inside contacts. I am willing to be some outside organization was involved.

  • D’Arcy

    One of the most disheartening things is that the family decided to take what happened to the press (print & television) rather than handle the matter through the Archdiocese.

    One doesn’t get press coverage that fast unless you have inside contacts. I am willing to be some outside organization was involved.

  • Jerry

    The Lord’s Supper is for sinners. Repentance is a work of faith after receiving the free forgiveness of sins Christ; it signifies that we have been forgiven. When a person does not repent they lose that assurance of the free gift even though the gift is still there…it does call for discretion on the part of the one serving. They may deny the sacrament for the sole purpose of bringing the recipient to this awareness.

  • Jerry

    The Lord’s Supper is for sinners. Repentance is a work of faith after receiving the free forgiveness of sins Christ; it signifies that we have been forgiven. When a person does not repent they lose that assurance of the free gift even though the gift is still there…it does call for discretion on the part of the one serving. They may deny the sacrament for the sole purpose of bringing the recipient to this awareness.

  • Grace

    “Having said that, the incident seems to bring up some differences between the Roman Catholic use of the Sacrament and that of, for instance, Lutherans. (I’d like to hear from Reformed, Baptist, Orthodox, and other traditions about how they would handle this.)”

    The LORD’s Supper is not given at funerals or memorials in any of the churches I have been affiliated. But if there were that opportunity, and those pastors, knowing full well that those living in sin would partake, I doubt it would be offered.

    What does it mean if one repents of willful sin, with every intention of repeating it later on in the day, or week?

  • Grace

    “Having said that, the incident seems to bring up some differences between the Roman Catholic use of the Sacrament and that of, for instance, Lutherans. (I’d like to hear from Reformed, Baptist, Orthodox, and other traditions about how they would handle this.)”

    The LORD’s Supper is not given at funerals or memorials in any of the churches I have been affiliated. But if there were that opportunity, and those pastors, knowing full well that those living in sin would partake, I doubt it would be offered.

    What does it mean if one repents of willful sin, with every intention of repeating it later on in the day, or week?

  • reg

    As a Baptist I would suggest that the Pastor’s role is to issue a warning as to the consequences of receiving the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner. After that it is up to each person to judge themselves. In Baptist churches the little cups of juice and the bread are passed around the pews, so that the Pastor is not the person doing the passing.
    1 Cor. 11
    27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged.

    If there was a persistent issue, the Pastor could take the person aside outside of Sunday morning and seek to impress upon them the gravity and consequences of not taking the supper appropriately.
    But I know Lutherans and other more sacramental denominations view this differently.

  • reg

    As a Baptist I would suggest that the Pastor’s role is to issue a warning as to the consequences of receiving the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner. After that it is up to each person to judge themselves. In Baptist churches the little cups of juice and the bread are passed around the pews, so that the Pastor is not the person doing the passing.
    1 Cor. 11
    27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged.

    If there was a persistent issue, the Pastor could take the person aside outside of Sunday morning and seek to impress upon them the gravity and consequences of not taking the supper appropriately.
    But I know Lutherans and other more sacramental denominations view this differently.

  • mikeb

    I believe my LCMS pastor would have acted in a similar manner and I would have supported him against any (false) charges. Indeed, the Sacrament is for sinners, but only those sinners who are slaves to the true Master, Jesus Christ. An openly unrepentant sinner is a slave to another master and should (and was it seems) be invited to repent and receive His forgiveness lest they eat and drink judgment upon themselves.

    Some of my family members attend a Free Will Baptist congregation who share a theology of protecting the Table, though I am not sure why. Their crackers and grape drink, which were not given and shed for the remission of sins, are merely symbols and do nothing for the believer in their view but are offered freely to all Baptized believers in Christ regardless of creed but are not given to ‘sinners’ (to them, what we Lutherans would call openly unrepentant sinners are ‘sinners’ for believers do not sin, but that is another topic).

  • mikeb

    I believe my LCMS pastor would have acted in a similar manner and I would have supported him against any (false) charges. Indeed, the Sacrament is for sinners, but only those sinners who are slaves to the true Master, Jesus Christ. An openly unrepentant sinner is a slave to another master and should (and was it seems) be invited to repent and receive His forgiveness lest they eat and drink judgment upon themselves.

    Some of my family members attend a Free Will Baptist congregation who share a theology of protecting the Table, though I am not sure why. Their crackers and grape drink, which were not given and shed for the remission of sins, are merely symbols and do nothing for the believer in their view but are offered freely to all Baptized believers in Christ regardless of creed but are not given to ‘sinners’ (to them, what we Lutherans would call openly unrepentant sinners are ‘sinners’ for believers do not sin, but that is another topic).

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    When Rev. Guarnizo met with Barbara Johnson prior to the funeral he informed her not to present herself to receive Holy Communion.

    She did so anyways in violation of his prior request.

    Rev. Guarnizo guarded the rail properly. And is to be lauded and affirmed.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    When Rev. Guarnizo met with Barbara Johnson prior to the funeral he informed her not to present herself to receive Holy Communion.

    She did so anyways in violation of his prior request.

    Rev. Guarnizo guarded the rail properly. And is to be lauded and affirmed.

  • lacrimosa dies illa

    Lutheran Pastor: Do you want forgiveness for your lesbianism?
    Lesbian: No.
    Lutheran Pastor: I’m sorry to hear that. I would very much like to commune you, but this sacrament is for the forgiveness of lesbianism and all other sins. If you don’t desire to be forgiven of your lesbianism, then you don’t desire this sacrament.

  • lacrimosa dies illa

    Lutheran Pastor: Do you want forgiveness for your lesbianism?
    Lesbian: No.
    Lutheran Pastor: I’m sorry to hear that. I would very much like to commune you, but this sacrament is for the forgiveness of lesbianism and all other sins. If you don’t desire to be forgiven of your lesbianism, then you don’t desire this sacrament.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    “Lutheran Pastor: Do you want forgiveness for your lesbianism?

    Lesbian: No.

    Lutheran Pastor: I’m sorry to hear that. I would very much like to commune you, but this sacrament is for the forgiveness of lesbianism and all other sins. If you don’t desire to be forgiven of your lesbianism, then you don’t desire this sacrament.”

    Aren’t there actively open homosexual Lutheran pastors in the ELCA who take communion themselves and who also offer communion to other actively open homosexual Lutherans?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    “Lutheran Pastor: Do you want forgiveness for your lesbianism?

    Lesbian: No.

    Lutheran Pastor: I’m sorry to hear that. I would very much like to commune you, but this sacrament is for the forgiveness of lesbianism and all other sins. If you don’t desire to be forgiven of your lesbianism, then you don’t desire this sacrament.”

    Aren’t there actively open homosexual Lutheran pastors in the ELCA who take communion themselves and who also offer communion to other actively open homosexual Lutherans?

  • lacrimosa dies illa

    Lutheran Pastor: Do you desire forgiveness for your homosexuality, for denigrating the words “Lutheran” and “Pastor,” and for your false teaching on this subject?
    ELCA Pastor: No.
    Lutheran Pastor: I’m sorry to hear that. I would very much like to commune you, but this sacrament is for the forgiveness of the aforementioned sins. If you don’t desire to be forgiven of these things, then you don’t desire this sacrament.

  • lacrimosa dies illa

    Lutheran Pastor: Do you desire forgiveness for your homosexuality, for denigrating the words “Lutheran” and “Pastor,” and for your false teaching on this subject?
    ELCA Pastor: No.
    Lutheran Pastor: I’m sorry to hear that. I would very much like to commune you, but this sacrament is for the forgiveness of the aforementioned sins. If you don’t desire to be forgiven of these things, then you don’t desire this sacrament.

  • Joe

    @19 – I think we need to define the sin. It is not “being” a lesbian, as in having urges or temptations. It is affirming those urges and willfully engaging in same sex sexual activity.

    A Lutheran pastor would not refuse the sacrament to someone who struggles with same sex impulses any more than he would refuse to commune someone who struggles to avoid gossiping or lying or loving money.

    Grace @ 15 “What does it mean if one repents of willful sin, with every intention of repeating it later on in the day, or week?”

    It means they have not repented. Repentance is more than saying I’m sorry. It includes a desire to change the behavior. Now, we can never be completely sure about what is in someone’s heart. I have sincerely repented of a sin and then later failed. We’re sinners that’s what we do. At some point, the Pastor (perhaps with the assistance of others who may be involved in the process) is going to have to make a determination regarding the sincerity of the repentance – about the desire to change. Each case will present many individualized facts that will need to be considered. In the case at issue, a good objective sign that she was serious about changing her behavior would be if she stopped co-habituating. Again, there is no sure way to make this call. But hopefully the pastor will have met with the person, have admonished them, reminded them that there is forgiveness for them in Christ and helped them work through these issues. And. most of all prayed for and with them.

  • Joe

    @19 – I think we need to define the sin. It is not “being” a lesbian, as in having urges or temptations. It is affirming those urges and willfully engaging in same sex sexual activity.

    A Lutheran pastor would not refuse the sacrament to someone who struggles with same sex impulses any more than he would refuse to commune someone who struggles to avoid gossiping or lying or loving money.

    Grace @ 15 “What does it mean if one repents of willful sin, with every intention of repeating it later on in the day, or week?”

    It means they have not repented. Repentance is more than saying I’m sorry. It includes a desire to change the behavior. Now, we can never be completely sure about what is in someone’s heart. I have sincerely repented of a sin and then later failed. We’re sinners that’s what we do. At some point, the Pastor (perhaps with the assistance of others who may be involved in the process) is going to have to make a determination regarding the sincerity of the repentance – about the desire to change. Each case will present many individualized facts that will need to be considered. In the case at issue, a good objective sign that she was serious about changing her behavior would be if she stopped co-habituating. Again, there is no sure way to make this call. But hopefully the pastor will have met with the person, have admonished them, reminded them that there is forgiveness for them in Christ and helped them work through these issues. And. most of all prayed for and with them.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    A Lutheran visits an ELCA Church after reading the ELCA Confession of Faith. In particular, s/he notes the following in ELCA’s Confession of Faith:

    o This church accepts the Unaltered Augsburg Confession as a true witness to the Gospel, acknowledging as one with it In faith and doctrine all churches that likewise accept the teachings of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession.

    o This church accepts the other confessional writings in the Book of Concord, namely, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles and the Treatise, the Small Catechism, the Large Catechism, and the Formula of Concord, as further valid interpretations of the faith of the Church.

    The visiting Lutheran then witnesses an actively open homosexual Lutheran pastor giving Holy Communion to actively open homosexual Lutheran congregants.

    Does the visiting Lutheran take Holy Communion in this Lutheran church?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    A Lutheran visits an ELCA Church after reading the ELCA Confession of Faith. In particular, s/he notes the following in ELCA’s Confession of Faith:

    o This church accepts the Unaltered Augsburg Confession as a true witness to the Gospel, acknowledging as one with it In faith and doctrine all churches that likewise accept the teachings of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession.

    o This church accepts the other confessional writings in the Book of Concord, namely, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles and the Treatise, the Small Catechism, the Large Catechism, and the Formula of Concord, as further valid interpretations of the faith of the Church.

    The visiting Lutheran then witnesses an actively open homosexual Lutheran pastor giving Holy Communion to actively open homosexual Lutheran congregants.

    Does the visiting Lutheran take Holy Communion in this Lutheran church?

  • kerner

    TU&D @23:

    This Lutheran does not.

  • kerner

    TU&D @23:

    This Lutheran does not.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    @ Kerner, #24,

    Why?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    @ Kerner, #24,

    Why?

  • Joe

    Neither does this Lutheran. Because their entry into alter and pulpit fellowship with non-Lutheran churches proves that their subscription to the confessions is not what it appears to be. Because their practice demonstrates that they don’t believe (or at least don’t require any sort of uniformity of belief) what the confessions teach.

    I say this as one who left the ELCA.

  • Joe

    Neither does this Lutheran. Because their entry into alter and pulpit fellowship with non-Lutheran churches proves that their subscription to the confessions is not what it appears to be. Because their practice demonstrates that they don’t believe (or at least don’t require any sort of uniformity of belief) what the confessions teach.

    I say this as one who left the ELCA.

  • Jon

    Because they don’t also accept the Treatise on the power and primacy of the Pope.

    And also other confessions we don’t share, like if I know this body/congregation affirms as *not sin* that which God has abjectly called sin, then I cannot go to the rail with this errant brother.

  • Jon

    Because they don’t also accept the Treatise on the power and primacy of the Pope.

    And also other confessions we don’t share, like if I know this body/congregation affirms as *not sin* that which God has abjectly called sin, then I cannot go to the rail with this errant brother.

  • Jon

    Joe @ 22, disagree with the need to repent of the orientation. The orientation s/he may have is disordered, not created by God, a consequence of the fall. No more so than an alcoholic needs to repent of his/her particular “ism.” They may have a propensity to it–but it is also disordered. We aren’t sinners because we sin (that is, act on our lusts) rather because of our sinful nature, which manifests itself in disordered ways, like same-sex attraction. Ergo, it needs to be repented.

  • Jon

    Joe @ 22, disagree with the need to repent of the orientation. The orientation s/he may have is disordered, not created by God, a consequence of the fall. No more so than an alcoholic needs to repent of his/her particular “ism.” They may have a propensity to it–but it is also disordered. We aren’t sinners because we sin (that is, act on our lusts) rather because of our sinful nature, which manifests itself in disordered ways, like same-sex attraction. Ergo, it needs to be repented.

  • lacrimosa dies illa

    @ Joe – A rather decent theologian argues that even lust in the eye is adultery and thus sin. Do you think saints in heaven have lesbian “urges” and “temptations”? These are sin and fallenness.

    Lutheran Pastor: Do you acknowledge these “urges” to be sin and therefore want forgiveness?

    A faithful Lutheran pastor *would* refuse communion to someone who answers “no” to this question. If the person answers “yes,” the faithful Lutheran pastor would gladly give communion. Both circumstances would be followed with further pastoral care. Homosexuality is not special. It is the same for any sinner and any sin.
    ————————————————–

    @ 23 – No. 1 Corinthians 5:11. All of chapter 5 details the relationship the church is to have with impenitent “Christians” (pastors or otherwise). But when a person acknowledges the sin and desires forgiveness, 2 Corinthians 3-11.

  • lacrimosa dies illa

    @ Joe – A rather decent theologian argues that even lust in the eye is adultery and thus sin. Do you think saints in heaven have lesbian “urges” and “temptations”? These are sin and fallenness.

    Lutheran Pastor: Do you acknowledge these “urges” to be sin and therefore want forgiveness?

    A faithful Lutheran pastor *would* refuse communion to someone who answers “no” to this question. If the person answers “yes,” the faithful Lutheran pastor would gladly give communion. Both circumstances would be followed with further pastoral care. Homosexuality is not special. It is the same for any sinner and any sin.
    ————————————————–

    @ 23 – No. 1 Corinthians 5:11. All of chapter 5 details the relationship the church is to have with impenitent “Christians” (pastors or otherwise). But when a person acknowledges the sin and desires forgiveness, 2 Corinthians 3-11.

  • Joe

    Jon and ldi – I don’t think we are disagree some much as I am not being as clear as I could be. I am pointing to our reaction to the urges. Surely you don’t contend that somehow I can actually escape ever having an evil thought or desire. But when I do have one, I can:
    1. act on it,
    2. enjoy the thought (e.g. continue to think about an attractive women who is not my wife) or
    3. attempt to drive the thought from my mind and pray.

    I would agree that 1 and 2 are both sinful. But the simple happening of an evil thought or desire – while the result of the original sin we all share – is not anything that can ever be stopped this side of heaven. Anyone who tells you they can achieve perfection in thought, word or deed is sinning as they say it.

  • Joe

    Jon and ldi – I don’t think we are disagree some much as I am not being as clear as I could be. I am pointing to our reaction to the urges. Surely you don’t contend that somehow I can actually escape ever having an evil thought or desire. But when I do have one, I can:
    1. act on it,
    2. enjoy the thought (e.g. continue to think about an attractive women who is not my wife) or
    3. attempt to drive the thought from my mind and pray.

    I would agree that 1 and 2 are both sinful. But the simple happening of an evil thought or desire – while the result of the original sin we all share – is not anything that can ever be stopped this side of heaven. Anyone who tells you they can achieve perfection in thought, word or deed is sinning as they say it.

  • lacrimosa dies illa

    2 Corinthians 2:3-11.

  • lacrimosa dies illa

    2 Corinthians 2:3-11.

  • Joe

    Romans 7:14-24

  • Joe

    Romans 7:14-24

  • lacrimosa dies illa

    @ Joe – Right! It is important, though, to acknowledge the thought itself as sin. No different than heterosexual lust. We’ll go to the grave confessing against ourselves! Romans 7. Who will save me from this body of death? I thank God: through Christ Jesus, my Lord!

    With Ms. Johnson, the case is different. She does not understand her lesbian thoughts and deeds to be sin, therefore she does not actually seek the sacrament and its forgiveness. Instead, she seeks God’s (and the church’s) stamp of approval. It would be the worst kind of pastoral care to bless her in this impenitence and sin. A sin against God and against her!

  • lacrimosa dies illa

    @ Joe – Right! It is important, though, to acknowledge the thought itself as sin. No different than heterosexual lust. We’ll go to the grave confessing against ourselves! Romans 7. Who will save me from this body of death? I thank God: through Christ Jesus, my Lord!

    With Ms. Johnson, the case is different. She does not understand her lesbian thoughts and deeds to be sin, therefore she does not actually seek the sacrament and its forgiveness. Instead, she seeks God’s (and the church’s) stamp of approval. It would be the worst kind of pastoral care to bless her in this impenitence and sin. A sin against God and against her!

  • lacrimosa dies illa

    And sorry: I didn’t mean to quote at you – I was just trying to amend my previous post.

  • lacrimosa dies illa

    And sorry: I didn’t mean to quote at you – I was just trying to amend my previous post.

  • Joe

    Not a problem! I guess I am simply trying to guard against the idea that we can achieve some sort of a sinless thought existence this side of the new creation. I get nervous when discussions of sin lead to the statement that impulses, urges or thoughts are sinful because they are generally followed by a claim that we can actually be free of these sins. We can achieve perfection. How? By having a better faith then the guy next to me in the pew. (I know a lot of Pentecostals that think this way).

    If what you are trying to convince me of is that we sin “by thought, word and deed, by what we have done and what we have left undone …” I’m with you 100%.

  • Joe

    Not a problem! I guess I am simply trying to guard against the idea that we can achieve some sort of a sinless thought existence this side of the new creation. I get nervous when discussions of sin lead to the statement that impulses, urges or thoughts are sinful because they are generally followed by a claim that we can actually be free of these sins. We can achieve perfection. How? By having a better faith then the guy next to me in the pew. (I know a lot of Pentecostals that think this way).

    If what you are trying to convince me of is that we sin “by thought, word and deed, by what we have done and what we have left undone …” I’m with you 100%.

  • lacrimosa dies illa

    Yes. We’re on the same page. Impulses, urges, and thoughts are sinful – and this side of the grave we can never be rid of them. We go to the grave confessing against ourselves. Jesus is our only righteousness. Jesus is our full and sufficient righteousness. If we cease to confess impulses, urges, and thoughts as sin then we will need less Jesus.

    How unimaginably good it will be to rise in a resurrected body like our Lord’s, to finally be free from all sin and curse. That day is drawing near, speeding toward us!

  • lacrimosa dies illa

    Yes. We’re on the same page. Impulses, urges, and thoughts are sinful – and this side of the grave we can never be rid of them. We go to the grave confessing against ourselves. Jesus is our only righteousness. Jesus is our full and sufficient righteousness. If we cease to confess impulses, urges, and thoughts as sin then we will need less Jesus.

    How unimaginably good it will be to rise in a resurrected body like our Lord’s, to finally be free from all sin and curse. That day is drawing near, speeding toward us!

  • Joe

    Amen! I suspected we were agreeing; I’m glad it was true.

  • Joe

    Amen! I suspected we were agreeing; I’m glad it was true.

  • –helen

    Does the visiting Lutheran take Holy Communion in this Lutheran church?
    First of all, our synod in 2001 recognized that the elca was so far off the rails that it was no longer a Lutheran church. (One of these years it may finally arrive at total separation from elca! )

    The visiting Lutheran, unless he’s totally unaware, knows that the elca accepts only those parts of the Confessions which appeal to it; in similar fashion it rejects portions of the Bible as “unreasonable” (think Jonah, which Christ quoted) and other portions are re written so they don’t offend elca sensibilities.
    He may have a reason to visit, but not to commune there.

  • –helen

    Does the visiting Lutheran take Holy Communion in this Lutheran church?
    First of all, our synod in 2001 recognized that the elca was so far off the rails that it was no longer a Lutheran church. (One of these years it may finally arrive at total separation from elca! )

    The visiting Lutheran, unless he’s totally unaware, knows that the elca accepts only those parts of the Confessions which appeal to it; in similar fashion it rejects portions of the Bible as “unreasonable” (think Jonah, which Christ quoted) and other portions are re written so they don’t offend elca sensibilities.
    He may have a reason to visit, but not to commune there.

  • kerner

    TU&D @25:

    see Joe @26.

    Everybody since 26:

    There is a distinction between temptation and sin. Temptation itself is not sin. Where to draw the line between temptation and “sins of the heart” may be difficult to determine sometimes, but we know that we sin when we cross it. I’m not sure whether this is helpful, but my $0.02.

  • kerner

    TU&D @25:

    see Joe @26.

    Everybody since 26:

    There is a distinction between temptation and sin. Temptation itself is not sin. Where to draw the line between temptation and “sins of the heart” may be difficult to determine sometimes, but we know that we sin when we cross it. I’m not sure whether this is helpful, but my $0.02.

  • kerner

    TU&D @23:

    If TU&D found himself in a church service with a similar pastor serving communion to similar people, in a church whose confession of doctrine appeared to be similar to TU&D’s, would TU&D take communion from that pastor?

    Why or why not?

  • kerner

    TU&D @23:

    If TU&D found himself in a church service with a similar pastor serving communion to similar people, in a church whose confession of doctrine appeared to be similar to TU&D’s, would TU&D take communion from that pastor?

    Why or why not?

  • Grace

    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

  • Grace

    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

  • lacrimosa dies illa

    @ kerner – You’re right that there is an important distinction to be made. Temptation, properly speaking, has an external origin: the devil, the world. This is not sin. Thus Jesus was tempted in every way as we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15). However, what originates in and “proceeds from the heart of man,” whether it is acted on or not, is not merely temptation but truly sin (Mark 7:21ff).

    For the cure of souls, the problem comes when a person wants to justify his/her sinful nature or thoughts by saying it is “not truly sin” or “just the way I am” or “temptations of the devil”. All of these are fig leaves. God would strip them from us and clothe us properly with Christ.

  • lacrimosa dies illa

    @ kerner – You’re right that there is an important distinction to be made. Temptation, properly speaking, has an external origin: the devil, the world. This is not sin. Thus Jesus was tempted in every way as we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15). However, what originates in and “proceeds from the heart of man,” whether it is acted on or not, is not merely temptation but truly sin (Mark 7:21ff).

    For the cure of souls, the problem comes when a person wants to justify his/her sinful nature or thoughts by saying it is “not truly sin” or “just the way I am” or “temptations of the devil”. All of these are fig leaves. God would strip them from us and clothe us properly with Christ.

  • Joe

    Thanks Kerner – you articulated what I was trying to get at …

  • Joe

    Thanks Kerner – you articulated what I was trying to get at …

  • rlewer

    Probably the issue is not whether there is sin, but whether there is repentance. The lady in question refused to admit that she was sinning and thus was not repentant. No one should come to communion without repentance no matter what the sin might be.

    Of course, we realize that the whole thing was probably a set up.

  • rlewer

    Probably the issue is not whether there is sin, but whether there is repentance. The lady in question refused to admit that she was sinning and thus was not repentant. No one should come to communion without repentance no matter what the sin might be.

    Of course, we realize that the whole thing was probably a set up.

  • Michael B.

    “disagree with the need to repent of the orientation. ”

    In the New Testament, it’s a sin to desire to sin. See Jesus’s teaching on adultery in one’s heart, for instance. Read St. Paul’s writings about conversion, and how conversion gives victory over sin — presumably if someone converts, he shouldn’t have same-sex desires any more, much like a former alcoholic should no longer have a desire to get drunk. For a homosexual who still considers himself homosexual and is trying to repent, it’s only a matter of time before he gives into homosexual behavior again.

  • Michael B.

    “disagree with the need to repent of the orientation. ”

    In the New Testament, it’s a sin to desire to sin. See Jesus’s teaching on adultery in one’s heart, for instance. Read St. Paul’s writings about conversion, and how conversion gives victory over sin — presumably if someone converts, he shouldn’t have same-sex desires any more, much like a former alcoholic should no longer have a desire to get drunk. For a homosexual who still considers himself homosexual and is trying to repent, it’s only a matter of time before he gives into homosexual behavior again.

  • kerner

    So, TU&D, are you going to give your own answer to the question you put to us (and we answered) or are you just going to ask questions again?

  • kerner

    So, TU&D, are you going to give your own answer to the question you put to us (and we answered) or are you just going to ask questions again?

  • kerner

    ldi @42:

    I think I agree with you, but temptation isn’t really temptation unless it’s something I would want, is it? I mean, if the devil or the world comes to me with a big plate of pickled herring, I can guarantee I will feel no urge to eat it. But it is only when I am presented with something I have a taste for that I can be either tempted or mentally sinning over it; isn’t that true?

  • kerner

    ldi @42:

    I think I agree with you, but temptation isn’t really temptation unless it’s something I would want, is it? I mean, if the devil or the world comes to me with a big plate of pickled herring, I can guarantee I will feel no urge to eat it. But it is only when I am presented with something I have a taste for that I can be either tempted or mentally sinning over it; isn’t that true?

  • lacrimosa dies illa

    @ kerner, 47 – If you put Jesus (“who in every respect has been tempted as we are” Hebrews 4:15) into your way of thinking about temptation I think you’ll see a problem.

    Instead of speculating about the nature of temptation (I’m not sure I understand the fascination), the teaching of Scripture is really quite plain and worthy of our belief. If you would like to continue to disagree with me, then please address #42 and show from the Scriptures how I’ve mishandled God’s teaching. I’m hoping that what you find there will bring us into agreement. God’s peace to you this night.

  • lacrimosa dies illa

    @ kerner, 47 – If you put Jesus (“who in every respect has been tempted as we are” Hebrews 4:15) into your way of thinking about temptation I think you’ll see a problem.

    Instead of speculating about the nature of temptation (I’m not sure I understand the fascination), the teaching of Scripture is really quite plain and worthy of our belief. If you would like to continue to disagree with me, then please address #42 and show from the Scriptures how I’ve mishandled God’s teaching. I’m hoping that what you find there will bring us into agreement. God’s peace to you this night.

  • kerner

    ldi:

    I can’t continue to disagree with you until I begin to disagree with you, which I don’t believe I had, perhaps until now. Especially with what you said @42.

    But you might even be right @48. I do tend to over analyse everything. [ An urge from within or temptation from without? I wonder... ;)]

    But I do put Jesus into my way of thinking (say…being tempted because he was hungry, in Matthew 4) and I do see problems. I’m just trying work through them out loud.

  • kerner

    ldi:

    I can’t continue to disagree with you until I begin to disagree with you, which I don’t believe I had, perhaps until now. Especially with what you said @42.

    But you might even be right @48. I do tend to over analyse everything. [ An urge from within or temptation from without? I wonder... ;)]

    But I do put Jesus into my way of thinking (say…being tempted because he was hungry, in Matthew 4) and I do see problems. I’m just trying work through them out loud.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    –Helen: “First of all, our synod in 2001 recognized that the elca was so far off the rails that it was no longer a Lutheran church. (One of these years it may finally arrive at total separation from elca! )”

    Heh, heh. Spoken like one of those dreaded fundamentalists.
    ;-)

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    –Helen: “First of all, our synod in 2001 recognized that the elca was so far off the rails that it was no longer a Lutheran church. (One of these years it may finally arrive at total separation from elca! )”

    Heh, heh. Spoken like one of those dreaded fundamentalists.
    ;-)

  • kerner

    TU@D:

    How about an answer? (to my questions @40 & 46) Why do you so frequently ask questions without taking a position yourself?

  • kerner

    TU@D:

    How about an answer? (to my questions @40 & 46) Why do you so frequently ask questions without taking a position yourself?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Q in #23: “Does the visiting Lutheran take Holy Communion in this Lutheran church?”

    Joe, #26, and Kerner: “Neither does this Lutheran. Because their entry into alter and pulpit fellowship with non-Lutheran churches proves that their subscription to the confessions is not what it appears to be. Because their practice demonstrates that they don’t believe (or at least don’t require any sort of uniformity of belief) what the confessions teach.”

    Essentially the same answer as “–Helen” in #38. Joe, Kerner, and Helen all regard Evangelical Lutheran Churches of America (ELCA) churches as non-Lutheran churches despite their explicitly stated acceptance of Lutheran confessions in the ELCA Confession of Faith. Hence, the refusal to partake of Holy Communion in ELCA churches given by the Lutheran pastors of ELCA.

    Let’s evaluate for a moment. These ELCA Lutheran pastors are baptized, catechised, and confirmed, some of them even baptized, catechised, and confirmed in LCMS and WELS churches perhaps. Are they, then, not to be regarded as baptized Lutheran brothers and sisters in Christ, even though they may be actively open homosexuals?

    These baptized Lutherans still cling to the salvific promises given to them by God in their Lutheran baptism, do they not?

    It can only be concluded then, that Lutherans refusing to partake of Holy Communion in an ELCA church have judged that these baptizedLutherans have rejected their own baptism! Hence, the statement that these are non-Lutheran churches and the logical basis for their subsequent refusal to partake of Holy Communion there.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Q in #23: “Does the visiting Lutheran take Holy Communion in this Lutheran church?”

    Joe, #26, and Kerner: “Neither does this Lutheran. Because their entry into alter and pulpit fellowship with non-Lutheran churches proves that their subscription to the confessions is not what it appears to be. Because their practice demonstrates that they don’t believe (or at least don’t require any sort of uniformity of belief) what the confessions teach.”

    Essentially the same answer as “–Helen” in #38. Joe, Kerner, and Helen all regard Evangelical Lutheran Churches of America (ELCA) churches as non-Lutheran churches despite their explicitly stated acceptance of Lutheran confessions in the ELCA Confession of Faith. Hence, the refusal to partake of Holy Communion in ELCA churches given by the Lutheran pastors of ELCA.

    Let’s evaluate for a moment. These ELCA Lutheran pastors are baptized, catechised, and confirmed, some of them even baptized, catechised, and confirmed in LCMS and WELS churches perhaps. Are they, then, not to be regarded as baptized Lutheran brothers and sisters in Christ, even though they may be actively open homosexuals?

    These baptized Lutherans still cling to the salvific promises given to them by God in their Lutheran baptism, do they not?

    It can only be concluded then, that Lutherans refusing to partake of Holy Communion in an ELCA church have judged that these baptizedLutherans have rejected their own baptism! Hence, the statement that these are non-Lutheran churches and the logical basis for their subsequent refusal to partake of Holy Communion there.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Kerner,

    It’s doubtful that would ever happen. But supposing it could happen, I’m not sure what I would do at that particular moment in that particular church. It would obviously be quite disturbing.

    It depends on what publicly taking Holy Communion means. If I take Holy Communion in such a church with such a pastor, does it mean that I endorse that pastor’s theology and practices? If so, then I refrain. If not, then I might partake. Isn’t Holy Communion for my sake, for my soul?

    Pax.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Kerner,

    It’s doubtful that would ever happen. But supposing it could happen, I’m not sure what I would do at that particular moment in that particular church. It would obviously be quite disturbing.

    It depends on what publicly taking Holy Communion means. If I take Holy Communion in such a church with such a pastor, does it mean that I endorse that pastor’s theology and practices? If so, then I refrain. If not, then I might partake. Isn’t Holy Communion for my sake, for my soul?

    Pax.

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

    The priest was correct in withholding communion.

    Forget the fact that it was a homosexual at a Catholic communion for a moment; as Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, etc., who believe that the Bible is truly the Word of God, ought we to be engaging in any activity that even hints at the appearance of approval of sin?

    Would a minister allow communion to an unrepentant murderer? An adulterer? A practicing and unrepentant liar? Why is it so controversial for a minister to act on behalf of Scriptural doctrine and deny communion to somebody in open sin?

    This really shouldn’t even be a question about something like this in the church. That there is any at all tells me we are more infected by our ungodly culture than we may be willing to admit (No disrespect intended to Dr. Veith or anyone else here personally).

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

    The priest was correct in withholding communion.

    Forget the fact that it was a homosexual at a Catholic communion for a moment; as Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, etc., who believe that the Bible is truly the Word of God, ought we to be engaging in any activity that even hints at the appearance of approval of sin?

    Would a minister allow communion to an unrepentant murderer? An adulterer? A practicing and unrepentant liar? Why is it so controversial for a minister to act on behalf of Scriptural doctrine and deny communion to somebody in open sin?

    This really shouldn’t even be a question about something like this in the church. That there is any at all tells me we are more infected by our ungodly culture than we may be willing to admit (No disrespect intended to Dr. Veith or anyone else here personally).

  • Grace

    “Would a minister allow communion to an unrepentant murderer? An adulterer? A practicing and unrepentant liar? Why is it so controversial for a minister to act on behalf of Scriptural doctrine and deny communion to somebody in open sin?”

    No they wouldn’t IF, they were a minister who believed the Bible.

    “This really shouldn’t even be a question about something like this in the church. That there is any at all tells me we are more infected by our ungodly culture than we may be willing to admit”

    11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

    12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
    Ephesians 5

  • Grace

    “Would a minister allow communion to an unrepentant murderer? An adulterer? A practicing and unrepentant liar? Why is it so controversial for a minister to act on behalf of Scriptural doctrine and deny communion to somebody in open sin?”

    No they wouldn’t IF, they were a minister who believed the Bible.

    “This really shouldn’t even be a question about something like this in the church. That there is any at all tells me we are more infected by our ungodly culture than we may be willing to admit”

    11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

    12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
    Ephesians 5

  • fws

    1) there are pastors and lutheran parishoners who are fat. do we , based on the hard evidence that there is perpetual and willful sinning going on, need to grill that person about his state of repentence? as in “do you acknowledge that ‘being fat’ is a sin.” or “do you acknowledge that you eat too much and that the bible calls that a sin?” why the focus only on homosexuality. heck! Let’s REALLY do things right.

    2) willful sinning. Our Lutheran Confessions inform us that ALL sinning is willful sinning and that we are fully committed to sinning , heart, mind body and soul (FC art I and Luther’s preface to his 1545 romans translation that is referenced by the Confessions as a further amplification of what they say. So Lutherans reject the idea that there is such a thing as sin that is not “mortal ” or “capital ” sin. Period!

    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). http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

    The Confessions reject such a distinction categorically. They talk about “manifestly” impenitent sinners. And those sinners are excluded from the christian congretation . Note this is not to exclude from the church. Only Christ can do that. We do not separate wheat from looks-like-wheat. The ministry of the keys on the excluding side is entirely about exclusion from an earthly government called the church, not from the communion of saints. (small catechism on the ministry of the keys).

    3) Jon @ 28 says…

    Joe @ 22, disagree with the need to repent of the orientation. The orientation s/he may have is disordered, not created by God, a consequence of the fall. No more so than an alcoholic needs to repent of his/her particular “ism.” They may have a propensity to it–but it is also disordered. We aren’t sinners because we sin (that is, act on our lusts) rather because of our sinful nature, which manifests itself in disordered ways, like same-sex attraction. Ergo, it needs to be repented.

    This is a nasty piece of scholastic Roman Catholic doctrine that is based on Aquinas’ version of “natural law”, which in turn, is an importation into church doctrine of wholy pagan philosophical categories and concepts. it is wrong. there are no such distinctions to be made.

    So what is wrong with this according to our Lutheran Confessions? Sin is a lack of trust and faith in the Works of Another. This is Original Sin which is also the TOTAL lack of the Image of God.

    Rome says that the Divine Design of man (aka Natural Law) is the Image of God. A very very damaged Image, but neverthe less the Image. So the return or restoration to that Image is , very essentially so, reconformity to the Law of God. The Neo-scholastics (aka calvinists and melancthonians) have a similar take on things. Here rome and geneva agree!

    Lutherans believe that the Image of God is FULLY restored, even in fags and alcoholics and other such in the waters of Holy Baptism with the , ex-nihilo (!) creation of New Man in regeneration.

    why? the Image of God and Original Righeousness is exactly what? it is alone faith in the Works of Another. it is alone faith in christ that adam originally had! Adam’s conformity to the Law was a fruit of that Image and not the essence of it!

    Only when this restored Image has happened , can the Prophecy of Jeremiah 33 be fulfilled that says that the Law will once again be written in the hearts of men (as a fruit of and not the essence of the restore Image of God). (apology “on love and keeping the Law” at the very beginning of that section…) note that our Apology bases it’s entire outline on a distinction in Romans 2:15 that the Law is written in the MINDS (aka reason) of men, and that the WORK of the Law is what is written in the heart (hate for God, murmuring against God, no true fear of God, etc etc.).

  • fws

    1) there are pastors and lutheran parishoners who are fat. do we , based on the hard evidence that there is perpetual and willful sinning going on, need to grill that person about his state of repentence? as in “do you acknowledge that ‘being fat’ is a sin.” or “do you acknowledge that you eat too much and that the bible calls that a sin?” why the focus only on homosexuality. heck! Let’s REALLY do things right.

    2) willful sinning. Our Lutheran Confessions inform us that ALL sinning is willful sinning and that we are fully committed to sinning , heart, mind body and soul (FC art I and Luther’s preface to his 1545 romans translation that is referenced by the Confessions as a further amplification of what they say. So Lutherans reject the idea that there is such a thing as sin that is not “mortal ” or “capital ” sin. Period!

    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). http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

    The Confessions reject such a distinction categorically. They talk about “manifestly” impenitent sinners. And those sinners are excluded from the christian congretation . Note this is not to exclude from the church. Only Christ can do that. We do not separate wheat from looks-like-wheat. The ministry of the keys on the excluding side is entirely about exclusion from an earthly government called the church, not from the communion of saints. (small catechism on the ministry of the keys).

    3) Jon @ 28 says…

    Joe @ 22, disagree with the need to repent of the orientation. The orientation s/he may have is disordered, not created by God, a consequence of the fall. No more so than an alcoholic needs to repent of his/her particular “ism.” They may have a propensity to it–but it is also disordered. We aren’t sinners because we sin (that is, act on our lusts) rather because of our sinful nature, which manifests itself in disordered ways, like same-sex attraction. Ergo, it needs to be repented.

    This is a nasty piece of scholastic Roman Catholic doctrine that is based on Aquinas’ version of “natural law”, which in turn, is an importation into church doctrine of wholy pagan philosophical categories and concepts. it is wrong. there are no such distinctions to be made.

    So what is wrong with this according to our Lutheran Confessions? Sin is a lack of trust and faith in the Works of Another. This is Original Sin which is also the TOTAL lack of the Image of God.

    Rome says that the Divine Design of man (aka Natural Law) is the Image of God. A very very damaged Image, but neverthe less the Image. So the return or restoration to that Image is , very essentially so, reconformity to the Law of God. The Neo-scholastics (aka calvinists and melancthonians) have a similar take on things. Here rome and geneva agree!

    Lutherans believe that the Image of God is FULLY restored, even in fags and alcoholics and other such in the waters of Holy Baptism with the , ex-nihilo (!) creation of New Man in regeneration.

    why? the Image of God and Original Righeousness is exactly what? it is alone faith in the Works of Another. it is alone faith in christ that adam originally had! Adam’s conformity to the Law was a fruit of that Image and not the essence of it!

    Only when this restored Image has happened , can the Prophecy of Jeremiah 33 be fulfilled that says that the Law will once again be written in the hearts of men (as a fruit of and not the essence of the restore Image of God). (apology “on love and keeping the Law” at the very beginning of that section…) note that our Apology bases it’s entire outline on a distinction in Romans 2:15 that the Law is written in the MINDS (aka reason) of men, and that the WORK of the Law is what is written in the heart (hate for God, murmuring against God, no true fear of God, etc etc.).

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    fws: “So what is wrong with this according to our Lutheran Confessions? Sin is a lack of trust and faith in the Works of Another.”

    FWS, where in the Lutheran Confessions does it state that sin is a lack of trust and faith in the Works of Another?

    Also fws, with regards to #52, do you agree with Joe, Kerner, and Helen that ELCA churches are non-Lutheran churches and their decision to refrain from partaking of Holy Communion there?

    #52: “Let’s evaluate for a moment. These ELCA Lutheran pastors are baptized, catechised, and confirmed, some of them even baptized, catechised, and confirmed in LCMS and WELS churches perhaps. Are they, then, not to be regarded as baptized Lutheran brothers and sisters in Christ, even though they may be actively open homosexuals?

    These baptized Lutherans still cling to the salvific promises given to them by God in their Lutheran baptism, do they not?

    It can only be concluded then, that Lutherans refusing to partake of Holy Communion in an ELCA church have judged that these baptized Lutherans have rejected their own baptism! Hence, the statement that these are non-Lutheran churches and the logical basis for their subsequent refusal to partake of Holy Communion there.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    fws: “So what is wrong with this according to our Lutheran Confessions? Sin is a lack of trust and faith in the Works of Another.”

    FWS, where in the Lutheran Confessions does it state that sin is a lack of trust and faith in the Works of Another?

    Also fws, with regards to #52, do you agree with Joe, Kerner, and Helen that ELCA churches are non-Lutheran churches and their decision to refrain from partaking of Holy Communion there?

    #52: “Let’s evaluate for a moment. These ELCA Lutheran pastors are baptized, catechised, and confirmed, some of them even baptized, catechised, and confirmed in LCMS and WELS churches perhaps. Are they, then, not to be regarded as baptized Lutheran brothers and sisters in Christ, even though they may be actively open homosexuals?

    These baptized Lutherans still cling to the salvific promises given to them by God in their Lutheran baptism, do they not?

    It can only be concluded then, that Lutherans refusing to partake of Holy Communion in an ELCA church have judged that these baptized Lutherans have rejected their own baptism! Hence, the statement that these are non-Lutheran churches and the logical basis for their subsequent refusal to partake of Holy Communion there.

  • fws

    so would frank, if he were a pastor (and he is so very not!) commune two openly declared lesbians or gay men living together?

    Depends! Have they been instructed in the christian doctrine? Have they been baptized? Have they been examined and absolved as our Augustana requires? If yes, then yes!

    Why? I don’t know what those couples do in private. It is not my pastoral duty to inquire into this any more than it is my pastoral duty to delve into the dietary habits of members. Why would it be? And it is a fact that the vast majority of homosexuals, especially if we include Lesbians here, indulge only in mutual masturbation. Is masturbation a sin? I don’t believe it is. Show me the scripture where it is.

    And… if someone brings there personal sexual life into private confession, then that probably, logically, means they are confessing something they believe to be a sin…. homosexuals DO sin sexually. We know this because ALL humans sin sexually. In thought word and deed. The Bible indeed tells us this.

    declaring oneself publicly to be a homosexual is about the moral equivalent of publicly declaring oneself to be a liberal democrat. You know…. that biblical story I refer to is the story of the sinner and the republican…..

    and SK Peterson: someone saying that homosexual is not a sin not to declare that they are not a sinner any more than a calvinist declaring that their doctrine is not sinful means they are saying that they are not sinners. I , as a Lutheran christian confess my sins, but I do not believe in any way that homosexuality is a sin. Yet as a homosexual I indeed sin daily in thought word and deed and deserve for that temporal and eternal punishment. and yes that fully includes my sexual sinning.

  • fws

    so would frank, if he were a pastor (and he is so very not!) commune two openly declared lesbians or gay men living together?

    Depends! Have they been instructed in the christian doctrine? Have they been baptized? Have they been examined and absolved as our Augustana requires? If yes, then yes!

    Why? I don’t know what those couples do in private. It is not my pastoral duty to inquire into this any more than it is my pastoral duty to delve into the dietary habits of members. Why would it be? And it is a fact that the vast majority of homosexuals, especially if we include Lesbians here, indulge only in mutual masturbation. Is masturbation a sin? I don’t believe it is. Show me the scripture where it is.

    And… if someone brings there personal sexual life into private confession, then that probably, logically, means they are confessing something they believe to be a sin…. homosexuals DO sin sexually. We know this because ALL humans sin sexually. In thought word and deed. The Bible indeed tells us this.

    declaring oneself publicly to be a homosexual is about the moral equivalent of publicly declaring oneself to be a liberal democrat. You know…. that biblical story I refer to is the story of the sinner and the republican…..

    and SK Peterson: someone saying that homosexual is not a sin not to declare that they are not a sinner any more than a calvinist declaring that their doctrine is not sinful means they are saying that they are not sinners. I , as a Lutheran christian confess my sins, but I do not believe in any way that homosexuality is a sin. Yet as a homosexual I indeed sin daily in thought word and deed and deserve for that temporal and eternal punishment. and yes that fully includes my sexual sinning.

  • Grace

    Oh, so if a homosexual has been baptized, and is still having sexual relations of any kind with their friend, it’s OK to give them the LORD’s Supper? Would you not ask them if they were still involved in this lifestyle? Or would you skip over it. The same would apply to people who commit adultery, either married or single. OR any other obvious sin, which isn’t hidden.

    4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

    5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

    6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
    Hebrews 6

  • Grace

    Oh, so if a homosexual has been baptized, and is still having sexual relations of any kind with their friend, it’s OK to give them the LORD’s Supper? Would you not ask them if they were still involved in this lifestyle? Or would you skip over it. The same would apply to people who commit adultery, either married or single. OR any other obvious sin, which isn’t hidden.

    4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

    5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

    6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
    Hebrews 6

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    FWS,

    Was your #58 intended to answer #57? If so, it didn’t.

    Also, it’s sometimes hard to understand what you’re trying to say. So expect clarifying questions.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    FWS,

    Was your #58 intended to answer #57? If so, it didn’t.

    Also, it’s sometimes hard to understand what you’re trying to say. So expect clarifying questions.

  • fws

    always happy to clarify.

    Grace, you missed the entire point of what I said ok? you just didnt get it. You are welcome to try again if you like. or not if that is your choice.

    tud: was my post intended as a response to yours? that was a very appropriate and polite question. I appreciate the courtesy.

    Answer: no.

    we were typing at the same time it looks like.

  • fws

    always happy to clarify.

    Grace, you missed the entire point of what I said ok? you just didnt get it. You are welcome to try again if you like. or not if that is your choice.

    tud: was my post intended as a response to yours? that was a very appropriate and polite question. I appreciate the courtesy.

    Answer: no.

    we were typing at the same time it looks like.

  • fws

    the meat of what I say is in my post 56. the posts that follow would be what I see to be the practical and casuistic application of what I say in 56.

  • fws

    the meat of what I say is in my post 56. the posts that follow would be what I see to be the practical and casuistic application of what I say in 56.

  • fws

    and… I could be wrong on the practical application.. I will leave that judgement to experienced pastors who actually work every day AS pastors.

    but as to the doctrine I express in 56.. I don’t think any of that is wrong. I am not willing to debate on my comments past 56. I would welcome contrary opinions from the pastors here especially if they would share their reasoning for that differing opinion.

    I would be most willing to debate anything i said in 56. it is merely a repetition of our confessions after all.

  • fws

    and… I could be wrong on the practical application.. I will leave that judgement to experienced pastors who actually work every day AS pastors.

    but as to the doctrine I express in 56.. I don’t think any of that is wrong. I am not willing to debate on my comments past 56. I would welcome contrary opinions from the pastors here especially if they would share their reasoning for that differing opinion.

    I would be most willing to debate anything i said in 56. it is merely a repetition of our confessions after all.

  • Grace

    fws @ 61

    YOU WROTE: “always happy to clarify. Grace, you missed the entire point of what I said ok? you just didnt get it. You are welcome to try again if you like. or not if that is your choice.

    I understood what you wrote, you aren’t able to answer, or comment on the meat of my post, you would rather tell me to understand it YOUR WAY, and then you will “clarify” :lol:

    fws @ 58 You also stated: “I , as a Lutheran christian confess my sins, but I do not believe in any way that homosexuality is a sin.

    What’s that supposed to mean, that one can have tendencies of homosexuality, but not act on them, OR does that mean a homosexual can have a sexual relationship with same sex? OR both?

    Then you must have trashed Romans 1

    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.

    29 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. Romans 1

    Paul must have gotten this wrong, or you’ve chosen to change the meaning of Scripture to suit your life.

  • Grace

    fws @ 61

    YOU WROTE: “always happy to clarify. Grace, you missed the entire point of what I said ok? you just didnt get it. You are welcome to try again if you like. or not if that is your choice.

    I understood what you wrote, you aren’t able to answer, or comment on the meat of my post, you would rather tell me to understand it YOUR WAY, and then you will “clarify” :lol:

    fws @ 58 You also stated: “I , as a Lutheran christian confess my sins, but I do not believe in any way that homosexuality is a sin.

    What’s that supposed to mean, that one can have tendencies of homosexuality, but not act on them, OR does that mean a homosexual can have a sexual relationship with same sex? OR both?

    Then you must have trashed Romans 1

    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.

    29 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. Romans 1

    Paul must have gotten this wrong, or you’ve chosen to change the meaning of Scripture to suit your life.

  • Grace

    fws @ 63

    “but as to the doctrine I express in 56.. I don’t think any of that is wrong. I am not willing to debate on my comments past 56.”

    What a surprise, after what you wrote after post 56. You cannot answer, there is no real “debate” the Bible doesn’t back up your claims, you’ve made it up!

  • Grace

    fws @ 63

    “but as to the doctrine I express in 56.. I don’t think any of that is wrong. I am not willing to debate on my comments past 56.”

    What a surprise, after what you wrote after post 56. You cannot answer, there is no real “debate” the Bible doesn’t back up your claims, you’ve made it up!

  • fws

    Grace@ 64

    I understood what you wrote, …you would rather tell me to understand it YOUR WAY, and then you will “clarify”

    I am not asking you to agree with me Grace. To understand is not to agree.

    You need to understand what I am saying before you are able to disagree with it. You don’t.

    The fault for this could be my failure to articulate more clearly. That does not remove the fact that you do not get my point does it?

    My wish is to be respectful of you in all our dialog. I hope I am signaling that to you.

    I am feeling sarcasm and condescension from you, and I wish to have permission to assume that I am reading you therefore uncharitably. I know that you agree that condescention and sarcasm would be a sinful way to respond to other.

  • fws

    Grace@ 64

    I understood what you wrote, …you would rather tell me to understand it YOUR WAY, and then you will “clarify”

    I am not asking you to agree with me Grace. To understand is not to agree.

    You need to understand what I am saying before you are able to disagree with it. You don’t.

    The fault for this could be my failure to articulate more clearly. That does not remove the fact that you do not get my point does it?

    My wish is to be respectful of you in all our dialog. I hope I am signaling that to you.

    I am feeling sarcasm and condescension from you, and I wish to have permission to assume that I am reading you therefore uncharitably. I know that you agree that condescention and sarcasm would be a sinful way to respond to other.

  • fws

    Grace @ 64

    27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women

    So the men referred to by St Paul started out by being ladies men. They were attracted to women, they sought after or lusted after or had a natural desire for sex with women. And so they HAD their women according to the text! They, naturally, sought them out for marriage and because they were attracted to them, by natural inclination, for sex.

    And then… they went against the sexual urges that came naturally to them and lusted after other men.

    So you are telling me …. um… what? that this is the pattern I should expect to see as to how homosexuality develops?

    Then that would be that all homosexuals start out lusting naturally after women, but then they deny those natural urges and lust after other men? I dont know anyone who fits that description Grace except for those who practiced certain temple rituals in OT and NT times.

    Let’s see if you can get my point here. Again, I am NOT asking you to agree with my point of view. I am asking you to understand it.

    You need to understand my point before you will be able to disagree with it. This is just plain ol logic eh?

  • fws

    Grace @ 64

    27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women

    So the men referred to by St Paul started out by being ladies men. They were attracted to women, they sought after or lusted after or had a natural desire for sex with women. And so they HAD their women according to the text! They, naturally, sought them out for marriage and because they were attracted to them, by natural inclination, for sex.

    And then… they went against the sexual urges that came naturally to them and lusted after other men.

    So you are telling me …. um… what? that this is the pattern I should expect to see as to how homosexuality develops?

    Then that would be that all homosexuals start out lusting naturally after women, but then they deny those natural urges and lust after other men? I dont know anyone who fits that description Grace except for those who practiced certain temple rituals in OT and NT times.

    Let’s see if you can get my point here. Again, I am NOT asking you to agree with my point of view. I am asking you to understand it.

    You need to understand my point before you will be able to disagree with it. This is just plain ol logic eh?

  • Wayne A

    From what I heard about this story, Im not sure the priest knew the woman, if she would have said nothing and come up for communion she probably would have been served. But since she went and introduced her lover to the priest before the service he had no choice but to tell her to not come up for communion. I think this was all done on purpose so she could fake out rage and go to the media. It’s all in there ply book and it is repeated over and over again. In the same situation, I would have done the same. On a communion Sunday if I see visitors, I don’t go and nterview them, but in my explanation of the sacrament, I explain that in order to receive the sacrament in a worthy manner you need to be a believer, and that you need to repent of any known sin, and I even have a monent of silence for people to do that. Then I will read 1 John 1:9, 10 and invite people to the table.

  • Wayne A

    From what I heard about this story, Im not sure the priest knew the woman, if she would have said nothing and come up for communion she probably would have been served. But since she went and introduced her lover to the priest before the service he had no choice but to tell her to not come up for communion. I think this was all done on purpose so she could fake out rage and go to the media. It’s all in there ply book and it is repeated over and over again. In the same situation, I would have done the same. On a communion Sunday if I see visitors, I don’t go and nterview them, but in my explanation of the sacrament, I explain that in order to receive the sacrament in a worthy manner you need to be a believer, and that you need to repent of any known sin, and I even have a monent of silence for people to do that. Then I will read 1 John 1:9, 10 and invite people to the table.

  • Wayne A

    Where is that spell checker when you need it. Previous post should read “in their play book.”

  • Wayne A

    Where is that spell checker when you need it. Previous post should read “in their play book.”

  • fws

    Wayne A can you share with us what denomination you are a pastor in? thanks!

  • fws

    Wayne A can you share with us what denomination you are a pastor in? thanks!

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    FWS: “tud: was my post intended as a response to yours? that was a very appropriate and polite question. I appreciate the courtesy.

    Answer: no.

    we were typing at the same time it looks like.”

    Ahhh yes. Looking at the time stamps for #57 and #58 shows that you are absolutely correct. If I had seen that initially, I wouldn’t have made the inquiry. Sorry about that. My bad.

    Still, I’d like to see your thoughts and positions on #57 with regards to Joe, Kerner, and Helen regarding ELCA churches as non-Lutheran churches and their refraining from partaking of communion there. And their reasoning behind it.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    FWS: “tud: was my post intended as a response to yours? that was a very appropriate and polite question. I appreciate the courtesy.

    Answer: no.

    we were typing at the same time it looks like.”

    Ahhh yes. Looking at the time stamps for #57 and #58 shows that you are absolutely correct. If I had seen that initially, I wouldn’t have made the inquiry. Sorry about that. My bad.

    Still, I’d like to see your thoughts and positions on #57 with regards to Joe, Kerner, and Helen regarding ELCA churches as non-Lutheran churches and their refraining from partaking of communion there. And their reasoning behind it.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    FWS,

    Do you agree with the following statement from the LCMS?

    What does God say about homosexuality in His Word,
    the Bible?

    The Lord teaches us through His Word that homosexuality is a sinful distortion of His desire that one man and one woman live together in marriage as husband and wife.

    God categorically prohibits homosexuality.

    Our church, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, has declared that homosexual behavior is “intrinsically sinful.”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    FWS,

    Do you agree with the following statement from the LCMS?

    What does God say about homosexuality in His Word,
    the Bible?

    The Lord teaches us through His Word that homosexuality is a sinful distortion of His desire that one man and one woman live together in marriage as husband and wife.

    God categorically prohibits homosexuality.

    Our church, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, has declared that homosexual behavior is “intrinsically sinful.”

  • Michael B.

    @Truth Unites @ 72

    “God categorically prohibits homosexuality. ”

    Prohibits? I’d say the God of the Bible does a little bit more than “prohibit” homosexuality. The Bible condemns homosexuality is the strongest possible terms, using the word “to’ebah” to describe it. One translation used is “abomination”. Leviticus says homosexuality deserves the death penalty, and Romans say homosexuality is a curse from God to those he has “given up”. Bottom line is this, I wouldn’t use the word “prohibit”, as in parking is prohibited after 9pm.

  • Michael B.

    @Truth Unites @ 72

    “God categorically prohibits homosexuality. ”

    Prohibits? I’d say the God of the Bible does a little bit more than “prohibit” homosexuality. The Bible condemns homosexuality is the strongest possible terms, using the word “to’ebah” to describe it. One translation used is “abomination”. Leviticus says homosexuality deserves the death penalty, and Romans say homosexuality is a curse from God to those he has “given up”. Bottom line is this, I wouldn’t use the word “prohibit”, as in parking is prohibited after 9pm.

  • Michael B.

    “From what I heard about this story, Im not sure the priest knew the woman, if she would have said nothing and come up for communion she probably would have been served. But since she went and introduced her lover to the priest before the service he had no choice but to tell her to not come up for communion”

    It doesn’t make any difference — it’s his church, he can turn away who he wants. There are thousands of other churches she could go to that will accept homosexuals.

  • Michael B.

    “From what I heard about this story, Im not sure the priest knew the woman, if she would have said nothing and come up for communion she probably would have been served. But since she went and introduced her lover to the priest before the service he had no choice but to tell her to not come up for communion”

    It doesn’t make any difference — it’s his church, he can turn away who he wants. There are thousands of other churches she could go to that will accept homosexuals.

  • fws

    tud @ 72 and Michael B @ 73

    First about that word abomination Michael

    I would invite you to check this out: http://www.dragonlordsnet.com/abomination.htm

    TUD: How does the LCMS define the word “homosexuality”? You have not provided me enough context to answer. Go back and find where the LCMS defines that word “homosexuality and report back please.

    “God “categorically”prohibits homosexuality. ”

    So they are saying that “homosexuality” is a biblical category? Do you know TUD? Get back to me on this tud. I cant find that in the bible. Homosexuality, as a category , seems to have first appeared around 1900 or so.

    Our church, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, has declared that homosexual behavior is “intrinsically sinful.”

    So is it the condition “homosexuality” that is sinful and so prohibited, or is it only “homosexual behavior” that is intrinsically sinful? there seems to be a conflict here doesnt there? Or am I missing something. Again, I am missing how and what they define as homosexuality and homosexual behavior. No that is not obvious. Not to me anyhow. And I am a homosexual.

    Yeah, I know I am not answering yes or no. You have not provided me with enough information to be able to do that have you?

  • fws

    tud @ 72 and Michael B @ 73

    First about that word abomination Michael

    I would invite you to check this out: http://www.dragonlordsnet.com/abomination.htm

    TUD: How does the LCMS define the word “homosexuality”? You have not provided me enough context to answer. Go back and find where the LCMS defines that word “homosexuality and report back please.

    “God “categorically”prohibits homosexuality. ”

    So they are saying that “homosexuality” is a biblical category? Do you know TUD? Get back to me on this tud. I cant find that in the bible. Homosexuality, as a category , seems to have first appeared around 1900 or so.

    Our church, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, has declared that homosexual behavior is “intrinsically sinful.”

    So is it the condition “homosexuality” that is sinful and so prohibited, or is it only “homosexual behavior” that is intrinsically sinful? there seems to be a conflict here doesnt there? Or am I missing something. Again, I am missing how and what they define as homosexuality and homosexual behavior. No that is not obvious. Not to me anyhow. And I am a homosexual.

    Yeah, I know I am not answering yes or no. You have not provided me with enough information to be able to do that have you?

  • Grace

    fws @ 67

    All the scenarios are not in any way what I stated. The simple fact is, homosexuality is a sin, no matter how you, or anyone else wants to paint it.

    I do know what you’re talking about, the PROBLEM you have is, I don’t agree with you, and neither does the Word of God. You’re fighting God fws. You are trying to make excuses for homosexuality – there aren’t any. The Bible tells us it’s sin, the Bible tells us God gives us an ESCAPE so that we will not be tempted above what we are able. In essence, there is no excuse if you want to love HIM with all your heart.

    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 thy 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 they God first!

    Love God is first – is it love of God, to lust after that which is forbidden?

    - – is it love of God, to commit adultery?

    - – is it love of God to lust after the same sex, and then argue it’s validity?

    - – and disregard Romans 1, which Paul wrote?

    Either one believes what Paul wrote to be inspired, or …. pick and choose which passages Paul wrote, that are significant inerrant, inspired to follow. No it isn’t love of the LORD our God, it is man’s selfish desire to have his own way.

    I read non stop about all the passages Paul wrote in many posts, however Romans 1 is a stumbling mountain to those who believe homosexuality isn’t sin. From their perspective it is ONLY sin, IF homosexuality is indulged, IF the individual is heterosexual, but if they are homosexual, the sin isn’t sin, along with a dozen other excuses.

  • Grace

    fws @ 67

    All the scenarios are not in any way what I stated. The simple fact is, homosexuality is a sin, no matter how you, or anyone else wants to paint it.

    I do know what you’re talking about, the PROBLEM you have is, I don’t agree with you, and neither does the Word of God. You’re fighting God fws. You are trying to make excuses for homosexuality – there aren’t any. The Bible tells us it’s sin, the Bible tells us God gives us an ESCAPE so that we will not be tempted above what we are able. In essence, there is no excuse if you want to love HIM with all your heart.

    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 thy 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 they God first!

    Love God is first – is it love of God, to lust after that which is forbidden?

    - – is it love of God, to commit adultery?

    - – is it love of God to lust after the same sex, and then argue it’s validity?

    - – and disregard Romans 1, which Paul wrote?

    Either one believes what Paul wrote to be inspired, or …. pick and choose which passages Paul wrote, that are significant inerrant, inspired to follow. No it isn’t love of the LORD our God, it is man’s selfish desire to have his own way.

    I read non stop about all the passages Paul wrote in many posts, however Romans 1 is a stumbling mountain to those who believe homosexuality isn’t sin. From their perspective it is ONLY sin, IF homosexuality is indulged, IF the individual is heterosexual, but if they are homosexual, the sin isn’t sin, along with a dozen other excuses.

  • fws

    grace @ 76

    No grace.

    You are not even close to understanding what I am saying.
    And that is just fine ok?
    IF you understood what I am saying, you would be able to repeat the sense of it in your own words.

    You are incapable of doing that. as in “what I hear you saying, and disagree with, is (fill-in-the-blank)”

    So you are talking to yourself in that case eh? there is no dialog or discussion happening.

  • fws

    grace @ 76

    No grace.

    You are not even close to understanding what I am saying.
    And that is just fine ok?
    IF you understood what I am saying, you would be able to repeat the sense of it in your own words.

    You are incapable of doing that. as in “what I hear you saying, and disagree with, is (fill-in-the-blank)”

    So you are talking to yourself in that case eh? there is no dialog or discussion happening.

  • fws

    michael b @ 74

    I know what you mean and agree with it I think michael, but this statement is still flawed. see if you can identify the flaw….

    it’s his church, he can turn away who he wants.

  • fws

    michael b @ 74

    I know what you mean and agree with it I think michael, but this statement is still flawed. see if you can identify the flaw….

    it’s his church, he can turn away who he wants.

  • Grace

    fws @ 73

    “Yeah, I know I am not answering yes or no. You have not provided me with enough information to be able to do that have you?

    The above phrase is getting to be your fav chant, as though you’re a little school teacher, and people just aren’t responding, ie; answering your questions, when IN FACT, it is YOU who can’t answer. You’re stuck!!

  • Grace

    fws @ 73

    “Yeah, I know I am not answering yes or no. You have not provided me with enough information to be able to do that have you?

    The above phrase is getting to be your fav chant, as though you’re a little school teacher, and people just aren’t responding, ie; answering your questions, when IN FACT, it is YOU who can’t answer. You’re stuck!!

  • Grace

    fws @ 78

    “I know what you mean and agree with it I think michael, but this statement is still flawed. see if you can identify the flaw….“</blockquote.

    LOL, it's the "little school teacher" question again. You're stuck :lol:

  • Grace

    fws @ 78

    “I know what you mean and agree with it I think michael, but this statement is still flawed. see if you can identify the flaw….“</blockquote.

    LOL, it's the "little school teacher" question again. You're stuck :lol:

  • Grace

    fws,

    This most likely is one of your most ridiculous efforts to make homosexuality, “not a sin” – There is nothing you can do, it’s lost on you. It’s sad!

  • Grace

    fws,

    This most likely is one of your most ridiculous efforts to make homosexuality, “not a sin” – There is nothing you can do, it’s lost on you. It’s sad!

  • Wayne A

    AFLC, Association Free Lutheran Congregations. This is how I handle communion, I’m not sure how other churches handle it, but I think it would be simular. We do have a strong statement on Homosexuality.
    http://aflc.org/pdf's/info/HS_GodsWord09_pgs.pdf

  • Wayne A

    AFLC, Association Free Lutheran Congregations. This is how I handle communion, I’m not sure how other churches handle it, but I think it would be simular. We do have a strong statement on Homosexuality.
    http://aflc.org/pdf's/info/HS_GodsWord09_pgs.pdf

  • Truth Unites… And Divides

    @fws, #75,

    “Our church, the LCMS, has declared that homosexual behavior is “intrinsically evil.”

    Does the following statement have enough detail and context so that you can say whether you think it is a sin condemned by Scripture?

    Two men have consensual anal intercourse with each other.

    Fws, the Bible says that’s sin. Do you agree that it’s sin?

  • Truth Unites… And Divides

    @fws, #75,

    “Our church, the LCMS, has declared that homosexual behavior is “intrinsically evil.”

    Does the following statement have enough detail and context so that you can say whether you think it is a sin condemned by Scripture?

    Two men have consensual anal intercourse with each other.

    Fws, the Bible says that’s sin. Do you agree that it’s sin?

  • fws

    “We do have a strong statement on Homosexuality.”

    Should I expect to find similar strong statements on divorce, materialistic greed, luxury items, overeating and lack of exercise and similar things that christians regularly take off the sin list as lifestyle sins or even turn them into virtues (free market capitalism’s statement for example “charge whatever the market will bear”)?

    If not, why not? would one exclude a fat person from communion without first seeing if he sees the sin in his eating lifestyle? it is a manifest sin. Is he manifestly penitent for it? Is in in weight watchers?

  • fws

    “We do have a strong statement on Homosexuality.”

    Should I expect to find similar strong statements on divorce, materialistic greed, luxury items, overeating and lack of exercise and similar things that christians regularly take off the sin list as lifestyle sins or even turn them into virtues (free market capitalism’s statement for example “charge whatever the market will bear”)?

    If not, why not? would one exclude a fat person from communion without first seeing if he sees the sin in his eating lifestyle? it is a manifest sin. Is he manifestly penitent for it? Is in in weight watchers?

  • Wayne A

    Strong statement on Divorce, yes. Materialistic greed, yes. Luxurious living, I’m not sure exacally what you call luxurius living, some one in Somolia would say that is you. But specifically what verse are you speaking of, maybe give me the bible reference, but if your speaking of loving the world and the ways of the world, I would say yes. Again about over eating and not excercising, again what verse? Of course we are to care for our bodies as the temple of God and yes I have heard this addressed as well. There is no prohibition of free market capitalism in the Bible, the only prohibitions were those who tried to cheat in the system with false weights. I am not aware of any one in our churches who have removed anything the Bible calls a sin from their list. The emphisis on the homosexual issue is because that is where the world and Satan are attacking. If I put on the billboard out in front of church, Sermon tommorrow, “Glutony is a Sin”, nobody will care. Christians will come and afirm the truth of what I say. If I put “Gay is not Ok” I get picketed.

  • Wayne A

    Strong statement on Divorce, yes. Materialistic greed, yes. Luxurious living, I’m not sure exacally what you call luxurius living, some one in Somolia would say that is you. But specifically what verse are you speaking of, maybe give me the bible reference, but if your speaking of loving the world and the ways of the world, I would say yes. Again about over eating and not excercising, again what verse? Of course we are to care for our bodies as the temple of God and yes I have heard this addressed as well. There is no prohibition of free market capitalism in the Bible, the only prohibitions were those who tried to cheat in the system with false weights. I am not aware of any one in our churches who have removed anything the Bible calls a sin from their list. The emphisis on the homosexual issue is because that is where the world and Satan are attacking. If I put on the billboard out in front of church, Sermon tommorrow, “Glutony is a Sin”, nobody will care. Christians will come and afirm the truth of what I say. If I put “Gay is not Ok” I get picketed.

  • kerner

    TU&D @53:

    It may not be as unlikely as you think. I’m not sure what your doctrinal confession is (I suspect that it is generally reformed/calvinistic to some degree, but you’ll hve to let me know, if you want me to be more precise), but in this day of “liberal” main-line protestant religious denominations, it might not be too hard to find a church that still nominally claims to believe what your church teaches, when in reality they don’t. In any case, we Lutherans are in a position in which the name Lutheran, and even a claim to follow Lutheran doctrine, may not signify what one would expect. But we confessional Lutherans are not willing to abandon the name “Lutheran”. We’ve already had to give up “catholic” and “evangelical” because those have come to mean something different. But I think we won’t soon be chased away from “Lutheran”.

    It can very well be shocking to realize that people who purport to believe as you do actually believe something different.

    As for what taking communion with others means, I believe that the primary purpose of communion is to to strengthen and preserve the faith of the Christian by that Christian receiving the true body and blood of Jesus Christ (I mean, what better “rememberence’ could there be that for God to come presonally to remind you?). But Lutherns also teach that another purpose (one I find to be secondary, but that’s just me, other Lutherans may disagree) and that is this:

    “As there is but one bread,one loaf, from which we eat,so
    we who are eating of this loaf are one body.The eating of one
    and the same loaf of bread unifies us to one body.Our participation
    in the Lord’s Supper is a public profession on our part
    that we are not only in fellowship with Christ,but that we also
    are in fellowship with those with whom we commune at the
    Lord’s Table.We all eat the same bread, the body of Christ.
    Through that act we indicate that we belong together.All of us
    Christians who in the Lord’s Supper eat the body of Christ and
    drink His blood present ourselves as one spiritual family.What
    we eat and drink together, Christ’s body and blood, ties us
    together more closely than the bonds of blood.We declare ourselves
    to be brothers and sisters in Christ.Upon this Bible passage
    do we base the saying, ‘Altar Fellowship is Church
    Fellowship.’ (LCMS statement re fellowship in the Lord’s Supper)

    Some confessional Lutherans believe that this requires us to restrict communion to those we agree with about almost everything. Others, including myself, believe that the ‘unity’ we are to show is more general in nature. But we in the LC-MS are pretty unified in our resolve that the ELCA’s doctrine is IN REALITY not the same as ours in ways that are so significant that we should not gernerally take communion with them.

  • kerner

    TU&D @53:

    It may not be as unlikely as you think. I’m not sure what your doctrinal confession is (I suspect that it is generally reformed/calvinistic to some degree, but you’ll hve to let me know, if you want me to be more precise), but in this day of “liberal” main-line protestant religious denominations, it might not be too hard to find a church that still nominally claims to believe what your church teaches, when in reality they don’t. In any case, we Lutherans are in a position in which the name Lutheran, and even a claim to follow Lutheran doctrine, may not signify what one would expect. But we confessional Lutherans are not willing to abandon the name “Lutheran”. We’ve already had to give up “catholic” and “evangelical” because those have come to mean something different. But I think we won’t soon be chased away from “Lutheran”.

    It can very well be shocking to realize that people who purport to believe as you do actually believe something different.

    As for what taking communion with others means, I believe that the primary purpose of communion is to to strengthen and preserve the faith of the Christian by that Christian receiving the true body and blood of Jesus Christ (I mean, what better “rememberence’ could there be that for God to come presonally to remind you?). But Lutherns also teach that another purpose (one I find to be secondary, but that’s just me, other Lutherans may disagree) and that is this:

    “As there is but one bread,one loaf, from which we eat,so
    we who are eating of this loaf are one body.The eating of one
    and the same loaf of bread unifies us to one body.Our participation
    in the Lord’s Supper is a public profession on our part
    that we are not only in fellowship with Christ,but that we also
    are in fellowship with those with whom we commune at the
    Lord’s Table.We all eat the same bread, the body of Christ.
    Through that act we indicate that we belong together.All of us
    Christians who in the Lord’s Supper eat the body of Christ and
    drink His blood present ourselves as one spiritual family.What
    we eat and drink together, Christ’s body and blood, ties us
    together more closely than the bonds of blood.We declare ourselves
    to be brothers and sisters in Christ.Upon this Bible passage
    do we base the saying, ‘Altar Fellowship is Church
    Fellowship.’ (LCMS statement re fellowship in the Lord’s Supper)

    Some confessional Lutherans believe that this requires us to restrict communion to those we agree with about almost everything. Others, including myself, believe that the ‘unity’ we are to show is more general in nature. But we in the LC-MS are pretty unified in our resolve that the ELCA’s doctrine is IN REALITY not the same as ours in ways that are so significant that we should not gernerally take communion with them.

  • Grace

    Wayne A @ 85

    EXCELLENT.

    Thank you for your strong comments, and observations. All too many people are not aware that many of their arguments, do not exist in the Bible, as you stated.

  • Grace

    Wayne A @ 85

    EXCELLENT.

    Thank you for your strong comments, and observations. All too many people are not aware that many of their arguments, do not exist in the Bible, as you stated.

  • Wayne A

    I did want to relate one other story. The church I serve is in a small town outside of town. So in the winter I end up getting a few Sunday’s off because of bad roads. About six weeks ago we had such a Sunday and I decided to attend a church in town here an Independent Lutheran Church. When I entered the sanctuary I was greeted by the Paster, I told him who I was and which church I served. After a short conversation and him asking my views on communion, and in the process telling him that unless I know of some public unconfessed and unrepented of sin, I explain our views of communion and I let the person decide whether they meet Paul’s definition of some one who can partake in a worthy manner. And mostly based on that statement the pastor asked me not to take communion. That was a little too loose for Him.

    I was not offended, I stayed and worshipped with them, and had a fine time of fellowship with a few of them after the service. Buy the way this guy was trained at a LCMS seminary. I was not offended in the least.
    I sent him an e-mail the next week thanking him for his hospitality and thanking him for preaching the gospel. I told him I had visited many churches in the area, and so often you don’t hear the gospel, but in his message it rang loud and clear.

  • Wayne A

    I did want to relate one other story. The church I serve is in a small town outside of town. So in the winter I end up getting a few Sunday’s off because of bad roads. About six weeks ago we had such a Sunday and I decided to attend a church in town here an Independent Lutheran Church. When I entered the sanctuary I was greeted by the Paster, I told him who I was and which church I served. After a short conversation and him asking my views on communion, and in the process telling him that unless I know of some public unconfessed and unrepented of sin, I explain our views of communion and I let the person decide whether they meet Paul’s definition of some one who can partake in a worthy manner. And mostly based on that statement the pastor asked me not to take communion. That was a little too loose for Him.

    I was not offended, I stayed and worshipped with them, and had a fine time of fellowship with a few of them after the service. Buy the way this guy was trained at a LCMS seminary. I was not offended in the least.
    I sent him an e-mail the next week thanking him for his hospitality and thanking him for preaching the gospel. I told him I had visited many churches in the area, and so often you don’t hear the gospel, but in his message it rang loud and clear.

  • fws

    wayne a @82

    I find it sort of incredible that I have never ever even once seen a paper like this start with a definition of homosexuality, homosexual orientation, homosexual lifestyle, or homosexual behavior.

    I encountered all these terms in the first 3 pages with no definition offered.

    “Marriage was created by God to be a fundamental institution
    of God. It is the indissoluble union (except through death)” ….. so can you give us the link to the “strong statement” on divorce? If not, why not?

    so is page 9 calling for the death penalty for homosexuality then pastor wayne? what would be the arguments against demanding a death penalty for homosexuality?

    there are lots of things in this study that have NOTHING to do with God’s word, such as the freudian assumption that a distant father is the cause or one of the causes of homosexuality. Making parents feel guilty for their childs homosexuality with NO biblical warrant at all for doing that is helpful to anyone how?

    and then there is a long discussion arguing against the idea that homosexuality is biologically based or is irreversable as being a position contrary to scripture. Really? why so? So if someday it is discovered with scientific certainty that homosexuality IS biological and is not reverseable, then will any of the arguments still hold? Why is there the perceived need to argue for or against this? why should it even matter? homosexuality is either sin because the bible says so or it is not. why argue from science?

  • fws

    wayne a @82

    I find it sort of incredible that I have never ever even once seen a paper like this start with a definition of homosexuality, homosexual orientation, homosexual lifestyle, or homosexual behavior.

    I encountered all these terms in the first 3 pages with no definition offered.

    “Marriage was created by God to be a fundamental institution
    of God. It is the indissoluble union (except through death)” ….. so can you give us the link to the “strong statement” on divorce? If not, why not?

    so is page 9 calling for the death penalty for homosexuality then pastor wayne? what would be the arguments against demanding a death penalty for homosexuality?

    there are lots of things in this study that have NOTHING to do with God’s word, such as the freudian assumption that a distant father is the cause or one of the causes of homosexuality. Making parents feel guilty for their childs homosexuality with NO biblical warrant at all for doing that is helpful to anyone how?

    and then there is a long discussion arguing against the idea that homosexuality is biologically based or is irreversable as being a position contrary to scripture. Really? why so? So if someday it is discovered with scientific certainty that homosexuality IS biological and is not reverseable, then will any of the arguments still hold? Why is there the perceived need to argue for or against this? why should it even matter? homosexuality is either sin because the bible says so or it is not. why argue from science?

  • fws

    wayne

    again a fact: the medical community and 100% of homosexuals would say that sexual attraction or sexual acts are the basis for a definition of homosexuality.

    so there are differing definitions for homosexuality. homosexuality is a medical term. You do not agree with how doctors define it. i suppose it is because you think they are attempting to “define away” something that is sin as non sin. Ok. I get all that.

    but to talk to anyone, one must define terms and agree on a common definition. why not agree with the common medical definiton and go from there? what would be the error in that?

  • fws

    wayne

    again a fact: the medical community and 100% of homosexuals would say that sexual attraction or sexual acts are the basis for a definition of homosexuality.

    so there are differing definitions for homosexuality. homosexuality is a medical term. You do not agree with how doctors define it. i suppose it is because you think they are attempting to “define away” something that is sin as non sin. Ok. I get all that.

    but to talk to anyone, one must define terms and agree on a common definition. why not agree with the common medical definiton and go from there? what would be the error in that?

  • kerner

    TU&D @57 you said:

    “52: “Let’s evaluate for a moment. These ELCA Lutheran pastors are baptized, catechised, and confirmed, some of them even baptized, catechised, and confirmed in LCMS and WELS churches perhaps. Are they, then, not to be regarded as baptized Lutheran brothers and sisters in Christ, even though they may be actively open homosexuals?

    These baptized Lutherans still cling to the salvific promises given to them by God in their Lutheran baptism, do they not?

    It can only be concluded then, that Lutherans refusing to partake of Holy Communion in an ELCA church have judged that these baptized Lutherans have rejected their own baptism! Hence, the statement that these are non-Lutheran churches and the logical basis for their subsequent refusal to partake of Holy Communion there.

    I’m not sure I’d go so far as to say that they cling to thier baptisms, or that we judge them. First of all, I’m going to agree with fws that we shouldn’t necessarily be focusing on homosexual sin here. The issues here can apply to any sin. And we Lutherans shy away from trying to “read the heart” of other people. WHether someone is, at this moment, clinging to God’s promise in their baptism is really hard to say. People who seem to be committed to some sin or false doictrine may be truly apostate (which I think is comparitively rare) or they may be prodigals who will ultimately return to their loving father, or they may be just confused and not understand why their behavior is sin or their doctrine is wrong. Lutheran doctrine recognizes the inevitability of every person having so many sins that he/she will not be aware of them all. I will certainly go to my grave without knowing every sin I have ever committed and not specifically repenting of many of them. So will you. But both of us can still cling to the salvific promises of God at the foot of the cross (including those promises received in our baptisms, but in this sense the promises themselves are even more important that the means by which we receive them).

    The thing is, when we see that the actions, or doctrine, of others is so wrong that we cannot stand in public unity with them, that is when we will not take communion with them. It is the actions and the doctrine we judge, not the hearts of the people involved.

  • kerner

    TU&D @57 you said:

    “52: “Let’s evaluate for a moment. These ELCA Lutheran pastors are baptized, catechised, and confirmed, some of them even baptized, catechised, and confirmed in LCMS and WELS churches perhaps. Are they, then, not to be regarded as baptized Lutheran brothers and sisters in Christ, even though they may be actively open homosexuals?

    These baptized Lutherans still cling to the salvific promises given to them by God in their Lutheran baptism, do they not?

    It can only be concluded then, that Lutherans refusing to partake of Holy Communion in an ELCA church have judged that these baptized Lutherans have rejected their own baptism! Hence, the statement that these are non-Lutheran churches and the logical basis for their subsequent refusal to partake of Holy Communion there.

    I’m not sure I’d go so far as to say that they cling to thier baptisms, or that we judge them. First of all, I’m going to agree with fws that we shouldn’t necessarily be focusing on homosexual sin here. The issues here can apply to any sin. And we Lutherans shy away from trying to “read the heart” of other people. WHether someone is, at this moment, clinging to God’s promise in their baptism is really hard to say. People who seem to be committed to some sin or false doictrine may be truly apostate (which I think is comparitively rare) or they may be prodigals who will ultimately return to their loving father, or they may be just confused and not understand why their behavior is sin or their doctrine is wrong. Lutheran doctrine recognizes the inevitability of every person having so many sins that he/she will not be aware of them all. I will certainly go to my grave without knowing every sin I have ever committed and not specifically repenting of many of them. So will you. But both of us can still cling to the salvific promises of God at the foot of the cross (including those promises received in our baptisms, but in this sense the promises themselves are even more important that the means by which we receive them).

    The thing is, when we see that the actions, or doctrine, of others is so wrong that we cannot stand in public unity with them, that is when we will not take communion with them. It is the actions and the doctrine we judge, not the hearts of the people involved.

  • fws

    wayne @ 88

    wow. what a great story. we all need to hear the holy gospel. and only when we have that Gospel planted in our heart can we then learn to know sin aright.

    then we are terrified by ALL we can see and do and we learn to hide ALL we can see and do in the Works of Another. That alone is where we can find Life.

    Vocation and goodworks are all about the death of our Old Adam for the life of others. this means that marriage, family relations and our duties there are about our death. yes they are God’s plan. and they are about our death. There is NO Life there. Life is alone, alone, alone in the Works of Another and being hidden in those works.

    the Lutheran Confessions say that the Law always accuses. there is no gospel in vocation. there is only Law law and more law. and it drives our Old Adams to do goodness and mercy to others.

  • fws

    wayne @ 88

    wow. what a great story. we all need to hear the holy gospel. and only when we have that Gospel planted in our heart can we then learn to know sin aright.

    then we are terrified by ALL we can see and do and we learn to hide ALL we can see and do in the Works of Another. That alone is where we can find Life.

    Vocation and goodworks are all about the death of our Old Adam for the life of others. this means that marriage, family relations and our duties there are about our death. yes they are God’s plan. and they are about our death. There is NO Life there. Life is alone, alone, alone in the Works of Another and being hidden in those works.

    the Lutheran Confessions say that the Law always accuses. there is no gospel in vocation. there is only Law law and more law. and it drives our Old Adams to do goodness and mercy to others.

  • Grace

    The medical community is not the Word of God. Whatever they may have devised as to the definition of homosexuality, doesn’t line up with Scripture.

    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;
    Romans 1

  • Grace

    The medical community is not the Word of God. Whatever they may have devised as to the definition of homosexuality, doesn’t line up with Scripture.

    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;
    Romans 1

  • fws

    Kerner @ 91

    amen.

    Only when a heart has been turned by the Gospel and is no longer accused can God become an Object of Love. and then too only can someone really see the true extent and horror of their sin and be terrified.

    And only then can one learn to hide ALL one can see and do in the Works of Another.

    The LCMS often reaches for the Law button to respond to the ELCA saying they are antinomian. Antinomians do NOT have the gospel. What they call “gospel” is actually pure law.

    If the LCMS would preach the Gospel then they would be preaching what is ALONE the power of God for salvation. The Law will only create whitewashed sepulchers. we should strive to become ALL white washed sepulchers, ideally, according to our Old Adams, but the real deal is to have a New Man inside that whitewashed sepulcher who is dead to sin and alive only and alone in the Works of Another.

    our best works are only a thin coat of sherman williams “sepulcher-white”. None of them can stand the test of Gods judgement which demands our death both temporally and eternally.

  • fws

    Kerner @ 91

    amen.

    Only when a heart has been turned by the Gospel and is no longer accused can God become an Object of Love. and then too only can someone really see the true extent and horror of their sin and be terrified.

    And only then can one learn to hide ALL one can see and do in the Works of Another.

    The LCMS often reaches for the Law button to respond to the ELCA saying they are antinomian. Antinomians do NOT have the gospel. What they call “gospel” is actually pure law.

    If the LCMS would preach the Gospel then they would be preaching what is ALONE the power of God for salvation. The Law will only create whitewashed sepulchers. we should strive to become ALL white washed sepulchers, ideally, according to our Old Adams, but the real deal is to have a New Man inside that whitewashed sepulcher who is dead to sin and alive only and alone in the Works of Another.

    our best works are only a thin coat of sherman williams “sepulcher-white”. None of them can stand the test of Gods judgement which demands our death both temporally and eternally.

  • fws

    grace 93

    If that is true, then for the sake of argument, what the medical community labels as “homosexuality” is a completely different thing than what the bible labels as “homosexuality”.

    what is the problem with that?

    Is there some divinely approved and sanctioned definition of “homosexuality” that can never be defined differently? what would be a biblical basis for asserting this? The word did not even exist in its current definition until arround 1980 and the word did not exist at all before around 1890. so what is “biblical” about an english language medical technical term. you lost me grace.

  • fws

    grace 93

    If that is true, then for the sake of argument, what the medical community labels as “homosexuality” is a completely different thing than what the bible labels as “homosexuality”.

    what is the problem with that?

    Is there some divinely approved and sanctioned definition of “homosexuality” that can never be defined differently? what would be a biblical basis for asserting this? The word did not even exist in its current definition until arround 1980 and the word did not exist at all before around 1890. so what is “biblical” about an english language medical technical term. you lost me grace.

  • fws

    there are many cases where the same word has several meanings tecnhically. take the word depression. a doctor, an engineer , an economist and a geologist all have different meanings. is someone up to mischief there? and then there is a biblical definition probably somewhere as well. so if there is a biblical definition that trumps and eliminates the possibility for any other technical use of a word?

    what is it you are asserting here grace?

  • fws

    there are many cases where the same word has several meanings tecnhically. take the word depression. a doctor, an engineer , an economist and a geologist all have different meanings. is someone up to mischief there? and then there is a biblical definition probably somewhere as well. so if there is a biblical definition that trumps and eliminates the possibility for any other technical use of a word?

    what is it you are asserting here grace?

  • fws

    grace @ 93.

    the medical community is not saying that what is described in romans 1 is NOT sin by saying that romans one does NOT fit their definition of homosexuality.

    can you at least understand what I am saying here. It is possible to agree that what romans one describes IS sin. I believe that with all my heart in fact. and at the same time to say that romans one does not describe the experience of homosexuality for any homosexual that is know to exist.

  • fws

    grace @ 93.

    the medical community is not saying that what is described in romans 1 is NOT sin by saying that romans one does NOT fit their definition of homosexuality.

    can you at least understand what I am saying here. It is possible to agree that what romans one describes IS sin. I believe that with all my heart in fact. and at the same time to say that romans one does not describe the experience of homosexuality for any homosexual that is know to exist.

  • fws

    grace, I dont know of anyone who denys that what Romans one describes is a horrible list of sins.

    To deny that Romans one describes any homosexual or their experience as a homosexual is not to deny that what Romans 1 says is sin.

    got that?

  • fws

    grace, I dont know of anyone who denys that what Romans one describes is a horrible list of sins.

    To deny that Romans one describes any homosexual or their experience as a homosexual is not to deny that what Romans 1 says is sin.

    got that?

  • fws

    grace, lust (which is to covet ) , is ALWAYS a sin no matter who does it. And it is also idolatry. which is the root and font of ALL sin.

  • fws

    grace, lust (which is to covet ) , is ALWAYS a sin no matter who does it. And it is also idolatry. which is the root and font of ALL sin.

  • fws

    homosexuals and heterosexuals who lust (ie covet) are sinning. whether this is done in thought word or deed. can you give me a single quote from anyone who claims to be a christian who would deny this to be true?

  • fws

    homosexuals and heterosexuals who lust (ie covet) are sinning. whether this is done in thought word or deed. can you give me a single quote from anyone who claims to be a christian who would deny this to be true?

  • kerner

    fws @90, you said:

    “but to talk to anyone, one must define terms and agree on a common definition. why not agree with the common medical definiton and go from there? what would be the error in that?”

    Because the medical terminology changes for uncertain and capricious reasons too much. So much so that I consider much of the “medical” attempts to define terms to be post-modernist junk science, or attempts to create attitudes, or accomodate changing ones, by modifying the definitions of those terms. See the link below:

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

  • kerner

    fws @90, you said:

    “but to talk to anyone, one must define terms and agree on a common definition. why not agree with the common medical definiton and go from there? what would be the error in that?”

    Because the medical terminology changes for uncertain and capricious reasons too much. So much so that I consider much of the “medical” attempts to define terms to be post-modernist junk science, or attempts to create attitudes, or accomodate changing ones, by modifying the definitions of those terms. See the link below:

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

  • Grace

    fws @ 95

    “Is there some divinely approved and sanctioned definition of “homosexuality” that can never be defined differently? what would be a biblical basis for asserting this? The word did not even exist in its current definition until arround 1980 and the word did not exist at all before around 1890. so what is “biblical” about an english language medical technical term. you lost me grace.”

    Romans 1:27

    - – 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. – -

    It cannot be any clearer then this. Men “burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly,

    fws, you must have this memorized, but yet you deny its meaning.

  • Grace

    fws @ 95

    “Is there some divinely approved and sanctioned definition of “homosexuality” that can never be defined differently? what would be a biblical basis for asserting this? The word did not even exist in its current definition until arround 1980 and the word did not exist at all before around 1890. so what is “biblical” about an english language medical technical term. you lost me grace.”

    Romans 1:27

    - – 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. – -

    It cannot be any clearer then this. Men “burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly,

    fws, you must have this memorized, but yet you deny its meaning.

  • Wayne A

    I’m comfortable with the Greek arsenokoítai, or we can use the older term sodomite, they all mean the same.

    As far as the death penalty, we are not Israel. But even though we don’t insist on the death penalty for Homosexuals, rebelious children, adulterers, etc, we still call such actions sin. We look at the New Testament, and all sexual sins listed in the Old Covenant are still there in the New, and nine of the ten commandments are all repeated. The one not explicitly repeated is the Sabboth, but even there we carry the principle forward and have worship on Sunday and encourage people to take a day of rest.

    We don’t need strong statements on every issue. We have the Bible. We issue statements where culture, the world and Satan are putting pressure on the church to abandon the clear teachings of scripture. In the AFLC there are no divorced clergy, but the world doesn’t care. So why do we need a strong statement, the strong statment is in the practice of the church and what is preached from the pulpit on Sunday.

  • Wayne A

    I’m comfortable with the Greek arsenokoítai, or we can use the older term sodomite, they all mean the same.

    As far as the death penalty, we are not Israel. But even though we don’t insist on the death penalty for Homosexuals, rebelious children, adulterers, etc, we still call such actions sin. We look at the New Testament, and all sexual sins listed in the Old Covenant are still there in the New, and nine of the ten commandments are all repeated. The one not explicitly repeated is the Sabboth, but even there we carry the principle forward and have worship on Sunday and encourage people to take a day of rest.

    We don’t need strong statements on every issue. We have the Bible. We issue statements where culture, the world and Satan are putting pressure on the church to abandon the clear teachings of scripture. In the AFLC there are no divorced clergy, but the world doesn’t care. So why do we need a strong statement, the strong statment is in the practice of the church and what is preached from the pulpit on Sunday.

  • Wayne A

    FWS

    Jesus said, If you look with lust you commit adultery in your heart. Yes, so lust is a sin. It is not just the act that is a sin, it’s the desire for the act. Yes I sin. But the question is, do I love my sin? Or do I hate my sin. Do I plan my sin, set myself up for my sin, or do I war against it and flee from it. I am a sinner, Paul said he was the cheif of sinners. I want to challenge him on that. I am the cheif of sinners. I need a savior, I have a Savior, one who knows the wretch that I am, and he died for me anyway. He took my sins on himself on the cross and took my punishment. Jesus said, He who is forgiven much, loves much. I pray that God would reveal the depths of my sin to me, that I might fall even more in love with Him.

  • Wayne A

    FWS

    Jesus said, If you look with lust you commit adultery in your heart. Yes, so lust is a sin. It is not just the act that is a sin, it’s the desire for the act. Yes I sin. But the question is, do I love my sin? Or do I hate my sin. Do I plan my sin, set myself up for my sin, or do I war against it and flee from it. I am a sinner, Paul said he was the cheif of sinners. I want to challenge him on that. I am the cheif of sinners. I need a savior, I have a Savior, one who knows the wretch that I am, and he died for me anyway. He took my sins on himself on the cross and took my punishment. Jesus said, He who is forgiven much, loves much. I pray that God would reveal the depths of my sin to me, that I might fall even more in love with Him.

  • fws

    kerner @101

    to argue from a specific abuse that the general case is equally abusive seems somehow not a great approach.

    what about this definition that would lend to the discussion at hand? For me, most certainly because I am a homosexual, it seems to merely try to describe what is known without even trying to explain why or nail down every unanswered question.

    http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx

    another good article

    http://sdakinship.org/en/aapv/aapv7.html

    where would this definition be at war with anything in the Bible?

    understand what I am saying here. If homosexuals and the medical community are talking about a some-thing that is established (they say) around age 5, it does seem that they are talking about a DIFFERENT some-thing than religious christian conservatives seem to be talking about a some-thing which again may be BOTH different than what the Bible is talking about.

    So must we conclude that there is some subversive hidden agenda behind this to “unsin” a some-thing the bible labels as sin. Or maybe persons like me are just trying to describe what it is they are experiencing in as objective a way as possible, and it just so happens that that experience looks nothing at all like the evocative and very visceral images provided in lev 18, sodom and gomorrah or romans 1.

  • fws

    kerner @101

    to argue from a specific abuse that the general case is equally abusive seems somehow not a great approach.

    what about this definition that would lend to the discussion at hand? For me, most certainly because I am a homosexual, it seems to merely try to describe what is known without even trying to explain why or nail down every unanswered question.

    http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx

    another good article

    http://sdakinship.org/en/aapv/aapv7.html

    where would this definition be at war with anything in the Bible?

    understand what I am saying here. If homosexuals and the medical community are talking about a some-thing that is established (they say) around age 5, it does seem that they are talking about a DIFFERENT some-thing than religious christian conservatives seem to be talking about a some-thing which again may be BOTH different than what the Bible is talking about.

    So must we conclude that there is some subversive hidden agenda behind this to “unsin” a some-thing the bible labels as sin. Or maybe persons like me are just trying to describe what it is they are experiencing in as objective a way as possible, and it just so happens that that experience looks nothing at all like the evocative and very visceral images provided in lev 18, sodom and gomorrah or romans 1.

  • fws

    wayne a @ 104

    if you are a Lutheran, and you are, you confess that whenever you sin, you have planned it, wanted it to happen, set yourself up for it, and willed for it to happen from the very bottom of your Old Adam heart!

    the confessions refer to Luthers 1545 preface to the translation of romans as a further amplification of the Lutheran Confessions. It is a short read. I would urge you to read all of it. here is the pertinent part where Luther destroys the notion that there is a useful distinction to be made between willful and unwillful sinning. ALL sinning he says is willful. read for yourself:

    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). http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

  • fws

    wayne a @ 104

    if you are a Lutheran, and you are, you confess that whenever you sin, you have planned it, wanted it to happen, set yourself up for it, and willed for it to happen from the very bottom of your Old Adam heart!

    the confessions refer to Luthers 1545 preface to the translation of romans as a further amplification of the Lutheran Confessions. It is a short read. I would urge you to read all of it. here is the pertinent part where Luther destroys the notion that there is a useful distinction to be made between willful and unwillful sinning. ALL sinning he says is willful. read for yourself:

    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). http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

  • fws

    wayne at 104.
    pride goes before the fall.

    you are not the chief of sinners. that would be me. and not you or st paul. seriously now.

    the confessions tell us, in the formula of concord in the section on law and gospel and also in the apology that only when one has been born again can one truly seen the depth of ones sin. Christ personally takes the Law to us and shows us that it is what is in our heart that is the problem.

    and so then only a believer can be truly terrified by ALL he can see and do. and so then the believer knows to hide ALL he can do in the Works of Another.

    If you are from the pietistic part of Lutheranism you will probably not like what I have to say next. that is this:

    ALLl our good works and vocation including marriage and family and being a pastor is ALL and ONLY about the death of our Old Adam for the creaturely transitory life on earth that will perish.

    Capital L Life is only and alone to be found by hiding all we can see and do, which is death, in the Works of Another.

    Now then, what about the works of the New Man?

    1) Well New man does not “do” these works as in do. as in effort. they simply happen. there is really no choice at all in the matter for new man. they flow out of him like light from sun (formula of concord on the lutheran 3rd use.)

    2) the works of new man, or fruit of new man, are identical to the fruit driven out of Old Adam by the law that kills him to make that fruit happen! get it? goodness and mercy happens in two ways, by the law and by the gospel. but it is the SAME goodness and mercy.

    So there is no way to visibly distinguish between the two. And if you need to work at being good, which is true for 100% of what you can see and do, then that is the Law extorting goodness and mercy towards others out of your old adam!

  • fws

    wayne at 104.
    pride goes before the fall.

    you are not the chief of sinners. that would be me. and not you or st paul. seriously now.

    the confessions tell us, in the formula of concord in the section on law and gospel and also in the apology that only when one has been born again can one truly seen the depth of ones sin. Christ personally takes the Law to us and shows us that it is what is in our heart that is the problem.

    and so then only a believer can be truly terrified by ALL he can see and do. and so then the believer knows to hide ALL he can do in the Works of Another.

    If you are from the pietistic part of Lutheranism you will probably not like what I have to say next. that is this:

    ALLl our good works and vocation including marriage and family and being a pastor is ALL and ONLY about the death of our Old Adam for the creaturely transitory life on earth that will perish.

    Capital L Life is only and alone to be found by hiding all we can see and do, which is death, in the Works of Another.

    Now then, what about the works of the New Man?

    1) Well New man does not “do” these works as in do. as in effort. they simply happen. there is really no choice at all in the matter for new man. they flow out of him like light from sun (formula of concord on the lutheran 3rd use.)

    2) the works of new man, or fruit of new man, are identical to the fruit driven out of Old Adam by the law that kills him to make that fruit happen! get it? goodness and mercy happens in two ways, by the law and by the gospel. but it is the SAME goodness and mercy.

    So there is no way to visibly distinguish between the two. And if you need to work at being good, which is true for 100% of what you can see and do, then that is the Law extorting goodness and mercy towards others out of your old adam!

  • Wayne A

    Yes I do sin willfully, but I don’t like it, I hate it. The flesh so easily betrays me, who can release me from this body of death? I’m glad that some day the struggle will be over and at my depature Jesus will be the victor. The word sin in scripture can either be a verb or a noun. In 1 John 1:9 it’s a verb, latter he uses it as a noun, a lifstyle.

    1 John 3:4-9

    4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

    7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.
    NKJV

  • Wayne A

    Yes I do sin willfully, but I don’t like it, I hate it. The flesh so easily betrays me, who can release me from this body of death? I’m glad that some day the struggle will be over and at my depature Jesus will be the victor. The word sin in scripture can either be a verb or a noun. In 1 John 1:9 it’s a verb, latter he uses it as a noun, a lifstyle.

    1 John 3:4-9

    4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

    7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.
    NKJV

  • fws

    wayne. ok you like arsenokoitia or sodomite.

    homosexuals along with the medical community identify homosexuality as being set at age 5. I have a hard time overlaying the words arenokoitia or sodomite on a 5 year old.

    I would invite you to consider that maybe what the bible describes and what homosexuals describe as their experience, confirmed by medical surveys and studies are simply two different criters.

    what the bible describes IS sin. No one is denying that. But a homosexual looks at those passage and says : that does not look , even remotely, like anything that would do other than repulse me. I am a h0mosexual, and I simply cannot place myself in lev 18 , the sodom and gomorrah story or romans 1. I cannot imagine myself participating , desireing, or being even remotely tempted by what those passages describe and evoke. they are not erotic to me. they repulse me.

    what is going on here?

  • fws

    wayne. ok you like arsenokoitia or sodomite.

    homosexuals along with the medical community identify homosexuality as being set at age 5. I have a hard time overlaying the words arenokoitia or sodomite on a 5 year old.

    I would invite you to consider that maybe what the bible describes and what homosexuals describe as their experience, confirmed by medical surveys and studies are simply two different criters.

    what the bible describes IS sin. No one is denying that. But a homosexual looks at those passage and says : that does not look , even remotely, like anything that would do other than repulse me. I am a h0mosexual, and I simply cannot place myself in lev 18 , the sodom and gomorrah story or romans 1. I cannot imagine myself participating , desireing, or being even remotely tempted by what those passages describe and evoke. they are not erotic to me. they repulse me.

    what is going on here?

  • fws

    wayne at 108. the lutheran confessions say that within you wayne there are two warring powers. one is your old adam and the other is your new man. your old adam, wants to put its trust and seek good things in anything but God. your new man trusts alone in the Works of Another and rests from restlessly seeking to find good in what he can do. Instead, your new man seeks the death of old adam in ALL he can do.

    Old adam seeks Life in working. willing. doing. usually this is to seek sanctification in doing and striving. this part of sanctification , and it IS sanctification, is ALL about death. And we are to work with all our might at that. This work is useful on earth to avoid God’s punishment and have a happy and peaceful life. But it is useless if we seek to deal with God. to deal with God we must rely on the proper meaning of sanctification, which is to rely , alone, upon the Works of Another and seek Life, alone, alone, alone there, and not in anything we can do. anything we can do, even sanctified doing, is ALL about death!

  • fws

    wayne at 108. the lutheran confessions say that within you wayne there are two warring powers. one is your old adam and the other is your new man. your old adam, wants to put its trust and seek good things in anything but God. your new man trusts alone in the Works of Another and rests from restlessly seeking to find good in what he can do. Instead, your new man seeks the death of old adam in ALL he can do.

    Old adam seeks Life in working. willing. doing. usually this is to seek sanctification in doing and striving. this part of sanctification , and it IS sanctification, is ALL about death. And we are to work with all our might at that. This work is useful on earth to avoid God’s punishment and have a happy and peaceful life. But it is useless if we seek to deal with God. to deal with God we must rely on the proper meaning of sanctification, which is to rely , alone, upon the Works of Another and seek Life, alone, alone, alone there, and not in anything we can do. anything we can do, even sanctified doing, is ALL about death!

  • fws

    wayne a at 103

    please send us the link to your strong statement on divorce. if you do not think that divorce is a stronger threat to marriage, family and society than homosexuality please share with us why?

    aslo, you do not feel that society (and most churchs) are not telling us that divorce is no longer a sin? really? so why the strong statement on a sin that you are pretty sure no one in your church group is probably tempted by, and NOTHING on a potential sin that almost all in your group could be threatened by?

    Ya get mah point pardner?

  • fws

    wayne a at 103

    please send us the link to your strong statement on divorce. if you do not think that divorce is a stronger threat to marriage, family and society than homosexuality please share with us why?

    aslo, you do not feel that society (and most churchs) are not telling us that divorce is no longer a sin? really? so why the strong statement on a sin that you are pretty sure no one in your church group is probably tempted by, and NOTHING on a potential sin that almost all in your group could be threatened by?

    Ya get mah point pardner?

  • fws

    wayne @ 108

    describe or define “gay lifestyle” please.
    It is an utterly meaningless and useless phrase.
    it is an engagement in full blown post modernistic use of language as emotional manipulation devoid of any real or specific content.
    It is evocative and provacative and provides no specific meaning whatsoever.

    I challenge you to demonstrate that I am wrong about this.

  • fws

    wayne @ 108

    describe or define “gay lifestyle” please.
    It is an utterly meaningless and useless phrase.
    it is an engagement in full blown post modernistic use of language as emotional manipulation devoid of any real or specific content.
    It is evocative and provacative and provides no specific meaning whatsoever.

    I challenge you to demonstrate that I am wrong about this.

  • fws

    wayne @108

    You have no strong statement on divorce. why is that. It meets all the tests you presented for why there exists a “strong statement” on homosexuality. why. is . that. ?

  • fws

    wayne @108

    You have no strong statement on divorce. why is that. It meets all the tests you presented for why there exists a “strong statement” on homosexuality. why. is . that. ?

  • fws

    wayne this is st john preaching about the law and gospel that is right there within you.

    your old adam can do nothing BUT sin. the only cure for him is not reformation . it is death. he needs to die. there is no reforming him. willpower can only fix the outward appearance. the heart is still at war with God.

    then there is your new man. Your new man CANNOT SIN! did you read that? cannot. sin. yet you do sin. that is your old adam sinning. it is who you were.

    so your point here for me, as a homosexual christian is what then?

  • fws

    wayne this is st john preaching about the law and gospel that is right there within you.

    your old adam can do nothing BUT sin. the only cure for him is not reformation . it is death. he needs to die. there is no reforming him. willpower can only fix the outward appearance. the heart is still at war with God.

    then there is your new man. Your new man CANNOT SIN! did you read that? cannot. sin. yet you do sin. that is your old adam sinning. it is who you were.

    so your point here for me, as a homosexual christian is what then?

  • fws

    if you tell me, as your paper from your church says, that homosexual christian is an oxymoron, I will say that we obviously mean something different by the use of that word. so then what?

  • fws

    if you tell me, as your paper from your church says, that homosexual christian is an oxymoron, I will say that we obviously mean something different by the use of that word. so then what?

  • Grace

    There is only one way one may obtain a divorce and that is adultery. They then have a Biblical divorce, which entitles the one who has been the victim to marry again.

    And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

    Matthew 19:9

    People cannot obtain a Biblical divorce for gossip, lying being fat. Why is it only sexual sin? Perhaps this sheds a new light on sin, and why sexual sin is a reason for Biblical divorce.

    From this point we have to ask ourselves, because sexual sin is such a horrible sin, it is held above all others for the reason of divorce, and another chance to remarry, then what? Is this just another sin like gossip? Of course not, there is nothing to suggest in the Word of God that one can divorce for gossip, lying, stealing or other sins, ONLY fornication/adultery –

    Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
    1 Corinthians 6:18

  • Grace

    There is only one way one may obtain a divorce and that is adultery. They then have a Biblical divorce, which entitles the one who has been the victim to marry again.

    And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

    Matthew 19:9

    People cannot obtain a Biblical divorce for gossip, lying being fat. Why is it only sexual sin? Perhaps this sheds a new light on sin, and why sexual sin is a reason for Biblical divorce.

    From this point we have to ask ourselves, because sexual sin is such a horrible sin, it is held above all others for the reason of divorce, and another chance to remarry, then what? Is this just another sin like gossip? Of course not, there is nothing to suggest in the Word of God that one can divorce for gossip, lying, stealing or other sins, ONLY fornication/adultery –

    Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
    1 Corinthians 6:18

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    FWS,

    There have been so many comments that you might have overlooked one. Namely, #75. Here it is again for your thoughtful consideration:

    @fws, #75,

    “Our church, the LCMS, has declared that homosexual behavior is “intrinsically evil.”

    Does the following statement have enough detail and context so that you can say whether you think it is a sin condemned by Scripture?

    Two men have consensual anal intercourse with each other.

    Fws, the Bible says that’s sin. Do you agree that it’s sin?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    FWS,

    There have been so many comments that you might have overlooked one. Namely, #75. Here it is again for your thoughtful consideration:

    @fws, #75,

    “Our church, the LCMS, has declared that homosexual behavior is “intrinsically evil.”

    Does the following statement have enough detail and context so that you can say whether you think it is a sin condemned by Scripture?

    Two men have consensual anal intercourse with each other.

    Fws, the Bible says that’s sin. Do you agree that it’s sin?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Pastor Wayne A, #88: “After a short conversation and him asking my views on communion, and in the process telling him that unless I know of some public unconfessed and unrepented of sin, I explain our views of communion and I let the person decide whether they meet Paul’s definition of some one who can partake in a worthy manner. And mostly based on that statement the pastor asked me not to take communion.”

    Hi Pastor Wayne A, suppose you had an interaction with a Lutheran exactly like the one you’ve had with fws in this thread. Would you ask this fws-like Lutheran to not take communion in your church?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Pastor Wayne A, #88: “After a short conversation and him asking my views on communion, and in the process telling him that unless I know of some public unconfessed and unrepented of sin, I explain our views of communion and I let the person decide whether they meet Paul’s definition of some one who can partake in a worthy manner. And mostly based on that statement the pastor asked me not to take communion.”

    Hi Pastor Wayne A, suppose you had an interaction with a Lutheran exactly like the one you’ve had with fws in this thread. Would you ask this fws-like Lutheran to not take communion in your church?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Kerner: “But we in the LC-MS are pretty unified in our resolve that the ELCA’s doctrine is IN REALITY not the same as ours in ways that are so significant that we should not gernerally take communion with them.”

    “The thing is, when we see that the actions, or doctrine, of others is so wrong that we cannot stand in public unity with them, that is when we will not take communion with them. It is the actions and the doctrine we judge, not the hearts of the people involved.”

    I submit for your thoughtful consideration that some people will say that their actions and their utterances reflect their hearts as well.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Kerner: “But we in the LC-MS are pretty unified in our resolve that the ELCA’s doctrine is IN REALITY not the same as ours in ways that are so significant that we should not gernerally take communion with them.”

    “The thing is, when we see that the actions, or doctrine, of others is so wrong that we cannot stand in public unity with them, that is when we will not take communion with them. It is the actions and the doctrine we judge, not the hearts of the people involved.”

    I submit for your thoughtful consideration that some people will say that their actions and their utterances reflect their hearts as well.

  • kerner

    TU&D @ 119:

    Oh, I agree that a person’s actions and utterances reflects the person’s heart. And to see someone who purports to believe what I believe have actions or utterances that stray so far from the truth that I feel I must act to the extent of refusing to take communion with him is tragic. I pray that such a person will, like the prodigal son, return to his loving father. I pray a similar prayer when I see my brother or sister in Christ, like St. Paul in Romans 7, doing the evil things he/she doesn’t want to do. And I hope my brothers and sisters in Christ pray similar prayers for me. But sometimes the prodigal looks a lot like a truly lost soul or apostate (was never there or is so far gone he’s never coming back), and sometimes the repentent Christian looks a lot like the prodigal, at least for awhile. Our sovereign Lord knows the end of us all, but I don’t. But I don’t think I need to know.

    I submit for your own thoughtful consideration that the work of the Church, as the body of Christ, is to preach the Word and administer the sacraments, and pray, trusting our sovereign Lord to use those as His means of grace as He promised. Spending too much effort trying to determine whether each person is or will be saved a waste of effort because it is beyond us. But you substantially agree with most of this already, don’t you?

  • kerner

    TU&D @ 119:

    Oh, I agree that a person’s actions and utterances reflects the person’s heart. And to see someone who purports to believe what I believe have actions or utterances that stray so far from the truth that I feel I must act to the extent of refusing to take communion with him is tragic. I pray that such a person will, like the prodigal son, return to his loving father. I pray a similar prayer when I see my brother or sister in Christ, like St. Paul in Romans 7, doing the evil things he/she doesn’t want to do. And I hope my brothers and sisters in Christ pray similar prayers for me. But sometimes the prodigal looks a lot like a truly lost soul or apostate (was never there or is so far gone he’s never coming back), and sometimes the repentent Christian looks a lot like the prodigal, at least for awhile. Our sovereign Lord knows the end of us all, but I don’t. But I don’t think I need to know.

    I submit for your own thoughtful consideration that the work of the Church, as the body of Christ, is to preach the Word and administer the sacraments, and pray, trusting our sovereign Lord to use those as His means of grace as He promised. Spending too much effort trying to determine whether each person is or will be saved a waste of effort because it is beyond us. But you substantially agree with most of this already, don’t you?

  • Wayne A

    Would I commune FWS? I’m not sure he would want me to. If someone came up to me before the service and started telling me every point of doctrine that he disagreed with me on, and everything about our Association that he disagrees with, I would ask him not to commune.

    I will and have worshiped and have been in Bible studies with Baptists, and Reformed, but I would not commune. That’s an area that I have changed, 20 years ago I would have. I would not at this point commune at an ELCA church. Which makes it awkward, I have some family that still attends ELCA churches. I have communed at Lutheran Brethren Churches, I would commune at an LCMS church or a Wisconsin Synod church if they would alow it. Some LCMS churches would alow it, probably no Wisconsin Synod would, and I have no problem with that.

  • Wayne A

    Would I commune FWS? I’m not sure he would want me to. If someone came up to me before the service and started telling me every point of doctrine that he disagreed with me on, and everything about our Association that he disagrees with, I would ask him not to commune.

    I will and have worshiped and have been in Bible studies with Baptists, and Reformed, but I would not commune. That’s an area that I have changed, 20 years ago I would have. I would not at this point commune at an ELCA church. Which makes it awkward, I have some family that still attends ELCA churches. I have communed at Lutheran Brethren Churches, I would commune at an LCMS church or a Wisconsin Synod church if they would alow it. Some LCMS churches would alow it, probably no Wisconsin Synod would, and I have no problem with that.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Kerner, #120: “Spending too much effort trying to determine whether each person is or will be saved a waste of effort because it is beyond us. But you substantially agree with most of this already, don’t you?

    I’m not sure exactly when the point of “spending too much effort” is reached. You might not be aware of the following, but I submit it for your thoughtful consideration.

    Jesus gave the Great Commission in Matthew 28. Consequently, fulfilling the Great Commission requires a certain amount of judgment/discernment about where someone else is in respect to being a genuine disciple and follower of Jesus Christ.

    Secondly, I have read of folks who were immensely grateful to the Christians who judged them as being false converts, and told them so. It’s rather uncommon, but I have seen it. It goes something like this: “I was so grateful that Mrs. So-and-so shared with me that I was a false convert. I was upset, offended, and hurt, but it was true. All these years I thought I was a Christian and going to church but I wasn’t a real Christian. If it wasn’t for Mrs. So-and-so, I would have gone straight to Hell. I’m so thankful to God for using her courage in confronting me about being a false convert. She judged me as a false convert, and her judgment was true. To God be the Glory that used Mrs. So-and-so’s righteous judgment as means to convict me of being a false convert after all these years as a pew-sitter.”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Kerner, #120: “Spending too much effort trying to determine whether each person is or will be saved a waste of effort because it is beyond us. But you substantially agree with most of this already, don’t you?

    I’m not sure exactly when the point of “spending too much effort” is reached. You might not be aware of the following, but I submit it for your thoughtful consideration.

    Jesus gave the Great Commission in Matthew 28. Consequently, fulfilling the Great Commission requires a certain amount of judgment/discernment about where someone else is in respect to being a genuine disciple and follower of Jesus Christ.

    Secondly, I have read of folks who were immensely grateful to the Christians who judged them as being false converts, and told them so. It’s rather uncommon, but I have seen it. It goes something like this: “I was so grateful that Mrs. So-and-so shared with me that I was a false convert. I was upset, offended, and hurt, but it was true. All these years I thought I was a Christian and going to church but I wasn’t a real Christian. If it wasn’t for Mrs. So-and-so, I would have gone straight to Hell. I’m so thankful to God for using her courage in confronting me about being a false convert. She judged me as a false convert, and her judgment was true. To God be the Glory that used Mrs. So-and-so’s righteous judgment as means to convict me of being a false convert after all these years as a pew-sitter.”

  • kerner

    TU&D:

    I must concede that I have not thought or considered that scenario very much at all. And I will start now. But can you help me out with something? These people that you know who “thought they were Christians”, but weren’t: what does that mean, exactly? Do you mean they were wrong about what it means to be a Christian? Or something else?

    Well, goood night all. Maybe we can discuss this more tomorrow.

  • kerner

    TU&D:

    I must concede that I have not thought or considered that scenario very much at all. And I will start now. But can you help me out with something? These people that you know who “thought they were Christians”, but weren’t: what does that mean, exactly? Do you mean they were wrong about what it means to be a Christian? Or something else?

    Well, goood night all. Maybe we can discuss this more tomorrow.

  • fws

    tud @117

    No. Again the problem is definitional. “homosexual behavior”.

    1) does the LCMS define “homosexual behavior” as being two men having intercourse? or is that something you are adding in?

    2) All homosexuals I know of, and the medical community that has taken the time to study them say that “homosexual behavior” starts around age 5. So to say that homosexual behavior=anal intercourse between two men does not seem to really fit does it?

    That would be like saying “humans have sex with others. Therefore to be classivied as human, definitionally, one must have sex with others. therefore….. the definition of being human is to have sex with others. not all humans have sex for various reasons. Therefore they are not human? ”

    not all homosexuals have sex for various reasons. does that mean they are not homosexual? No homosexual or medical professional who studies them would look at it this way. I hope you can see what I am trying to show you. Thanks for your polite tone.

    As with humans, one, possible consequence of being homosexual might be sex. that is really because, after all, homosexuals are human too. But the act or desire to have sex is not ,at least for homosexuals or those who study them , what sets apart homosexuals as a classification and defines them as such. Follow me TUD?

    So if someone wants to dialog with any homosexual or the medical persons who study them and insist on changing the definition of “homosexual” to be about a sex act or desire, the conversation will get no where at all. Why? There will be no honest conversation.

    To disagree with someone, one must first understand what one is disagreeing with. and to do that, one must have the same definition of terms as the other side has. It is really that simple.

    Religious conservatives refuse to even consider this point arguing that “redefining” the word “homosexual” is a blatant attempt to UNsin something that is sin.

    I don’t agree with that assessment. I hope that helps TUD. I hope you can see that I am in no way trying to avoid or evade your question. Quite to the contrary, I am trying to articulate something in response that is not very easy to articulate, but , I think, is an important point.

    Whenever you meet a gay person or a medical professional who deals with them, keep in mind that they are convinced by what they have seen, that homosexuality is pretty much set in stone around age 5 . In my case it was much earlier. So see if what you say fits in , somehow, with that basic observation or not. If not, then you simply are not going to get anywhere at all talking to a homosexual or medical professional, so why even bother?

  • fws

    tud @117

    No. Again the problem is definitional. “homosexual behavior”.

    1) does the LCMS define “homosexual behavior” as being two men having intercourse? or is that something you are adding in?

    2) All homosexuals I know of, and the medical community that has taken the time to study them say that “homosexual behavior” starts around age 5. So to say that homosexual behavior=anal intercourse between two men does not seem to really fit does it?

    That would be like saying “humans have sex with others. Therefore to be classivied as human, definitionally, one must have sex with others. therefore….. the definition of being human is to have sex with others. not all humans have sex for various reasons. Therefore they are not human? ”

    not all homosexuals have sex for various reasons. does that mean they are not homosexual? No homosexual or medical professional who studies them would look at it this way. I hope you can see what I am trying to show you. Thanks for your polite tone.

    As with humans, one, possible consequence of being homosexual might be sex. that is really because, after all, homosexuals are human too. But the act or desire to have sex is not ,at least for homosexuals or those who study them , what sets apart homosexuals as a classification and defines them as such. Follow me TUD?

    So if someone wants to dialog with any homosexual or the medical persons who study them and insist on changing the definition of “homosexual” to be about a sex act or desire, the conversation will get no where at all. Why? There will be no honest conversation.

    To disagree with someone, one must first understand what one is disagreeing with. and to do that, one must have the same definition of terms as the other side has. It is really that simple.

    Religious conservatives refuse to even consider this point arguing that “redefining” the word “homosexual” is a blatant attempt to UNsin something that is sin.

    I don’t agree with that assessment. I hope that helps TUD. I hope you can see that I am in no way trying to avoid or evade your question. Quite to the contrary, I am trying to articulate something in response that is not very easy to articulate, but , I think, is an important point.

    Whenever you meet a gay person or a medical professional who deals with them, keep in mind that they are convinced by what they have seen, that homosexuality is pretty much set in stone around age 5 . In my case it was much earlier. So see if what you say fits in , somehow, with that basic observation or not. If not, then you simply are not going to get anywhere at all talking to a homosexual or medical professional, so why even bother?

  • fws

    wayne a @ 121

    Wow, I am grateful to see you on here dear pastor. I am seeing that you are on a journey to becoming an increasingly Lutheran pastor, which means you are reading the Lutheran Confessions and increasingly becoming convinced that they are a correct understanding of the Word of God. It is wonderful to see that happen, especially in a pastor. You come from a pietistic background, which is really the reformed/methodistic influence upon Lutheranism. It is the large pietistic group in the ELCA I am convinced that has led them down the path of Antinomianism.

    Antinominism is not to be without the Law. That would be impossible. Romans 2:15 says that the Law is written in the Reason (not the hearts! of ALL men. And the Law is exactly like that nagging widow in Luke 18. It refuses to go away. It ALWAYS accuses. So the inevitable result of those christians who say that christians are free from the Law end up turning the Gospel into another Law. Christ becomes our Example, a new Moses. And Christ IS that! Christ comes to us in two ways, as Example, and as Savior. But… even a pagan can be our moral example, so we dont really need Christ for that. Christ alone can deliver us from sin. We so very desperately need him for that!

    So dear pastor, would you commune me or would I ask to be communed? For me it would not matter so much. I would love to hear you fill your sermon with the true Gospel of the Works of Another for lost sinners like me.

    God has already judged my case in Christ. I don’t need to reargue it in anyone’s court! Do I believe homosexuality is a sin? No I do not. But then my definition of that word is different than most of yours. I came to know I was a homosexual (not even knowing that label) at age 5. And I have spent a lifetime simply dealing with that as an unwelcome fact of life. living in denial is neither honest nor Christian. I have nothing to argue. it is simply a fact for me. If you want to disagree go ahead.

    So why do I come here and identify here as a gay man? For you. And for all my neighbors God demands that I serve Goodness and Mercy too. The religious spend alot of time talking about Gays. But the conversation is ALWAYS one where there is not a single homosexual in the room. It is an exercise in talking about “them” . It is NEVER an exercise in talking TO them. So any pious veneer at the end of some paper on homosexuality as a section titled “ministering to homosexuals” rings very hollow. It sounds like a lie. It is a lie.

    So I am here. I am a confessional Lutheran. I love Christ. I repent daily of ALL my sins. And I wish to serve God as he requires me to do, by serving you. In fact I also fear God. So to not do this service willingly and joyfully and instead hide myself and not be bothered would be wrong. In that case I would need to fear that God would then punish me or send me suffering as he did to Jonah and so many others who refused to keep the commandments and do love for others.
    Bless you pastor Wayne. and forgive me for any comments that have felt less than loving or kind.

  • fws

    wayne a @ 121

    Wow, I am grateful to see you on here dear pastor. I am seeing that you are on a journey to becoming an increasingly Lutheran pastor, which means you are reading the Lutheran Confessions and increasingly becoming convinced that they are a correct understanding of the Word of God. It is wonderful to see that happen, especially in a pastor. You come from a pietistic background, which is really the reformed/methodistic influence upon Lutheranism. It is the large pietistic group in the ELCA I am convinced that has led them down the path of Antinomianism.

    Antinominism is not to be without the Law. That would be impossible. Romans 2:15 says that the Law is written in the Reason (not the hearts! of ALL men. And the Law is exactly like that nagging widow in Luke 18. It refuses to go away. It ALWAYS accuses. So the inevitable result of those christians who say that christians are free from the Law end up turning the Gospel into another Law. Christ becomes our Example, a new Moses. And Christ IS that! Christ comes to us in two ways, as Example, and as Savior. But… even a pagan can be our moral example, so we dont really need Christ for that. Christ alone can deliver us from sin. We so very desperately need him for that!

    So dear pastor, would you commune me or would I ask to be communed? For me it would not matter so much. I would love to hear you fill your sermon with the true Gospel of the Works of Another for lost sinners like me.

    God has already judged my case in Christ. I don’t need to reargue it in anyone’s court! Do I believe homosexuality is a sin? No I do not. But then my definition of that word is different than most of yours. I came to know I was a homosexual (not even knowing that label) at age 5. And I have spent a lifetime simply dealing with that as an unwelcome fact of life. living in denial is neither honest nor Christian. I have nothing to argue. it is simply a fact for me. If you want to disagree go ahead.

    So why do I come here and identify here as a gay man? For you. And for all my neighbors God demands that I serve Goodness and Mercy too. The religious spend alot of time talking about Gays. But the conversation is ALWAYS one where there is not a single homosexual in the room. It is an exercise in talking about “them” . It is NEVER an exercise in talking TO them. So any pious veneer at the end of some paper on homosexuality as a section titled “ministering to homosexuals” rings very hollow. It sounds like a lie. It is a lie.

    So I am here. I am a confessional Lutheran. I love Christ. I repent daily of ALL my sins. And I wish to serve God as he requires me to do, by serving you. In fact I also fear God. So to not do this service willingly and joyfully and instead hide myself and not be bothered would be wrong. In that case I would need to fear that God would then punish me or send me suffering as he did to Jonah and so many others who refused to keep the commandments and do love for others.
    Bless you pastor Wayne. and forgive me for any comments that have felt less than loving or kind.

  • fws

    by the way. I am not saying that I am a prophet or anything grand like that. I am saying that I am here really, unwillingly, just as Jonah. That was my point in mentioning jonah. It was actually a confession of my sinful unwillingness to serve others.

    I really dont want to be bothered by any of this. I have a full life and this conversation really doesnt affect my own life at all or really interest me.

    But I fear God, and so I prefer to show up and do my duty of doling out goodness and mercy to others rather than wait for God to send me suffering and punishment to force me to do this service.

  • fws

    by the way. I am not saying that I am a prophet or anything grand like that. I am saying that I am here really, unwillingly, just as Jonah. That was my point in mentioning jonah. It was actually a confession of my sinful unwillingness to serve others.

    I really dont want to be bothered by any of this. I have a full life and this conversation really doesnt affect my own life at all or really interest me.

    But I fear God, and so I prefer to show up and do my duty of doling out goodness and mercy to others rather than wait for God to send me suffering and punishment to force me to do this service.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Kerner, #123: “These people that you know who “thought they were Christians”, but weren’t: what does that mean, exactly?”

    It simply means that they (the false believers) thought they were genuine Christians, but weren’t, and are self-deceived.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Kerner, #123: “These people that you know who “thought they were Christians”, but weren’t: what does that mean, exactly?”

    It simply means that they (the false believers) thought they were genuine Christians, but weren’t, and are self-deceived.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Dear FWS,

    I have read all of your #124 and #125. I agree with some of what you are advancing. However, in the end, I hope that you’ll read the comments to Kerner in #122 and #127.

    Let’s recap.

    #117: “Our church, the LCMS, has declared that homosexual behavior is “intrinsically evil.”

    Does the following statement have enough detail and context so that you can say whether you think it is a sin condemned by Scripture?

    Two men have consensual anal intercourse with each other.

    Fws, the Bible says that’s sin. Do you agree that it’s sin?

    FWS, #124: No. Again the problem is definitional. “homosexual behavior”. “

    Sigh. And sigh again. Dear FWS, I am going to risk sharing the following with you even after having read #125 and #126, and maybe even because of reading #125(!):

    Thank you for coming to this blog and to this comment thread unwillingly like Jonah. I understand that you have a full life, and that you don’t want to be bothered by any of this, and that the blog conversation doesn’t really affect your own life at all, or even interest you.

    Given all that, my loving concern for you (which I hope you’ll thoughtfully consider, and not casually dismiss) is that you may be a baptized Lutheran in Hell. This is a tentative assessment, and I offer it not to pronounce judgment on your soul, which after all, is reserved to God, but rather to attempt to do what Jude says, “Save others by snatching them from the fire” because “Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”

    If this is painful, upsetting, offensive, and hurtful to you, FWS, I submit to you that truthful love is sometimes painful, upsetting, offensive, and hurtful. The Gospel is even painful, upsetting, offensive, and hurtful to some people.

    Again, I hope I’m really wrong in my tentative assessment that you may be a baptized Lutheran in Hell. I’m not sorry for making this tentative assessment, and it’s emotionally difficult to make this tentative assessment because I don’t know you except for having read numerous comments from you over the past months.

    Yet nonetheless, despite your professed claims to the contrary, there is genuine loving concern that you are self-deceived false believer, and hence, a genuine concern that you’ll end up as a baptized Lutheran in Hell. I hope that you’ll genuinely repent, and perhaps you’ll seek the counsel of someone like pastor Wayne A. who loves you enough to deny you communion.

    Pax.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Dear FWS,

    I have read all of your #124 and #125. I agree with some of what you are advancing. However, in the end, I hope that you’ll read the comments to Kerner in #122 and #127.

    Let’s recap.

    #117: “Our church, the LCMS, has declared that homosexual behavior is “intrinsically evil.”

    Does the following statement have enough detail and context so that you can say whether you think it is a sin condemned by Scripture?

    Two men have consensual anal intercourse with each other.

    Fws, the Bible says that’s sin. Do you agree that it’s sin?

    FWS, #124: No. Again the problem is definitional. “homosexual behavior”. “

    Sigh. And sigh again. Dear FWS, I am going to risk sharing the following with you even after having read #125 and #126, and maybe even because of reading #125(!):

    Thank you for coming to this blog and to this comment thread unwillingly like Jonah. I understand that you have a full life, and that you don’t want to be bothered by any of this, and that the blog conversation doesn’t really affect your own life at all, or even interest you.

    Given all that, my loving concern for you (which I hope you’ll thoughtfully consider, and not casually dismiss) is that you may be a baptized Lutheran in Hell. This is a tentative assessment, and I offer it not to pronounce judgment on your soul, which after all, is reserved to God, but rather to attempt to do what Jude says, “Save others by snatching them from the fire” because “Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”

    If this is painful, upsetting, offensive, and hurtful to you, FWS, I submit to you that truthful love is sometimes painful, upsetting, offensive, and hurtful. The Gospel is even painful, upsetting, offensive, and hurtful to some people.

    Again, I hope I’m really wrong in my tentative assessment that you may be a baptized Lutheran in Hell. I’m not sorry for making this tentative assessment, and it’s emotionally difficult to make this tentative assessment because I don’t know you except for having read numerous comments from you over the past months.

    Yet nonetheless, despite your professed claims to the contrary, there is genuine loving concern that you are self-deceived false believer, and hence, a genuine concern that you’ll end up as a baptized Lutheran in Hell. I hope that you’ll genuinely repent, and perhaps you’ll seek the counsel of someone like pastor Wayne A. who loves you enough to deny you communion.

    Pax.

  • kerner

    TU&D @127:

    But how is that possible? How does one believe that Christ died for ones sins and that not be true?

    Gotta go, back later.

  • kerner

    TU&D @127:

    But how is that possible? How does one believe that Christ died for ones sins and that not be true?

    Gotta go, back later.

  • fws

    Tud @ 127

    Ah i underatand you much better now. you have no basis for knowingknowing whether or not you are saved or not. and you sense something here among us lutherans that your heart longs for. tud

  • fws

    Tud @ 127

    Ah i underatand you much better now. you have no basis for knowingknowing whether or not you are saved or not. and you sense something here among us lutherans that your heart longs for. tud

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    @FWS, #30,

    Uh, no.

    @Kerner, #129,

    I can’t explain it any more than I have. If it’s still something you don’t get, well, c’est la vie.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    @FWS, #30,

    Uh, no.

    @Kerner, #129,

    I can’t explain it any more than I have. If it’s still something you don’t get, well, c’est la vie.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    (Another good-faith try)

    Kerner, judging in #86: “But we in the LC-MS are pretty unified in our resolve that the ELCA’s doctrine is IN REALITY not the same as ours in ways that are so significant that we should not gernerally take communion with them.”

    the ELCA’s doctrine is IN REALITY not the same

    IN REALITY

    Kerner, #129: “How does one believe that Christ died for ones sins and that not be true?”

    How does the ELCA believe and accept the Historic Lutheran Confessions in their stated Confession of Faith, and yet you believe and judge that the ELCA is a non-Lutheran church?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    (Another good-faith try)

    Kerner, judging in #86: “But we in the LC-MS are pretty unified in our resolve that the ELCA’s doctrine is IN REALITY not the same as ours in ways that are so significant that we should not gernerally take communion with them.”

    the ELCA’s doctrine is IN REALITY not the same

    IN REALITY

    Kerner, #129: “How does one believe that Christ died for ones sins and that not be true?”

    How does the ELCA believe and accept the Historic Lutheran Confessions in their stated Confession of Faith, and yet you believe and judge that the ELCA is a non-Lutheran church?

  • kerner

    TU&D:

    You asked:

    “How does the ELCA believe and accept the Historic Lutheran Confessions in their stated Confession of Faith, and yet you believe and judge that the ELCA is a non-Lutheran church?”

    Well, it’s a long story, but you can find some pretty good reasons here:

    http://gnesiolutheran.com/elca-lcms-2/

    I don’t know who these “gnesio” people are exactly, but they appear to be Lutherans in the confessional sense of that word.

  • kerner

    TU&D:

    You asked:

    “How does the ELCA believe and accept the Historic Lutheran Confessions in their stated Confession of Faith, and yet you believe and judge that the ELCA is a non-Lutheran church?”

    Well, it’s a long story, but you can find some pretty good reasons here:

    http://gnesiolutheran.com/elca-lcms-2/

    I don’t know who these “gnesio” people are exactly, but they appear to be Lutherans in the confessional sense of that word.

  • kerner

    I don’t mean to seem obtuse, but I am still interested in false converts. From what you have said, these are people who:

    1. Thought they were Christians, but

    2. Were not really Christians, and

    3. Discovered they were not really Christians, and

    4. Now believe that they are Christians.

    You say your have “seen” this phenomenon. I guess that I have also met people who have claimed something similar to this, but after soem thoughtful consideration (as you urged me to engage in) I have some specific questions. For a “false convert” :

    1. When a false convert discovers himself to be so, a mere “pew-sitter”, what has he discovered? If he thought he was a Christian, why was he wrong?

    2. What has changed? Why does he think he is a Christian now, as opposed to what he formerly was?

    3. If he thought he was a Christian before, but was wrong, how does can he be any more certain that he is REALLY a Christian now? And, how can YOU, know whether he is a REAL christian now, as opposed to before?

  • kerner

    I don’t mean to seem obtuse, but I am still interested in false converts. From what you have said, these are people who:

    1. Thought they were Christians, but

    2. Were not really Christians, and

    3. Discovered they were not really Christians, and

    4. Now believe that they are Christians.

    You say your have “seen” this phenomenon. I guess that I have also met people who have claimed something similar to this, but after soem thoughtful consideration (as you urged me to engage in) I have some specific questions. For a “false convert” :

    1. When a false convert discovers himself to be so, a mere “pew-sitter”, what has he discovered? If he thought he was a Christian, why was he wrong?

    2. What has changed? Why does he think he is a Christian now, as opposed to what he formerly was?

    3. If he thought he was a Christian before, but was wrong, how does can he be any more certain that he is REALLY a Christian now? And, how can YOU, know whether he is a REAL christian now, as opposed to before?

  • Truth Unites… And Divides

    Lerner, I yield to Grace and pastor Wayne A in conveying to you the idea and concept of a false convert or false believer. That is, if they want to explain it to you.

    Thanks,

  • kerner

    TU&D, I’m not asking these questions simply to give you a hard time. I have said that I don’t believe that people can read each other’s hearts, and you have asked me to thoughtfully consider that there are “false converts” among us. And, you say that True Christians can have the judgment and discernment to tell who is who and act accordingly. If so, these are important questions and the answers are pretty important as well.

  • Truth Unites… And Divides

    Lerner, I yield to Grace and pastor Wayne A in conveying to you the idea and concept of a false convert or false believer. That is, if they want to explain it to you.

    Thanks,

  • kerner

    TU&D, I’m not asking these questions simply to give you a hard time. I have said that I don’t believe that people can read each other’s hearts, and you have asked me to thoughtfully consider that there are “false converts” among us. And, you say that True Christians can have the judgment and discernment to tell who is who and act accordingly. If so, these are important questions and the answers are pretty important as well.

  • Truth Unites… And Divides

    I meant Kerner, not Lerner. Sorry. I yield or defer to others to be more effective. Pax.

  • Truth Unites… And Divides

    I meant Kerner, not Lerner. Sorry. I yield or defer to others to be more effective. Pax.

  • kerner

    Also, I fully understand the concept of a hypocrite or a prodigal or an apostate. What is an unfamiliar concept to me is someone who believes himself to be a Christian, but is not.

    If one can be wrong about that, how can any Christian be certain that he truly is one?

  • kerner

    Also, I fully understand the concept of a hypocrite or a prodigal or an apostate. What is an unfamiliar concept to me is someone who believes himself to be a Christian, but is not.

    If one can be wrong about that, how can any Christian be certain that he truly is one?

  • kerner

    I can’t believe you’re really going to blow me off with a question as fundamental as that one dangling.

  • kerner

    I can’t believe you’re really going to blow me off with a question as fundamental as that one dangling.

  • fws

    tud is not blowing you off. he/she obviously has no answers for you.

    tud: pastor wayne a will not be agreeing with you on this I suspect!

  • fws

    tud is not blowing you off. he/she obviously has no answers for you.

    tud: pastor wayne a will not be agreeing with you on this I suspect!

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Kerner, #138: “What is an unfamiliar concept to me is someone who believes himself to be a Christian [a genuine follower and genuine disciple of Christ], but is not.”

    From Matthew 7, NIV:

    True and False Disciples

    21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

    ——

    fws: “tud: pastor wayne a will not be agreeing with you on this I suspect!”

    Whether he does or doesn’t is fine with me. I’ve tried to convey the concept and meaning of “false convert” or “false believer”, and so in recognition of being unsuccessful, I defer to pastor Wayne A and/or Grace.

    Pax.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Kerner, #138: “What is an unfamiliar concept to me is someone who believes himself to be a Christian [a genuine follower and genuine disciple of Christ], but is not.”

    From Matthew 7, NIV:

    True and False Disciples

    21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

    ——

    fws: “tud: pastor wayne a will not be agreeing with you on this I suspect!”

    Whether he does or doesn’t is fine with me. I’ve tried to convey the concept and meaning of “false convert” or “false believer”, and so in recognition of being unsuccessful, I defer to pastor Wayne A and/or Grace.

    Pax.

  • kerner

    No, TU&D, don’t give up now. We’re finally getting somewhere.

    “21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”

    So, what does that mean, exactly? It can’t be keeping the law, because none of us do that. What do you think that means?

  • kerner

    No, TU&D, don’t give up now. We’re finally getting somewhere.

    “21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”

    So, what does that mean, exactly? It can’t be keeping the law, because none of us do that. What do you think that means?

  • kerner

    Could it mean this?

    Acts 2:38
    Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

    Or is there more to it than that?

  • kerner

    Could it mean this?

    Acts 2:38
    Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

    Or is there more to it than that?

  • Wayne A

    FWS,

    I’m sorry, I am so naive. I entered the conversation a couple days into it and I never fully read all the previous posts, so maybe you made that admission earlier, but it never occured to me that you were gay. I thought you were just arguing that side like so many do today. I’m sorry, if I came off unloving. I’m so naive that I had a roommate for two years at Bibles School whom I found out five years latter was gay. I never suspected a thing, the third room mate suspected but never said anything. We lived out in Los Angeles for a year and my wife would point at somebody on the side walk and say, that guy is gay, and I would look and say, how can you tell, he looks like a guy, a regular guy. I guess after all these years I’m still clueless, I just don’t think in those terms.

    A correction. Pietism wasn’t started by Wesley, the father of pietism was John Arndt who lived in the late 1500, shortly after Luther, he wrote a book, “True Christianity” which was written to challenge the dead Orthodoxy that was already creeping into Lutheranism shortly after Luther’s death. Spener, Franke were Lutheran Pietists. Even Zinzendorf who founded Moravians was a Lutheran pietist and aways considered himself a Lutheran.

    As far as how we are born, I know I was born a liar, no one taught me how to lie, it came quit naturally. I was quite the thief also at a very early age, no one taught me to steal. If I saw something I wanted and I thought I could get away with it, I took it. It came quite naturally to me. I was born that way. I don’t remember ever making the decision to be a liar and a theif, I just was. And by the time I was 10, I discovered I was also a fornicator and and adulter at heart. And since I’ve been married, I’ve been temped, I have always faught off the temptation, but I have been tempted, so that must mean I was also born a poligamist as well. We are all born sinners, but that does not give us a license to sin.

    Also a couple years ago I saw a special on on Pedophilia. they interviewed this one young gentleman and he said. “This is the way I am, if you let me out of jail, I will do it again, so you might as well throw away the key, because I was born this way. And I know that in the last year the psychiatric community is already laying the ground work for the normalization of pedophilia.

  • Wayne A

    FWS,

    I’m sorry, I am so naive. I entered the conversation a couple days into it and I never fully read all the previous posts, so maybe you made that admission earlier, but it never occured to me that you were gay. I thought you were just arguing that side like so many do today. I’m sorry, if I came off unloving. I’m so naive that I had a roommate for two years at Bibles School whom I found out five years latter was gay. I never suspected a thing, the third room mate suspected but never said anything. We lived out in Los Angeles for a year and my wife would point at somebody on the side walk and say, that guy is gay, and I would look and say, how can you tell, he looks like a guy, a regular guy. I guess after all these years I’m still clueless, I just don’t think in those terms.

    A correction. Pietism wasn’t started by Wesley, the father of pietism was John Arndt who lived in the late 1500, shortly after Luther, he wrote a book, “True Christianity” which was written to challenge the dead Orthodoxy that was already creeping into Lutheranism shortly after Luther’s death. Spener, Franke were Lutheran Pietists. Even Zinzendorf who founded Moravians was a Lutheran pietist and aways considered himself a Lutheran.

    As far as how we are born, I know I was born a liar, no one taught me how to lie, it came quit naturally. I was quite the thief also at a very early age, no one taught me to steal. If I saw something I wanted and I thought I could get away with it, I took it. It came quite naturally to me. I was born that way. I don’t remember ever making the decision to be a liar and a theif, I just was. And by the time I was 10, I discovered I was also a fornicator and and adulter at heart. And since I’ve been married, I’ve been temped, I have always faught off the temptation, but I have been tempted, so that must mean I was also born a poligamist as well. We are all born sinners, but that does not give us a license to sin.

    Also a couple years ago I saw a special on on Pedophilia. they interviewed this one young gentleman and he said. “This is the way I am, if you let me out of jail, I will do it again, so you might as well throw away the key, because I was born this way. And I know that in the last year the psychiatric community is already laying the ground work for the normalization of pedophilia.

  • Grace

    Wayne @1 44

    “As far as how we are born, I know I was born a liar, no one taught me how to lie, it came quit naturally. I was quite the thief also at a very early age, no one taught me to steal. If I saw something I wanted and I thought I could get away with it, I took it. It came quite naturally to me. I was born that way. I don’t remember ever making the decision to be a liar and a theif, I just was. And by the time I was 10, I discovered I was also a fornicator and and adulter at heart. And since I’ve been married, I’ve been temped, I have always faught off the temptation, but I have been tempted, so that must mean I was also born a poligamist as well. We are all born sinners, but that does not give us a license to sin. “

    You’re rather smug about your sins, as you name them one by one. Especially when you quip “but I have been tempted, so that must mean I was also born a poligamist as well.

    polygynist is: a man with two or more wives –

    So an individual is born to:

    lie
    Steal
    Fornicate
    Polygamy

    Does that mean an individual is born to:

    Murder
    Cheat
    Molest
    Rape
    Dishonor their parents
    Hate God
    Hate their neighbor

    Are you actually a pastor? Not that you don’t have sinful ideas, or that you might have acted upon them, but in your post, your comments don’t sound one iota of regret, but rather a winsome, if not arrogant, revealing of your your life in general.

  • Grace

    Wayne @1 44

    “As far as how we are born, I know I was born a liar, no one taught me how to lie, it came quit naturally. I was quite the thief also at a very early age, no one taught me to steal. If I saw something I wanted and I thought I could get away with it, I took it. It came quite naturally to me. I was born that way. I don’t remember ever making the decision to be a liar and a theif, I just was. And by the time I was 10, I discovered I was also a fornicator and and adulter at heart. And since I’ve been married, I’ve been temped, I have always faught off the temptation, but I have been tempted, so that must mean I was also born a poligamist as well. We are all born sinners, but that does not give us a license to sin. “

    You’re rather smug about your sins, as you name them one by one. Especially when you quip “but I have been tempted, so that must mean I was also born a poligamist as well.

    polygynist is: a man with two or more wives –

    So an individual is born to:

    lie
    Steal
    Fornicate
    Polygamy

    Does that mean an individual is born to:

    Murder
    Cheat
    Molest
    Rape
    Dishonor their parents
    Hate God
    Hate their neighbor

    Are you actually a pastor? Not that you don’t have sinful ideas, or that you might have acted upon them, but in your post, your comments don’t sound one iota of regret, but rather a winsome, if not arrogant, revealing of your your life in general.

  • Grace

    Wayne A

    Do you believe people are born to be homosexuals? If so, what you’re saying is, God made homosexuals to sin. If you believe that, then what is to stop one from believing God made to do all the things I posted above?

    lie
    Steal
    Fornicate
    Polygamy
    Murder
    Cheat
    Molest
    Rape
    Dishonor their parents
    Hate God
    Hate their neighbor

    13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

    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

  • Grace

    Wayne A

    Do you believe people are born to be homosexuals? If so, what you’re saying is, God made homosexuals to sin. If you believe that, then what is to stop one from believing God made to do all the things I posted above?

    lie
    Steal
    Fornicate
    Polygamy
    Murder
    Cheat
    Molest
    Rape
    Dishonor their parents
    Hate God
    Hate their neighbor

    13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

    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

  • Grace

    Wayne A @ 144

    “Also a couple years ago I saw a special on on Pedophilia. they interviewed this one young gentleman and he said. “This is the way I am, if you let me out of jail, I will do it again, so you might as well throw away the key, because I was born this way. And I know that in the last year the psychiatric community is already laying the ground work for the normalization of pedophilia.”

    Why do you bring up “pedophilia” ? Do you honestly believe God made a man to commit such horrific crimes on children? Man can be, and is often evil, but it is their desire, their choice. There is no excuse for doing such things.

    Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
    James 1:13

    Individuals sin because it pleases them to do these things, they desire the deeds that lead to hell and damnation. They are filthy dreamers of evil deeds.

  • Grace

    Wayne A @ 144

    “Also a couple years ago I saw a special on on Pedophilia. they interviewed this one young gentleman and he said. “This is the way I am, if you let me out of jail, I will do it again, so you might as well throw away the key, because I was born this way. And I know that in the last year the psychiatric community is already laying the ground work for the normalization of pedophilia.”

    Why do you bring up “pedophilia” ? Do you honestly believe God made a man to commit such horrific crimes on children? Man can be, and is often evil, but it is their desire, their choice. There is no excuse for doing such things.

    Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
    James 1:13

    Individuals sin because it pleases them to do these things, they desire the deeds that lead to hell and damnation. They are filthy dreamers of evil deeds.

  • fws

    Pastor Wayne @?

    Veiths site is slow to update but sent me your post by email so let me respond, in a brotherly way, to a couple of points:

    I’m sorry, I am so naive.

    That is probably a good thing dear pastor. It is obvious that you are a fine and very Lutheran pastor, who deeply loves our dear Lord Jesus and has a heart burning to share the love that only our Lord can give the world and that it needs so very desperately.

    It’s always good to approach everyone without any preconceptions about them isn’t it?

    We tend to lump everyone in with what we think we know about a group.

    If we believe then for example, that gay= sodom and gomorrah, lev 18 and romans 1, a normal, mentally healthy individual would push, and push hard, to have all homosexuals locked up in prison for life. Think about that. And if you have come to know gays before you knew they were gay, you would have a problem placing those men into the texts as “them”. You would be far from thinking of those gay men as sexual predators. So are they the exceptions to the rule? Nope. Those men you know are standard issue homosexuals. So consider that please when gays are referred to as “them” or “they” or as persons being outside of the church of God by virtue of the fact that they are gay and “unrepentant” .

    In that case, if we think of those passages as the “biblical definition” of gay, then by definition, gays are all violent sexual predators bent and intent upon violent group rape. At the very least.

    In addition the list of sins that is charactaristic of them and diagnostic of their condition is found in Romans 1 28-31. Note that in Romans 1, the “they” is the SAME “they” throughout the chapter.
    So then if Romans 1 is about homosexuality, then we would need to expect that every gay we would meet has all the characteristics in Romans 1:27-31 as traits that set them apart, diagnostically , from the rest of the population. I am not sure what one would do with Romans 2:1 in that case, but many insist on exegeting Romans 1 in exactly that way dont they?

    A correction. Pietism wasn’t started by Wesley, the father of pietism was John Arndt who lived in the late 1500, shortly after Luther, he wrote a book, “True Christianity” which was written to challenge the dead Orthodoxy that was already creeping into Lutheranism shortly after Luther’s death. Spener, Franke were Lutheran Pietists. Even Zinzendorf who founded Moravians was a Lutheran pietist and aways considered himself a Lutheran.

    What you say is exactly right. The reformed influence upon Lutheranism came early. before 1580 and our Concordia. The father of Reformed theology was one John Melancthon! John Calvin was greatly influenced by him. John Calvin also called himself a Lutheran pastor for a long time. And so the roots of weslyanism and the holiness movement and pietism are thoroughly Lutheran however one looks at it. Sad but true!

    I say sad, because my thinking is that pietism is never a good thing. It is really a return to Roman Catholic Scholasticism. it is Neo Scholasticism as is all reformed theology. How? It labels the aristoteliam model for becoming a moral person as “sanctification”. And the danger here is that that is correct, but only in part.

    The aristotelian virtue ethic says that the path to becoming a moral person is to practice DOING what a moral person would do, until that practicing becomes a “habit”. So far this is so excellent, that our Confessions declare that “regarding earthly morality, nothing can be demanded beyond the ethics of Aristotle!” You will find that comment in the Apology to the Augustana in the section titled “on Justification”.

    But here is where Aristotle , when brought into christian theology, first by St Thomas Aquinas, and later by Melancthon, calvin and the pietists and the holiness group get it wrong:

    Aristotle says that what separates men from beasts (the Image of God per Aquinas) are the “higher powers ” of mankind. Those higher powers are Reason guided by true love harnessed to willpower. The task of a Virtuous Person is to employ reason, love and the will to subdue and channel the “natural appetites”, “baser instincts” or “animal instincts” that are driven by emotions.

    The Scholastics and Neo Scholastics say that this is exactly what the process looks like that is called “sanctification”. And then they take it a step further. They assert that only a TRUE christian can really do this. So this process then, is what visibly and definitionally sets apart a Christian from a Pagan. This process, if it is happening, is what sets apart a “pew christian” or “nominal christian” or “christian in name only” from … the REAL christians.

    It is certain that most Neo Scholastics are not really aware that they have really turned Christian Theology into an exercise in Pagan Philosophy, nevertheless, that is precisely what they have done. One hallmark of this paganism is to tell us that there is such a distinction as “willful sinning” vs “unwillful” sinning. The Lutheran Confessions declare that ALL sin is willful and that we are fully and utterly committed to doing it in heart, mind, and even our very soul.

    And this paganism then, is wrong for various reasons. But the main reason is this one: ONLY invisible trust in the Works of Another and hiding ALL our works in the Works of Another is what defines one as a Christian. Further, only a TRUE Christian is truly and completely terrified at ALL he can see and do, and so knows to hide ALL he can see and do within the Works of Another to be at peace with God. See the difference here?

    As far as how we are born, I know I was born a liar, no one taught me how to lie, it came quit naturally. I was quite the thief also at a very early age, no one taught me to steal. If I saw something I wanted and I thought I could get away with it, I took it. It came quite naturally to me. I was born that way. I don’t remember ever making the decision to be a liar and a theif, I just was. And by the time I was 10, I discovered I was also a fornicator and and adulter at heart. And since I’ve been married, I’ve been temped, I have always faught off the temptation, but I have been tempted, so that must mean I was also born a poligamist as well. We are all born sinners, but that does not give us a license to sin.

    Also a couple years ago I saw a special on on Pedophilia. they interviewed this one young gentleman and he said. “This is the way I am, if you let me out of jail, I will do it again, so you might as well throw away the key, because I was born this way. And I know that in the last year the psychiatric community is already laying the ground work for the normalization of pedophilia.

    Well now. A homosexual would hear you saying that homosexuality=pedophilia in some form. I would suggest that whether or not you feel that is true, that would be a real conversation stopper eh? Also you are suggesting, it really seems, that the “psychiatric community” is moving to “normalize” (ie UNsin) what is described in the Sodom and Gomorrah story, Lev 18 (a castrated man, turning himself into a woman , to perform ritual sex acts with a male who is required to be married to a female), or romans 1 where 28 talks about unbridled lust. Really? Show me an article where any psychiatrist is pushing to unsin the things described in those passages. You cannot. So what you are saying is just silliness.

    I would suggest an alternative interpretation: that the word “homosexua” full of evocative visceral imagery from the Sodom and Gomorrah story and Romans 1 that you employ, is a quite different definition from the one used by the medical community and simply assumed by ALL homosexuals. And what is the homosexual definition? it is one that says that ‘homosexuality” is pretty much set in stone at age 5. think about that please. Now I would ask you to try to overlay YOUR definition upon that definition of the medical community. It would be a struggle and discordant exercise would it not be? And that is why christians simply refuse to “dialog” with gays. They are certain that the different , technical, medical definition of a word that has only really existed in medical usage since around 1930 is some subversive plot or hidden agenda to UNsin something that is sin. Why assume that when there are alternative more charitable assumptions to be made that would actually let you discuss this topic with someone who happens to disagree with your viewpoint. Someone like me for example who is 1) christian, 2) confessionally Lutheran and 3) gay!

  • fws

    Pastor Wayne @?

    Veiths site is slow to update but sent me your post by email so let me respond, in a brotherly way, to a couple of points:

    I’m sorry, I am so naive.

    That is probably a good thing dear pastor. It is obvious that you are a fine and very Lutheran pastor, who deeply loves our dear Lord Jesus and has a heart burning to share the love that only our Lord can give the world and that it needs so very desperately.

    It’s always good to approach everyone without any preconceptions about them isn’t it?

    We tend to lump everyone in with what we think we know about a group.

    If we believe then for example, that gay= sodom and gomorrah, lev 18 and romans 1, a normal, mentally healthy individual would push, and push hard, to have all homosexuals locked up in prison for life. Think about that. And if you have come to know gays before you knew they were gay, you would have a problem placing those men into the texts as “them”. You would be far from thinking of those gay men as sexual predators. So are they the exceptions to the rule? Nope. Those men you know are standard issue homosexuals. So consider that please when gays are referred to as “them” or “they” or as persons being outside of the church of God by virtue of the fact that they are gay and “unrepentant” .

    In that case, if we think of those passages as the “biblical definition” of gay, then by definition, gays are all violent sexual predators bent and intent upon violent group rape. At the very least.

    In addition the list of sins that is charactaristic of them and diagnostic of their condition is found in Romans 1 28-31. Note that in Romans 1, the “they” is the SAME “they” throughout the chapter.
    So then if Romans 1 is about homosexuality, then we would need to expect that every gay we would meet has all the characteristics in Romans 1:27-31 as traits that set them apart, diagnostically , from the rest of the population. I am not sure what one would do with Romans 2:1 in that case, but many insist on exegeting Romans 1 in exactly that way dont they?

    A correction. Pietism wasn’t started by Wesley, the father of pietism was John Arndt who lived in the late 1500, shortly after Luther, he wrote a book, “True Christianity” which was written to challenge the dead Orthodoxy that was already creeping into Lutheranism shortly after Luther’s death. Spener, Franke were Lutheran Pietists. Even Zinzendorf who founded Moravians was a Lutheran pietist and aways considered himself a Lutheran.

    What you say is exactly right. The reformed influence upon Lutheranism came early. before 1580 and our Concordia. The father of Reformed theology was one John Melancthon! John Calvin was greatly influenced by him. John Calvin also called himself a Lutheran pastor for a long time. And so the roots of weslyanism and the holiness movement and pietism are thoroughly Lutheran however one looks at it. Sad but true!

    I say sad, because my thinking is that pietism is never a good thing. It is really a return to Roman Catholic Scholasticism. it is Neo Scholasticism as is all reformed theology. How? It labels the aristoteliam model for becoming a moral person as “sanctification”. And the danger here is that that is correct, but only in part.

    The aristotelian virtue ethic says that the path to becoming a moral person is to practice DOING what a moral person would do, until that practicing becomes a “habit”. So far this is so excellent, that our Confessions declare that “regarding earthly morality, nothing can be demanded beyond the ethics of Aristotle!” You will find that comment in the Apology to the Augustana in the section titled “on Justification”.

    But here is where Aristotle , when brought into christian theology, first by St Thomas Aquinas, and later by Melancthon, calvin and the pietists and the holiness group get it wrong:

    Aristotle says that what separates men from beasts (the Image of God per Aquinas) are the “higher powers ” of mankind. Those higher powers are Reason guided by true love harnessed to willpower. The task of a Virtuous Person is to employ reason, love and the will to subdue and channel the “natural appetites”, “baser instincts” or “animal instincts” that are driven by emotions.

    The Scholastics and Neo Scholastics say that this is exactly what the process looks like that is called “sanctification”. And then they take it a step further. They assert that only a TRUE christian can really do this. So this process then, is what visibly and definitionally sets apart a Christian from a Pagan. This process, if it is happening, is what sets apart a “pew christian” or “nominal christian” or “christian in name only” from … the REAL christians.

    It is certain that most Neo Scholastics are not really aware that they have really turned Christian Theology into an exercise in Pagan Philosophy, nevertheless, that is precisely what they have done. One hallmark of this paganism is to tell us that there is such a distinction as “willful sinning” vs “unwillful” sinning. The Lutheran Confessions declare that ALL sin is willful and that we are fully and utterly committed to doing it in heart, mind, and even our very soul.

    And this paganism then, is wrong for various reasons. But the main reason is this one: ONLY invisible trust in the Works of Another and hiding ALL our works in the Works of Another is what defines one as a Christian. Further, only a TRUE Christian is truly and completely terrified at ALL he can see and do, and so knows to hide ALL he can see and do within the Works of Another to be at peace with God. See the difference here?

    As far as how we are born, I know I was born a liar, no one taught me how to lie, it came quit naturally. I was quite the thief also at a very early age, no one taught me to steal. If I saw something I wanted and I thought I could get away with it, I took it. It came quite naturally to me. I was born that way. I don’t remember ever making the decision to be a liar and a theif, I just was. And by the time I was 10, I discovered I was also a fornicator and and adulter at heart. And since I’ve been married, I’ve been temped, I have always faught off the temptation, but I have been tempted, so that must mean I was also born a poligamist as well. We are all born sinners, but that does not give us a license to sin.

    Also a couple years ago I saw a special on on Pedophilia. they interviewed this one young gentleman and he said. “This is the way I am, if you let me out of jail, I will do it again, so you might as well throw away the key, because I was born this way. And I know that in the last year the psychiatric community is already laying the ground work for the normalization of pedophilia.

    Well now. A homosexual would hear you saying that homosexuality=pedophilia in some form. I would suggest that whether or not you feel that is true, that would be a real conversation stopper eh? Also you are suggesting, it really seems, that the “psychiatric community” is moving to “normalize” (ie UNsin) what is described in the Sodom and Gomorrah story, Lev 18 (a castrated man, turning himself into a woman , to perform ritual sex acts with a male who is required to be married to a female), or romans 1 where 28 talks about unbridled lust. Really? Show me an article where any psychiatrist is pushing to unsin the things described in those passages. You cannot. So what you are saying is just silliness.

    I would suggest an alternative interpretation: that the word “homosexua” full of evocative visceral imagery from the Sodom and Gomorrah story and Romans 1 that you employ, is a quite different definition from the one used by the medical community and simply assumed by ALL homosexuals. And what is the homosexual definition? it is one that says that ‘homosexuality” is pretty much set in stone at age 5. think about that please. Now I would ask you to try to overlay YOUR definition upon that definition of the medical community. It would be a struggle and discordant exercise would it not be? And that is why christians simply refuse to “dialog” with gays. They are certain that the different , technical, medical definition of a word that has only really existed in medical usage since around 1930 is some subversive plot or hidden agenda to UNsin something that is sin. Why assume that when there are alternative more charitable assumptions to be made that would actually let you discuss this topic with someone who happens to disagree with your viewpoint. Someone like me for example who is 1) christian, 2) confessionally Lutheran and 3) gay!

  • Grace

    Aristotle was a pagan – he has nothing to do with HOLY Scriptures of the Bible? NOTHING!

    It matters not one dot or dash, what a pagan thinks, he thinks only of his own greatness, his ability, as if his mental capability is something to be praised… who but a pagan would say the things Aristotle blithered. He admired himself – and who else would remind you of this deft and blind mind?

    “A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.”
    Aristotle

    Aristotle and Hitchens today, would most likely be joined at the hip, trying damn hard to persuade the peoples of today to stay within the bounds of paganism, as they believed – only to be swept away into the abyss that awaits all those who turn from God Almighty!

  • Grace

    Aristotle was a pagan – he has nothing to do with HOLY Scriptures of the Bible? NOTHING!

    It matters not one dot or dash, what a pagan thinks, he thinks only of his own greatness, his ability, as if his mental capability is something to be praised… who but a pagan would say the things Aristotle blithered. He admired himself – and who else would remind you of this deft and blind mind?

    “A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.”
    Aristotle

    Aristotle and Hitchens today, would most likely be joined at the hip, trying damn hard to persuade the peoples of today to stay within the bounds of paganism, as they believed – only to be swept away into the abyss that awaits all those who turn from God Almighty!

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    fws, #148: “Someone like me for example who is 1) christian, 2) confessionally Lutheran and 3) gay!”

    There are confessional Lutheran pastors who would deny you Holy Communion.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    fws, #148: “Someone like me for example who is 1) christian, 2) confessionally Lutheran and 3) gay!”

    There are confessional Lutheran pastors who would deny you Holy Communion.

  • fws

    tud @ 150

    No. There are not. There is NO Lutheran pastor who would deny me the blessed sacrament soley based upon my descreetly revealing privately in confession to my pastor that I am gay. You are so wrong TUD.

    You are not Lutheran in any sense of the word, so how would you know.

  • fws

    tud @ 150

    No. There are not. There is NO Lutheran pastor who would deny me the blessed sacrament soley based upon my descreetly revealing privately in confession to my pastor that I am gay. You are so wrong TUD.

    You are not Lutheran in any sense of the word, so how would you know.

  • Grace

    Truth,

    If someone is still involved in sex, be it same sex, or female/male – telling a pastor of their condition – that pastor is responsible for serving them Communion. We are not to be involved in anothers sin, KNOWINGLY.

    There are homosexuals who are celebate, not involved in any sort of self gratification with another person, but understand that it is sinful, and they are repentant – that would not exclude the repentant from receiving Communion.

  • Grace

    Truth,

    If someone is still involved in sex, be it same sex, or female/male – telling a pastor of their condition – that pastor is responsible for serving them Communion. We are not to be involved in anothers sin, KNOWINGLY.

    There are homosexuals who are celebate, not involved in any sort of self gratification with another person, but understand that it is sinful, and they are repentant – that would not exclude the repentant from receiving Communion.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    fws, so you confess to a confessional Lutheran pastor that you’re gay. If the following conversation took place, I think it’s possible or probable that there are some Confessional Lutheran pastors who would deny you Holy Communion.

    fws: “I’m gay.”

    Confessional Lutheran Pastor: Comment #82.

    fws: #84, #89, #90

    Confessional Lutheran Pastor: #103, #104

    fws: #109, #110, #111, #112, #113, #114, #115

    Confessional Lutheran Pastor: “Our church has declared that homosexual behavior is “intrinsically evil.”

    Does the following statement have enough detail and context so that you can say whether you think it is a sin condemned by Scripture?

    Two men have consensual anal intercourse with each other.

    Fws, the Bible says that’s sin. Do you agree that it’s sin?”

    fws: “No. Again the problem is definitional.”

    Confessional Lutheran Pastor: “Please do not partake of Holy Communion.”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    fws, so you confess to a confessional Lutheran pastor that you’re gay. If the following conversation took place, I think it’s possible or probable that there are some Confessional Lutheran pastors who would deny you Holy Communion.

    fws: “I’m gay.”

    Confessional Lutheran Pastor: Comment #82.

    fws: #84, #89, #90

    Confessional Lutheran Pastor: #103, #104

    fws: #109, #110, #111, #112, #113, #114, #115

    Confessional Lutheran Pastor: “Our church has declared that homosexual behavior is “intrinsically evil.”

    Does the following statement have enough detail and context so that you can say whether you think it is a sin condemned by Scripture?

    Two men have consensual anal intercourse with each other.

    Fws, the Bible says that’s sin. Do you agree that it’s sin?”

    fws: “No. Again the problem is definitional.”

    Confessional Lutheran Pastor: “Please do not partake of Holy Communion.”

  • fws

    tud @ 153

    I need to ask you brother (or sister): are you stuggling with homosexuality? You do not need to answer. this seems to be a realy really important issue for you doesnt it?

    You are presenting hypotheticals. Yes it is hypothetically possible that a Lutheran pastor would deny me communion. Anything is hypothecially possible.

    Besides. you are quoting me as saying something at the very end of your hypothetical that I never said arent you? so even your hypothetical doesnt really work does it?

    I cant imagine a Lutheran pastor prying into my private life in that way ever, unless he had some reason to do so. And I am always completely honest with my pastors in my weekly private confession.

    Ah. but you probably dont practice private confession weekly do you?

    That is probably why you dont get why it is that the Lutherans here seem to all completely embrace me as one of theirs.

    That fact probably confuses you.

    There are lots of Lutheran pastors here. I would be challenged to call even one of them liberal or challenge their high view of Holy Scripture.

  • fws

    tud @ 153

    I need to ask you brother (or sister): are you stuggling with homosexuality? You do not need to answer. this seems to be a realy really important issue for you doesnt it?

    You are presenting hypotheticals. Yes it is hypothetically possible that a Lutheran pastor would deny me communion. Anything is hypothecially possible.

    Besides. you are quoting me as saying something at the very end of your hypothetical that I never said arent you? so even your hypothetical doesnt really work does it?

    I cant imagine a Lutheran pastor prying into my private life in that way ever, unless he had some reason to do so. And I am always completely honest with my pastors in my weekly private confession.

    Ah. but you probably dont practice private confession weekly do you?

    That is probably why you dont get why it is that the Lutherans here seem to all completely embrace me as one of theirs.

    That fact probably confuses you.

    There are lots of Lutheran pastors here. I would be challenged to call even one of them liberal or challenge their high view of Holy Scripture.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    fws, #151: “There is NO Lutheran pastor who would deny me the blessed sacrament soley based upon my descreetly revealing privately in confession to my pastor that I am gay. You are so wrong TUD.”

    Maybe. Maybe not.

    From Pastor Wayne A’s linked file in #82 (pp. 23-24):

    Luther was unable to accept the viewpoint that homosexuality is an inherited condition for some or that one’s social environment is the major factor in its development. Rather, he attributed the “perversion” of homosexuality to Satan as well as to the willful disobedience of those who do not “fear God.”

    Luther makes frequent reference to the Sodomites and their
    sin in his commentary on Genesis, and points to their fiery
    judgment as a warning of God’s hatred against all sin. For
    example, he writes: “For Peter is not lying when he calls Sodom
    (II Peter 2:6) ‘an example to the ungodly,’ and the very nature
    of their sins is such that God cannot remain silent about them
    forever.” In direct reference to homosexuality in his commentary
    on Romans, Luther states, “The body is disgraced and
    degraded most viciously not only by adultery and similar vio-
    lations of chastity, but all the more (emphasis added) by the
    degrading perversions that are here named.”

    It is clear that Luther would not countenance an interpretation
    of the Bible which minimized or justified the sin of homosexuality.
    In consonance with the early Church fathers, he is forthright in labeling homosexuality as a “degrading perversion.”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    fws, #151: “There is NO Lutheran pastor who would deny me the blessed sacrament soley based upon my descreetly revealing privately in confession to my pastor that I am gay. You are so wrong TUD.”

    Maybe. Maybe not.

    From Pastor Wayne A’s linked file in #82 (pp. 23-24):

    Luther was unable to accept the viewpoint that homosexuality is an inherited condition for some or that one’s social environment is the major factor in its development. Rather, he attributed the “perversion” of homosexuality to Satan as well as to the willful disobedience of those who do not “fear God.”

    Luther makes frequent reference to the Sodomites and their
    sin in his commentary on Genesis, and points to their fiery
    judgment as a warning of God’s hatred against all sin. For
    example, he writes: “For Peter is not lying when he calls Sodom
    (II Peter 2:6) ‘an example to the ungodly,’ and the very nature
    of their sins is such that God cannot remain silent about them
    forever.” In direct reference to homosexuality in his commentary
    on Romans, Luther states, “The body is disgraced and
    degraded most viciously not only by adultery and similar vio-
    lations of chastity, but all the more (emphasis added) by the
    degrading perversions that are here named.”

    It is clear that Luther would not countenance an interpretation
    of the Bible which minimized or justified the sin of homosexuality.
    In consonance with the early Church fathers, he is forthright in labeling homosexuality as a “degrading perversion.”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Another passage from Pastor Wayne A’s linked file from #82:

    Homosexual condition and conduct are sinful. The Scriptures
    clearly indicate this (Genesis 19:1-11; Leviticus 18:22;
    20:13; Judges 10:16-25; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9; I
    Timothy 1:10). To rationalize or justify homosexuality in any
    way is not only to deny the reality of sin but also to resign the
    homosexual to a life of perversion and hopelessness. The homosexual
    can change, and the first step is acceptance of Biblical
    teaching about homosexuality … that it is sin and must
    be forsaken in God’s power.
    One pastor, who helped a number
    of homosexuals when other pastors and physicians could do
    nothing with them, was asked the secret of his effectiveness.
    They have got to see that it’s sin; I hold them to that.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Another passage from Pastor Wayne A’s linked file from #82:

    Homosexual condition and conduct are sinful. The Scriptures
    clearly indicate this (Genesis 19:1-11; Leviticus 18:22;
    20:13; Judges 10:16-25; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9; I
    Timothy 1:10). To rationalize or justify homosexuality in any
    way is not only to deny the reality of sin but also to resign the
    homosexual to a life of perversion and hopelessness. The homosexual
    can change, and the first step is acceptance of Biblical
    teaching about homosexuality … that it is sin and must
    be forsaken in God’s power.
    One pastor, who helped a number
    of homosexuals when other pastors and physicians could do
    nothing with them, was asked the secret of his effectiveness.
    They have got to see that it’s sin; I hold them to that.

  • Grace

    DEFLECTING, in post 154!

  • Grace

    DEFLECTING, in post 154!

  • fws

    tud @ 155

    I know a little about Martin Luther. I am one of his spiritual descendants.

    No. Martin Luther would not have refused me Holy Communion. What is my proof? it is his own public confession of faith found in the Small Catechism of Dr Martin Luther.

    You can read the sections on confession, the lords supper and also a reading of the section titled something like “christian questions and answers”. That would be really helpful for you.

    Luther and others, in their public confessions blamed the sexual relations between men as being because the church forbade marriage. They said, as their public and very formal confession of faith, that they were very certain that if the church did not forbid the priests and monks to marry, that most certainly those priests and monks would prefer to take a wife.

    You can read all that in the apology art XXIII.

    I am not sure we would interpret those facts in a similar way with what we think we know now. In fact, I am certain we would not! Not even conservative evangelicals would perceive things that way.

    Homosexuality back then did not exist as a category. That might be one reason for the difference in thinking. homosexuality has only really been a category since around 1930. you know that right?

  • fws

    tud @ 155

    I know a little about Martin Luther. I am one of his spiritual descendants.

    No. Martin Luther would not have refused me Holy Communion. What is my proof? it is his own public confession of faith found in the Small Catechism of Dr Martin Luther.

    You can read the sections on confession, the lords supper and also a reading of the section titled something like “christian questions and answers”. That would be really helpful for you.

    Luther and others, in their public confessions blamed the sexual relations between men as being because the church forbade marriage. They said, as their public and very formal confession of faith, that they were very certain that if the church did not forbid the priests and monks to marry, that most certainly those priests and monks would prefer to take a wife.

    You can read all that in the apology art XXIII.

    I am not sure we would interpret those facts in a similar way with what we think we know now. In fact, I am certain we would not! Not even conservative evangelicals would perceive things that way.

    Homosexuality back then did not exist as a category. That might be one reason for the difference in thinking. homosexuality has only really been a category since around 1930. you know that right?

  • fws

    tud and grace

    I do not agree with most of pastor wayne´s church´s paper.

    why not?

    It does not make reason captive to the Word of God.

    It presents many theories, such as a distant father being to blame for homosexuality that are nowhere in Holy Scripture and are from freud. Who was just wierd. Christians chanelling sigmund freud. too wierd to believe.

    And it burdens people with calling things sin that are not that. to say “homosexuality” is a sin without even bothering to define what that word “homosexuality” means is just wrong on multiple levels.

    You hear kids taunting each other with “that is sooooooo Gay!”

    and what they are talking about when they say that is never ever about sex is it? so right there you can see there is a definitional problem. “gay” is commonly understood to not really be definitionally about sex. it is about lots more.

    We christians are required to do better. Souls are involved.

  • fws

    tud and grace

    I do not agree with most of pastor wayne´s church´s paper.

    why not?

    It does not make reason captive to the Word of God.

    It presents many theories, such as a distant father being to blame for homosexuality that are nowhere in Holy Scripture and are from freud. Who was just wierd. Christians chanelling sigmund freud. too wierd to believe.

    And it burdens people with calling things sin that are not that. to say “homosexuality” is a sin without even bothering to define what that word “homosexuality” means is just wrong on multiple levels.

    You hear kids taunting each other with “that is sooooooo Gay!”

    and what they are talking about when they say that is never ever about sex is it? so right there you can see there is a definitional problem. “gay” is commonly understood to not really be definitionally about sex. it is about lots more.

    We christians are required to do better. Souls are involved.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    fws, #154: “Besides. you are quoting me as saying something at the very end of your hypothetical that I never said arent you?”

    No. I’m not. Recall:

    Me, #117: “Two men have consensual anal intercourse with each other.

    Fws, the Bible says that’s sin. Do you agree that it’s sin?”

    fws, #124: “tud @117

    No. Again the problem is definitional. ….”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    fws, #154: “Besides. you are quoting me as saying something at the very end of your hypothetical that I never said arent you?”

    No. I’m not. Recall:

    Me, #117: “Two men have consensual anal intercourse with each other.

    Fws, the Bible says that’s sin. Do you agree that it’s sin?”

    fws, #124: “tud @117

    No. Again the problem is definitional. ….”

  • fws

    tud @ 156

    the pastor saying that is not in conformity to Lutheran doctrine found in the Lutheran Confessions tud.

    how?

    The FIRST step for any real change in anyone is to be born again by water and the Word of God. The Lutheran Confessions state, and state clearly, that the ONLY real end and cure for sin is to be born again. The Law and moses could never put an end to sin. Only Christ is able to do that.

    This man is asking Moses to cure a homosexual of his sin. If he succeeds at this, he will have created a whitewashed sepulcher. Definitionally.

    This pastor is aiming for a cure for homosexuality. He is aiming way way to low.

  • fws

    tud @ 156

    the pastor saying that is not in conformity to Lutheran doctrine found in the Lutheran Confessions tud.

    how?

    The FIRST step for any real change in anyone is to be born again by water and the Word of God. The Lutheran Confessions state, and state clearly, that the ONLY real end and cure for sin is to be born again. The Law and moses could never put an end to sin. Only Christ is able to do that.

    This man is asking Moses to cure a homosexual of his sin. If he succeeds at this, he will have created a whitewashed sepulcher. Definitionally.

    This pastor is aiming for a cure for homosexuality. He is aiming way way to low.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    fws, #154: “Yes it is hypothetically possible that a Lutheran pastor would deny me communion.”

    Thank you, thank you.

    I appreciate the big back-pedal from your earlier comment in #151:

    “There is NO Lutheran pastor who would deny me the blessed sacrament soley based upon my descreetly revealing privately in confession to my pastor that I am gay.”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    fws, #154: “Yes it is hypothetically possible that a Lutheran pastor would deny me communion.”

    Thank you, thank you.

    I appreciate the big back-pedal from your earlier comment in #151:

    “There is NO Lutheran pastor who would deny me the blessed sacrament soley based upon my descreetly revealing privately in confession to my pastor that I am gay.”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    #156: “Another passage from Pastor Wayne A’s linked file from #82:

    Homosexual condition and conduct are sinful. The Scriptures
    clearly indicate this (Genesis 19:1-11; Leviticus 18:22;
    20:13; Judges 10:16-25; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9; I
    Timothy 1:10). To rationalize or justify homosexuality in any
    way is not only to deny the reality of sin but also to resign the
    homosexual to a life of perversion and hopelessness. The homosexual
    can change, and the first step is acceptance of Biblical
    teaching about homosexuality … that it is sin and must
    be forsaken in God’s power.
    One pastor, who helped a number
    of homosexuals when other pastors and physicians could do
    nothing with them, was asked the secret of his effectiveness.
    They have got to see that it’s sin; I hold them to that.

    fws, #161: “the pastor saying that is not in conformity to Lutheran doctrine found in the Lutheran Confessions tud. “

    He’s also a confessional Lutheran pastor who might deny you Holy Communion too.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    #156: “Another passage from Pastor Wayne A’s linked file from #82:

    Homosexual condition and conduct are sinful. The Scriptures
    clearly indicate this (Genesis 19:1-11; Leviticus 18:22;
    20:13; Judges 10:16-25; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9; I
    Timothy 1:10). To rationalize or justify homosexuality in any
    way is not only to deny the reality of sin but also to resign the
    homosexual to a life of perversion and hopelessness. The homosexual
    can change, and the first step is acceptance of Biblical
    teaching about homosexuality … that it is sin and must
    be forsaken in God’s power.
    One pastor, who helped a number
    of homosexuals when other pastors and physicians could do
    nothing with them, was asked the secret of his effectiveness.
    They have got to see that it’s sin; I hold them to that.

    fws, #161: “the pastor saying that is not in conformity to Lutheran doctrine found in the Lutheran Confessions tud. “

    He’s also a confessional Lutheran pastor who might deny you Holy Communion too.

  • fws

    tud @160

    the definition of a homosexual is not who does or does not engages in anal sex.

    All homosexuals observe that they were homosexuals as early as age 5. the definition of the medical community and all homosexuals I have met take this fact into account. You dont. that is ok. but…. no dialog is possible with those who disagree.

    That includes me.

    what does any of this have to do with whether or not a Lutheran pastor would commune me?

  • fws

    tud @160

    the definition of a homosexual is not who does or does not engages in anal sex.

    All homosexuals observe that they were homosexuals as early as age 5. the definition of the medical community and all homosexuals I have met take this fact into account. You dont. that is ok. but…. no dialog is possible with those who disagree.

    That includes me.

    what does any of this have to do with whether or not a Lutheran pastor would commune me?

  • fws

    tud @ 163

    what is your basis for calling this pastor a lutheran who is a “confessional Lutheran”?

    where is what he says found in Holy Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions?

  • fws

    tud @ 163

    what is your basis for calling this pastor a lutheran who is a “confessional Lutheran”?

    where is what he says found in Holy Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions?

  • fws

    tud

    Until you start answering Kerners questions, I will stop answering any of yours ok?

  • fws

    tud

    Until you start answering Kerners questions, I will stop answering any of yours ok?

  • fws

    tud

    I am happy to let you and grace have the last word on all of this.

    the Lords peace be with you both!

  • fws

    tud

    I am happy to let you and grace have the last word on all of this.

    the Lords peace be with you both!

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    FWS,

    My last word is that I hope you’ll re-read and prayerfully consider comment #128.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    FWS,

    My last word is that I hope you’ll re-read and prayerfully consider comment #128.

  • Wayne A

    Grace.

    My point was in response to the notion that since homosexuals claim to be born that way, that its OK. My point is that we are all born bent and sinners and that is not a excuse to sin. I was being sacastic, but yet honest about my own sins. I do not excuse them, I do not make lite of them. How can I make lite of them, they nailed Jesus to the cross. I thank Jesus everyday for going to the cross for them.

    Yes I know the definition of poligamy, my point, that I didn’t make very well is that since there is something in me that even though I am married still desires other women, then I must have been born a poligamist. I don’t believe that, but that is their logic. But I do believe in Adam and Eve and the fall and in Adam we are all born sinners.

    I’m glad your pastor is perfect and doesn’t struggle against sin.

    I’m going to bow out of this conversation. I have a sermon to prepare.

  • Wayne A

    Grace.

    My point was in response to the notion that since homosexuals claim to be born that way, that its OK. My point is that we are all born bent and sinners and that is not a excuse to sin. I was being sacastic, but yet honest about my own sins. I do not excuse them, I do not make lite of them. How can I make lite of them, they nailed Jesus to the cross. I thank Jesus everyday for going to the cross for them.

    Yes I know the definition of poligamy, my point, that I didn’t make very well is that since there is something in me that even though I am married still desires other women, then I must have been born a poligamist. I don’t believe that, but that is their logic. But I do believe in Adam and Eve and the fall and in Adam we are all born sinners.

    I’m glad your pastor is perfect and doesn’t struggle against sin.

    I’m going to bow out of this conversation. I have a sermon to prepare.

  • Grace

    fws

    Below is a statement you made back in March of last year:

    I say the confessions and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life why?
    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/03/23/nominal-christians/#comment-112622

    You often quote the “Confessions” rather than the Bible. And then slide around with your answer, just as you have on this thread. Luther is not the Bible, he isn’t one of Christs Apostles. It’s strange that you and a nunber of others put your trust in Luther’s exposé of the “Confessions” and NOT the Bible as your most reliable and inerrant source and “faith” -

  • Grace

    fws

    Below is a statement you made back in March of last year:

    I say the confessions and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life why?
    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/03/23/nominal-christians/#comment-112622

    You often quote the “Confessions” rather than the Bible. And then slide around with your answer, just as you have on this thread. Luther is not the Bible, he isn’t one of Christs Apostles. It’s strange that you and a nunber of others put your trust in Luther’s exposé of the “Confessions” and NOT the Bible as your most reliable and inerrant source and “faith” -

  • Grace

    Wayne @ 169

    Thank you for clarifying your earlier comments, but it was glib, and ill thought out.

    I’m glad your pastor is perfect and doesn’t struggle against sin.

    Your sarcasm isn’t warranted, nor is it applicable.

  • Grace

    Wayne @ 169

    Thank you for clarifying your earlier comments, but it was glib, and ill thought out.

    I’m glad your pastor is perfect and doesn’t struggle against sin.

    Your sarcasm isn’t warranted, nor is it applicable.

  • fws

    grace @ 170

    you misquoted me Grace. and then the link you put immediately after it did not take us to my quote in context. instead it takes us to one of your rants.

    you are not being very honest grace.

  • fws

    grace @ 170

    you misquoted me Grace. and then the link you put immediately after it did not take us to my quote in context. instead it takes us to one of your rants.

    you are not being very honest grace.

  • fws

    grace @ 171

    in almost every comment you are sacastic. and when you are not sarcastic you are condescending, and …

    when you are not either of those you are responding to posts in a way that shows you dont understand what the poster was saying. You lack an ability to understand nuance.

    Pick any single one of your posts Grace and what I just said will be true of that post in some way. amazing. not an ounce of grace in a single one of your posts.

    and then you are the first person to whine when someone dishes some of all that poisonous attitude back at you.

    I hope you are not like this in person when you actually have to say stuff to peoples face. if you are you must have a miserable life.

    I know it is easier to be mean spirited when you dont have to actually look someone in the face.

  • fws

    grace @ 171

    in almost every comment you are sacastic. and when you are not sarcastic you are condescending, and …

    when you are not either of those you are responding to posts in a way that shows you dont understand what the poster was saying. You lack an ability to understand nuance.

    Pick any single one of your posts Grace and what I just said will be true of that post in some way. amazing. not an ounce of grace in a single one of your posts.

    and then you are the first person to whine when someone dishes some of all that poisonous attitude back at you.

    I hope you are not like this in person when you actually have to say stuff to peoples face. if you are you must have a miserable life.

    I know it is easier to be mean spirited when you dont have to actually look someone in the face.

  • fws

    grace @ 171

    everything you post is glib and ill thought out. so I guess that makes you an expert at identifying both glib and poorly thought out eh?

  • fws

    grace @ 171

    everything you post is glib and ill thought out. so I guess that makes you an expert at identifying both glib and poorly thought out eh?

  • Grace

    fws,

    You’re mirroring your own posts, and the way in which you side step the Word of God, and then become miffed when someone calls you on it.

    The vast majority of real Christian Believers agree with the Word of God, that homosexuality is a sin. The acts of sex, no matter how you want to spin it, are sinful.

    HIV/AIDS and the horrific toll it’s taken, the enormous amount of money and scientific research to find a cure, for a diseases that are, for the most part transmitted by male to male sex. Then there are all the STD’s, and disease which accompany those diseases, and the money and insurance costs, spent to treat those who are infected.

    There is no place in the Bible that condones same sex, sexual relations of any kind, no matter how any person tries to rectify this sin which has blown havoc on this country and many others.

  • Grace

    fws,

    You’re mirroring your own posts, and the way in which you side step the Word of God, and then become miffed when someone calls you on it.

    The vast majority of real Christian Believers agree with the Word of God, that homosexuality is a sin. The acts of sex, no matter how you want to spin it, are sinful.

    HIV/AIDS and the horrific toll it’s taken, the enormous amount of money and scientific research to find a cure, for a diseases that are, for the most part transmitted by male to male sex. Then there are all the STD’s, and disease which accompany those diseases, and the money and insurance costs, spent to treat those who are infected.

    There is no place in the Bible that condones same sex, sexual relations of any kind, no matter how any person tries to rectify this sin which has blown havoc on this country and many others.

  • kerner

    TU&D:

    Despite your desire to pass the baton, no one seems to want to take it.

    Baptized Lutheran in Hell: ” Hi, Welcome to Hell.”

    False convert from TU&D’s Church: “Hi, I can’t say it’s nice to be here; no offense.”

    Baptized Lutheran in Hell: ” None taken.”

    False Convert from TU&D’s Church: “So, how did you get here?”

    Baptized Lutheran in Hell: “Simple. I rejected the Hoily Spirit and the promise of salvation that the Holy Spirit gave me in baptism. Essentially, I did that which is described in Hebrews 6:4-8*, and here I am. How did you get here?”

    False Convert From TU&D’s Church: “I don’t know, really. Unlike you, I thought I was a Christian. But TU&D said that not everyone who did things in Christ’s name or says ‘Lord, Lord’ would enter heaven, and he quoted a Bible verse in which Jesus said that I would also have to do His Father’s will. But when I asked TU&D what “doing the Father’s will ” means, he refused to tell me.”

    Baptized Lutheran in Hell: “Do you think theis TU&D guy even knows himself what the “doing the Father’s will” part of being a Christian is?”

    False Convert from TU&D’s Church: If he does, he ain’t saying. He decided to cross examine a homosexual instead. So, I never found out, and now I’m in Hell.”

    * Hebrews 6:
    ” 4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen[c] away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.”

  • kerner

    TU&D:

    Despite your desire to pass the baton, no one seems to want to take it.

    Baptized Lutheran in Hell: ” Hi, Welcome to Hell.”

    False convert from TU&D’s Church: “Hi, I can’t say it’s nice to be here; no offense.”

    Baptized Lutheran in Hell: ” None taken.”

    False Convert from TU&D’s Church: “So, how did you get here?”

    Baptized Lutheran in Hell: “Simple. I rejected the Hoily Spirit and the promise of salvation that the Holy Spirit gave me in baptism. Essentially, I did that which is described in Hebrews 6:4-8*, and here I am. How did you get here?”

    False Convert From TU&D’s Church: “I don’t know, really. Unlike you, I thought I was a Christian. But TU&D said that not everyone who did things in Christ’s name or says ‘Lord, Lord’ would enter heaven, and he quoted a Bible verse in which Jesus said that I would also have to do His Father’s will. But when I asked TU&D what “doing the Father’s will ” means, he refused to tell me.”

    Baptized Lutheran in Hell: “Do you think theis TU&D guy even knows himself what the “doing the Father’s will” part of being a Christian is?”

    False Convert from TU&D’s Church: If he does, he ain’t saying. He decided to cross examine a homosexual instead. So, I never found out, and now I’m in Hell.”

    * Hebrews 6:
    ” 4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen[c] away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.”

  • Truth Unites… And Divides

    fws, #167: “tud,

    I am happy to let you and grace have the last word on all of this.

    the Lords peace be with you both!”

    Your false promise did not give the Lord’s peace, fws.

  • Truth Unites… And Divides

    fws, #167: “tud,

    I am happy to let you and grace have the last word on all of this.

    the Lords peace be with you both!”

    Your false promise did not give the Lord’s peace, fws.

  • Truth Unites… And Divides

    Kerner,

    I hope and pray that fws does not end up as a baptized Lutheran in Hell.

  • Truth Unites… And Divides

    Kerner,

    I hope and pray that fws does not end up as a baptized Lutheran in Hell.

  • kerner

    TU&D @178:

    I hope you mean that. Since he consistently found seeking mercy at the foot of the cross, your hopes and prayers appear to be answered.

    And I hope you come to a sufficient understanding of Matthew 7:21-23, such that you are willing to discuss it without fear.

  • kerner

    TU&D @178:

    I hope you mean that. Since he consistently found seeking mercy at the foot of the cross, your hopes and prayers appear to be answered.

    And I hope you come to a sufficient understanding of Matthew 7:21-23, such that you are willing to discuss it without fear.

  • kerner

    fws:

    I read you articles linked to @105, and I can’t go without saying that your search for any support there is misplaced. The longer article seems tobe little more than freudian attempts to resolve the problem of sin by eliminating a sense of guilt. see here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt#Psychology

    The basic principle is that, there is really nothing wrong with behavior that seems to “feel good” or seems instinctive. The problem is that our super-ego, or the pressure from others makes us feel bad. So the proposed solution is to remove the sources of guilt feelings, and let the person be and do what he desires free from the negative impact of guilt. Well compare that approach with this:

    http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx

    (If that link does not go directly to page 6, click on page 6 when you get there.)

    As you can see, the whole approach is to say that, since the gay (or bisexual) orientation is what seems to “come naturally” to some people, we should not approach this as a matter of “sin” as defined by some external source. Rather, the poposed solution is to get gays and bi-sexuals to stop feeling guilty about it and for the rest of society to stop making them feel bad about it.

    The psychology community takes this approach to all kinds of behavior the Bible calls sinful, and you have frequently pointed out that it has been pretty successful in the case of divorce. Western culture, and (alas) western Christians, are much more tolerant of divorce than they have any right to be under Scripture. But that is no reason to make the same mistake multiple times.

    In the end, the relevant question is one you shy away from: Is consentual anal sex between two men sin? (there are similar, more general, questions, and also questions that would apply to lesbians, but let’s just stick to this one) I think the Bible pretty clearly says “yes”. The acrobatic rationalization necessary to conclude otherwsise is just that. It doesn’t really matter whether you “see yourself” exactly in the words of Romans or the Old Testament. Nor does it matter that Moses and St. Paul, or even Martin Luther, knew nothing about modern psychological theory. They knew what man-man anal sex was, and they knew it was wrong, and they said so.

  • kerner

    fws:

    I read you articles linked to @105, and I can’t go without saying that your search for any support there is misplaced. The longer article seems tobe little more than freudian attempts to resolve the problem of sin by eliminating a sense of guilt. see here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt#Psychology

    The basic principle is that, there is really nothing wrong with behavior that seems to “feel good” or seems instinctive. The problem is that our super-ego, or the pressure from others makes us feel bad. So the proposed solution is to remove the sources of guilt feelings, and let the person be and do what he desires free from the negative impact of guilt. Well compare that approach with this:

    http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx

    (If that link does not go directly to page 6, click on page 6 when you get there.)

    As you can see, the whole approach is to say that, since the gay (or bisexual) orientation is what seems to “come naturally” to some people, we should not approach this as a matter of “sin” as defined by some external source. Rather, the poposed solution is to get gays and bi-sexuals to stop feeling guilty about it and for the rest of society to stop making them feel bad about it.

    The psychology community takes this approach to all kinds of behavior the Bible calls sinful, and you have frequently pointed out that it has been pretty successful in the case of divorce. Western culture, and (alas) western Christians, are much more tolerant of divorce than they have any right to be under Scripture. But that is no reason to make the same mistake multiple times.

    In the end, the relevant question is one you shy away from: Is consentual anal sex between two men sin? (there are similar, more general, questions, and also questions that would apply to lesbians, but let’s just stick to this one) I think the Bible pretty clearly says “yes”. The acrobatic rationalization necessary to conclude otherwsise is just that. It doesn’t really matter whether you “see yourself” exactly in the words of Romans or the Old Testament. Nor does it matter that Moses and St. Paul, or even Martin Luther, knew nothing about modern psychological theory. They knew what man-man anal sex was, and they knew it was wrong, and they said so.

  • fws

    kerner @ 180

    In the end, the relevant question is one you shy away from: Is consentual anal sex between two men sin? (there are similar, more general, questions, and also questions that would apply to lesbians, but let’s just stick to this one) I think the Bible pretty clearly says “yes”.

    For the sake of argument lets agree that this very narrow criterion is a sinful act. Narrow because you imply that beyond that, whatever goes on between two gay men is not sin.

    Questions:

    1) Every gay man I have met knew they were gay (without knowing a label for it) since around age 5. So all that stuff up until puberty, puppylove between two little boys etc is not sin? Yet those things are all definitionally gay for those who are custodians of the clinical word “homosexual”. along with every gay man I have ever met.

    2) A vast number, maybe even a majority, of gay couples do not engage in anal sex. So a) they are not homosexual by your definition? b) whatever else they do is not sinful in the sense we are discussing, and c) we can´t then assume that declaration that one is part of a gay relationship means they are in a sinful relationship

    3) Lesbian homosexuals do not engage in anal sex. They cannot. So lesbian relationships are ok?

  • fws

    kerner @ 180

    In the end, the relevant question is one you shy away from: Is consentual anal sex between two men sin? (there are similar, more general, questions, and also questions that would apply to lesbians, but let’s just stick to this one) I think the Bible pretty clearly says “yes”.

    For the sake of argument lets agree that this very narrow criterion is a sinful act. Narrow because you imply that beyond that, whatever goes on between two gay men is not sin.

    Questions:

    1) Every gay man I have met knew they were gay (without knowing a label for it) since around age 5. So all that stuff up until puberty, puppylove between two little boys etc is not sin? Yet those things are all definitionally gay for those who are custodians of the clinical word “homosexual”. along with every gay man I have ever met.

    2) A vast number, maybe even a majority, of gay couples do not engage in anal sex. So a) they are not homosexual by your definition? b) whatever else they do is not sinful in the sense we are discussing, and c) we can´t then assume that declaration that one is part of a gay relationship means they are in a sinful relationship

    3) Lesbian homosexuals do not engage in anal sex. They cannot. So lesbian relationships are ok?

  • fws

    kerner @ 180

    “the relevant question”.

    Relevant to whom? gays? nope. medical community. Nope. Biblically? Where is anal sex talked about in the Bible as you are framing it?

    relevant question… “CONSENTUAL anal sex”. What is the significance of inserting consentual into that phrase? what does that word add to the meaning of the phrase? So non-consentual anal sex falls into some different category?

    What about the many heterosexual christians who practice anal sex on a regular basis (my church had quite a few). Are they then homosexuals? I know that is a silly question, but your definition seems really really narrow to the point that definitionally……
    so is anal sex between heterosexuals sin? biblical reference please!

    Relevant in what way? definitionally? to determine sin/not sin?

  • fws

    kerner @ 180

    “the relevant question”.

    Relevant to whom? gays? nope. medical community. Nope. Biblically? Where is anal sex talked about in the Bible as you are framing it?

    relevant question… “CONSENTUAL anal sex”. What is the significance of inserting consentual into that phrase? what does that word add to the meaning of the phrase? So non-consentual anal sex falls into some different category?

    What about the many heterosexual christians who practice anal sex on a regular basis (my church had quite a few). Are they then homosexuals? I know that is a silly question, but your definition seems really really narrow to the point that definitionally……
    so is anal sex between heterosexuals sin? biblical reference please!

    Relevant in what way? definitionally? to determine sin/not sin?

  • fws

    kerner @ 180

    “the bible clearly says yes. ”

    Where are those clear passages that talk about anal sex as being the defining criterion for whether one is committing the sin of homosexuality or not.

    I think we are experiencing a definitional meltdown here…..

  • fws

    kerner @ 180

    “the bible clearly says yes. ”

    Where are those clear passages that talk about anal sex as being the defining criterion for whether one is committing the sin of homosexuality or not.

    I think we are experiencing a definitional meltdown here…..

  • fws

    kerner @ 180

    I did not cite the entire site nor did i assert that I was approving of everything the apa has ever published about sexual orientation or homosexuality.

    I don´t.

    I was referring to the single article I linked to.
    It is excellent. And it would be a great guide for men like you to understand precisely where homosexuals are coming from in conversations with them.

    I fail to see freudianism there. show me.
    I fail to see an attempt to remove guilt. Show me.
    I fail to see anything argumentative (trying to advance an argument) or polemical.

    What i see is something that is purely descriptive , and commenting, appropriately so, that no one really knows the causes or the whys.

    I dont see how this link wars against anything in Holy Scripture . Show me Kerner.

    It is the best thing I have ever seen on this topic. It is extremely brief and yet says about all that can be said on the topic.

    It is balanced and nuanced and makes some excellent distinctions that are true to the life experience of every homosexual I have ever met. And I have met more than a few.

    So please restrict your comments to the specific article I have linked to. Is that acceptable?

  • fws

    kerner @ 180

    I did not cite the entire site nor did i assert that I was approving of everything the apa has ever published about sexual orientation or homosexuality.

    I don´t.

    I was referring to the single article I linked to.
    It is excellent. And it would be a great guide for men like you to understand precisely where homosexuals are coming from in conversations with them.

    I fail to see freudianism there. show me.
    I fail to see an attempt to remove guilt. Show me.
    I fail to see anything argumentative (trying to advance an argument) or polemical.

    What i see is something that is purely descriptive , and commenting, appropriately so, that no one really knows the causes or the whys.

    I dont see how this link wars against anything in Holy Scripture . Show me Kerner.

    It is the best thing I have ever seen on this topic. It is extremely brief and yet says about all that can be said on the topic.

    It is balanced and nuanced and makes some excellent distinctions that are true to the life experience of every homosexual I have ever met. And I have met more than a few.

    So please restrict your comments to the specific article I have linked to. Is that acceptable?

  • fws

    kerner @ 180

    Do you still think I am “shying away from THE relevant question”?

    if so how? I don´t think I am. I await your answer as to why this is THE relevant question. You seem to be suggesting that , biblically, the sin is not homosexuality , but rather THE sin is anal sex, and only when it is done by two persons of the same gender.

    Again, we are experiencing a meltdown of definitions.

    What is your definition of homosexuality, homosexual sex, homosexual lifestyle, homosexual sin. THE sin of homosexuality, etc etc?

    I am hearing that homosexuality=anal sex=sin. Is there something in your definition I am missing?

    I think actually we are finally getting somewhere Kerner.

  • fws

    kerner @ 180

    Do you still think I am “shying away from THE relevant question”?

    if so how? I don´t think I am. I await your answer as to why this is THE relevant question. You seem to be suggesting that , biblically, the sin is not homosexuality , but rather THE sin is anal sex, and only when it is done by two persons of the same gender.

    Again, we are experiencing a meltdown of definitions.

    What is your definition of homosexuality, homosexual sex, homosexual lifestyle, homosexual sin. THE sin of homosexuality, etc etc?

    I am hearing that homosexuality=anal sex=sin. Is there something in your definition I am missing?

    I think actually we are finally getting somewhere Kerner.

  • kerner

    fws:

    (sigh…) This is what I get for adopting the language of someone else. I probably deserve to have my point missed for that reason alone.

    It is not the criterion, but the question, that was narrow. We can broaden the question without affecting the criterion.

    Let’s start with Leviticus 18:22. I know we’ve been down this road, and not resolved very much, but it says:

    Leviticus 18:22
    Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

    This is a general prohibition against an activity. The term “lie with” is a general term meaning “to have sex with”. Basically, men are told not to have sex with other men as men do with women. Since men do not have vaginas (not even the surgical facsimiles we sometimes see today were around when this was written) the only reasonable interpretation is that men should not have sex with other men at all, Can a man have anal sex with a woman? Yes. Well, then men are directed not to do that with each other. Can a man have oral sex with a woman? Yes. Well, then men are directed not to do that with each other either. How about romantic kissing and fondling? Can men and women do that? They can. So, that’s out too.

    The point of this passage is not to distinguish various sex acts from one another, it is a statement of who should be having sex with whom. Specifically, men should not be having sex, of any kind, for any reason, with other men. Period. The end.

    To interpret this verse any other way is to engage in acrobatic rationalization that is so complicated that it is obvious almost everyone. Only those who have the personal motivation to reach a different conclusion are willing to engage in the mental gymnastics neccessary to not see what this passage is saying.

    I have more to say, but I have to go. later

  • kerner

    fws:

    (sigh…) This is what I get for adopting the language of someone else. I probably deserve to have my point missed for that reason alone.

    It is not the criterion, but the question, that was narrow. We can broaden the question without affecting the criterion.

    Let’s start with Leviticus 18:22. I know we’ve been down this road, and not resolved very much, but it says:

    Leviticus 18:22
    Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

    This is a general prohibition against an activity. The term “lie with” is a general term meaning “to have sex with”. Basically, men are told not to have sex with other men as men do with women. Since men do not have vaginas (not even the surgical facsimiles we sometimes see today were around when this was written) the only reasonable interpretation is that men should not have sex with other men at all, Can a man have anal sex with a woman? Yes. Well, then men are directed not to do that with each other. Can a man have oral sex with a woman? Yes. Well, then men are directed not to do that with each other either. How about romantic kissing and fondling? Can men and women do that? They can. So, that’s out too.

    The point of this passage is not to distinguish various sex acts from one another, it is a statement of who should be having sex with whom. Specifically, men should not be having sex, of any kind, for any reason, with other men. Period. The end.

    To interpret this verse any other way is to engage in acrobatic rationalization that is so complicated that it is obvious almost everyone. Only those who have the personal motivation to reach a different conclusion are willing to engage in the mental gymnastics neccessary to not see what this passage is saying.

    I have more to say, but I have to go. later

  • Grace

    No one is fooled by this hide and dodge regarding having sex, (homosexual sex) or what it’s called. It reminds me of President Clinton when he quipped

    ____I did not have sexual relations with that woman ____

    He was trying just as hard to finagle, by deceit, what he and the woman had done. Sex can be achieved through orgasm by many means, be it anal, masturbation with another person, an object used to achieve an orgasm, oral, any sort of manipulation, by any means.

    Making the false statement that most, many homosexuals don’t have sex is FALSE, is nothing but a hide and seek game for those discussing the Word of God, and it’s deliberate passages to condemn homosexuality. Sex is not only between a man and a woman with normal intercourse. It’s done by people who are not married, and homosexuals.

  • Grace

    No one is fooled by this hide and dodge regarding having sex, (homosexual sex) or what it’s called. It reminds me of President Clinton when he quipped

    ____I did not have sexual relations with that woman ____

    He was trying just as hard to finagle, by deceit, what he and the woman had done. Sex can be achieved through orgasm by many means, be it anal, masturbation with another person, an object used to achieve an orgasm, oral, any sort of manipulation, by any means.

    Making the false statement that most, many homosexuals don’t have sex is FALSE, is nothing but a hide and seek game for those discussing the Word of God, and it’s deliberate passages to condemn homosexuality. Sex is not only between a man and a woman with normal intercourse. It’s done by people who are not married, and homosexuals.

  • fws

    kerner @ 186

    1) You say that a series of things in your mind are so very obvious that there is simply nothing to debate. So there is no discussion to be had then is there Kerner.

    try assuming honesty on the part of your dialog partner. Kerner I have no reason to be dishonest.

    2) I am a gay man and I don´t read anything in Lev 18 that i would be attracted to do sexually. Neither would any other gay man read it that way. I would actually be repulsed at the picture the text paints. So what is going on here?

    If this is gay sex shouldn’t I be defending what is depicted here as perfectly ok and normal because THIS is precisely what gay men do for sex?

    3) There is the text. there is the reader. and then there is what the reader reads into the text. So what is going on here?

    You seem to be denying that , with your interpretation , anything at all is being read into the text by you. And you are just so very certain of that and that that is so very obvious.

    4) And besides why does this matter Kerner? What does this have to do with keeping the second table of the Law? This was written for the Jews and not for us. Why would you not insist upon the rest of the rules in the text being kept and so avoid wearing cotton/polyester blend clothing?

    So you write:

    KERNER This is a general prohibition against an activity.
    FRANK Agreed.
    KERNER The term “lie with” is a general term meaning “to have sex with”.
    FRANK agreed
    KERNER Basically, men are told not to have sex with other men as men do with women.
    FRANK Ok. “basically”. Repeating the text is not to explain it yes?
    What does that mean, exactly in the context of the text? Not you reading this in your 21st century context?. what if this text AND the text in 1 cor, which seems to echo this passage are about ritual temple sex. what then. How would that change things if at all? I suggest that it is at least a plausible reading. If it IS a plausible reading, then you cannot discount it as dodging some moral bullit.

    It would be exceptional for a gay man to say that he has sex with other men “as he would with a woman”.

    That may sound like a dodge or false nuance or whatever. But it is true. and i say it matters. There is the part of the text that is added that says “as with a woman. ”

    Yeah it complicates things for our dialog. So what? deal with it. Dont dodge the point ok?

    Kerner: I was married twice. I am a gay man. I simply cannot insert myself into this text. You are not getting why that matters are you? I am a gay man. I should be at least honestly be able to say that what is described looks like gay sex. I cannot do that.

    Gay men know what sex with females is like. We live in a culture that is 90%+ heterosexual. we have siblings and parents. Many have tried to cure themselves by experimenting with sex with females. it is not the same. And it is not just about the act. Text: “as with a woman” is what leaps off the page at us. It is totally unnecessary text if the text says what you says it does.

    my advice is to assume that there is something going on there that is honest on the part of the gay person you are talking to that maybe you dont understand.

    Or… you can assume a basic dishonesty or something else…. what would that be I dont know….that is about you.

    KERNER Since men do not have vaginas (not even the surgical facsimiles we sometimes see today were around when this was written) the only reasonable interpretation is that men should not have sex with other men at all,
    FRANK why is that the a)only, b)reasonable interpretation?You are saying ( I am not sure) that since a man can do ALL the same things with a man short of vaginal sex, that therefore this text is prohibiting any sex with another man. Really? Lots hangs on your therefore.
    KERNER Can a man have anal sex with a woman? Yes. Well, then men are directed not to do that with each other. Can a man have oral sex with a woman? Yes. Well, then men are directed not to do that with each other either. How about romantic kissing and fondling? Can men and women do that? They can. So, that’s out too.
    FRANK in that case, it would have been utterly sufficent and . actually, more clear to merely say “a man should not have sex with another man”. Why the need for “as with a woman”. what additional meaning does that add?
    KERNER The point of this passage is not to distinguish various sex acts from one another,
    FRANK The point of the passage is to prohibit an activity as you said.It IS , in fact, distinguishing a form of sex act from other sex acts. “as with a woman” signals that. Otherwise it would have just said a man is not to have sex with another man. then it is about who and not about what the act is. But that is not how the text reads.
    KERNER it is a statement of who should be having sex with whom.
    FRANK i COULD read it to say that it is ok for a man to lie with another man, as long as he is not doing it “as with a woman”.
    KERNER Specifically, men should not be having sex, of any kind, for any reason, with other men. Period. The end.
    FRANK argumentative conclusion
    KERNER To interpret this verse any other way is to engage in acrobatic rationalization that is so complicated that it is obvious almost everyone.
    FRANK. Obvious to everyone except any gay man I have ever met, who would cringe at being treated as a woman in bed or treating another man like a woman in bed.

    This appears complicated to you. I am hearing that. Ok.

    You have way more invested in defending your understanding of the text than I do mine . I am not sure why. I dont really think anyone understands the context of lev 18 or the full cultural context. why does it matter? it was written for the Jews Kerner.

  • fws

    kerner @ 186

    1) You say that a series of things in your mind are so very obvious that there is simply nothing to debate. So there is no discussion to be had then is there Kerner.

    try assuming honesty on the part of your dialog partner. Kerner I have no reason to be dishonest.

    2) I am a gay man and I don´t read anything in Lev 18 that i would be attracted to do sexually. Neither would any other gay man read it that way. I would actually be repulsed at the picture the text paints. So what is going on here?

    If this is gay sex shouldn’t I be defending what is depicted here as perfectly ok and normal because THIS is precisely what gay men do for sex?

    3) There is the text. there is the reader. and then there is what the reader reads into the text. So what is going on here?

    You seem to be denying that , with your interpretation , anything at all is being read into the text by you. And you are just so very certain of that and that that is so very obvious.

    4) And besides why does this matter Kerner? What does this have to do with keeping the second table of the Law? This was written for the Jews and not for us. Why would you not insist upon the rest of the rules in the text being kept and so avoid wearing cotton/polyester blend clothing?

    So you write:

    KERNER This is a general prohibition against an activity.
    FRANK Agreed.
    KERNER The term “lie with” is a general term meaning “to have sex with”.
    FRANK agreed
    KERNER Basically, men are told not to have sex with other men as men do with women.
    FRANK Ok. “basically”. Repeating the text is not to explain it yes?
    What does that mean, exactly in the context of the text? Not you reading this in your 21st century context?. what if this text AND the text in 1 cor, which seems to echo this passage are about ritual temple sex. what then. How would that change things if at all? I suggest that it is at least a plausible reading. If it IS a plausible reading, then you cannot discount it as dodging some moral bullit.

    It would be exceptional for a gay man to say that he has sex with other men “as he would with a woman”.

    That may sound like a dodge or false nuance or whatever. But it is true. and i say it matters. There is the part of the text that is added that says “as with a woman. ”

    Yeah it complicates things for our dialog. So what? deal with it. Dont dodge the point ok?

    Kerner: I was married twice. I am a gay man. I simply cannot insert myself into this text. You are not getting why that matters are you? I am a gay man. I should be at least honestly be able to say that what is described looks like gay sex. I cannot do that.

    Gay men know what sex with females is like. We live in a culture that is 90%+ heterosexual. we have siblings and parents. Many have tried to cure themselves by experimenting with sex with females. it is not the same. And it is not just about the act. Text: “as with a woman” is what leaps off the page at us. It is totally unnecessary text if the text says what you says it does.

    my advice is to assume that there is something going on there that is honest on the part of the gay person you are talking to that maybe you dont understand.

    Or… you can assume a basic dishonesty or something else…. what would that be I dont know….that is about you.

    KERNER Since men do not have vaginas (not even the surgical facsimiles we sometimes see today were around when this was written) the only reasonable interpretation is that men should not have sex with other men at all,
    FRANK why is that the a)only, b)reasonable interpretation?You are saying ( I am not sure) that since a man can do ALL the same things with a man short of vaginal sex, that therefore this text is prohibiting any sex with another man. Really? Lots hangs on your therefore.
    KERNER Can a man have anal sex with a woman? Yes. Well, then men are directed not to do that with each other. Can a man have oral sex with a woman? Yes. Well, then men are directed not to do that with each other either. How about romantic kissing and fondling? Can men and women do that? They can. So, that’s out too.
    FRANK in that case, it would have been utterly sufficent and . actually, more clear to merely say “a man should not have sex with another man”. Why the need for “as with a woman”. what additional meaning does that add?
    KERNER The point of this passage is not to distinguish various sex acts from one another,
    FRANK The point of the passage is to prohibit an activity as you said.It IS , in fact, distinguishing a form of sex act from other sex acts. “as with a woman” signals that. Otherwise it would have just said a man is not to have sex with another man. then it is about who and not about what the act is. But that is not how the text reads.
    KERNER it is a statement of who should be having sex with whom.
    FRANK i COULD read it to say that it is ok for a man to lie with another man, as long as he is not doing it “as with a woman”.
    KERNER Specifically, men should not be having sex, of any kind, for any reason, with other men. Period. The end.
    FRANK argumentative conclusion
    KERNER To interpret this verse any other way is to engage in acrobatic rationalization that is so complicated that it is obvious almost everyone.
    FRANK. Obvious to everyone except any gay man I have ever met, who would cringe at being treated as a woman in bed or treating another man like a woman in bed.

    This appears complicated to you. I am hearing that. Ok.

    You have way more invested in defending your understanding of the text than I do mine . I am not sure why. I dont really think anyone understands the context of lev 18 or the full cultural context. why does it matter? it was written for the Jews Kerner.

  • fws

    kerner

    If i wanted to convince a gay man or anyone else that gay sex is wrong, Lev 18 I suggest would be the most problematic passage to look to, second only to the sodom and gomorrah story.

    By the way, do you think the sodom and gomorrah story is about homosexuality or homosexual sex? if yes, they would you place me in that crowd. I am gay. wouldnt I need to be naturally attracted to what that story depicts? arent I supposed to be a sexual predator like a child molester etc? Isnt that the way you are reading the texts? ie that they are definitionally depicting what gay sex looks like and then saying not to do it? So can you pick and chose texts?

  • fws

    kerner

    If i wanted to convince a gay man or anyone else that gay sex is wrong, Lev 18 I suggest would be the most problematic passage to look to, second only to the sodom and gomorrah story.

    By the way, do you think the sodom and gomorrah story is about homosexuality or homosexual sex? if yes, they would you place me in that crowd. I am gay. wouldnt I need to be naturally attracted to what that story depicts? arent I supposed to be a sexual predator like a child molester etc? Isnt that the way you are reading the texts? ie that they are definitionally depicting what gay sex looks like and then saying not to do it? So can you pick and chose texts?

  • Grace

    Leviticus was written for the Jews, BUT Romans 1 was written for everyone!

    26For 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 shameful, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was fitting.

    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 proper;

    _____then the list goes on, to elaborate on their sin_____

    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, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

    32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they who commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

  • Grace

    Leviticus was written for the Jews, BUT Romans 1 was written for everyone!

    26For 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 shameful, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was fitting.

    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 proper;

    _____then the list goes on, to elaborate on their sin_____

    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, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

    32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they who commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

  • fws

    kerner

    from my standpoint your argumentative chain looks like this:

    the bible has a section that describes a male on female rape.
    the bible says that that is wrong.
    male on female rape IS sex between a male and female.
    that sex could have included all that a male female couple could do sexually.

    Therefore ALL male /female sex is wrong.

    what if the passage is talking about temple ritual sex? In that case it would be sort of obvious WHY st paul prohibits such stuff in 1 cor which is a direct reference to lev 18 in the septuagint it appears.

    Now I could be wrong. But then again I suggest that my idea is very plausible.

    yeah (sigh ) you are just certain that I am trying to evade the “pLain” and “obvious” meaning of the text for personal reasons. That, I suppose , Is because you know I am a gay man. Because I was honest. as a christian is supposed to be. Sigh.

    So then…maybe dialog is not possible, since you are just so sure that this MUST be all so very obvious to me as well…. so then I must be being dishonest and just trying to throw whatever argument I can at you to evade the plain meaning.

    That puts alot of conjectures out there about my character and level of honesty doesnt it dear friend? What if you suspend those conjectures about me personally? what then ?

  • fws

    kerner

    from my standpoint your argumentative chain looks like this:

    the bible has a section that describes a male on female rape.
    the bible says that that is wrong.
    male on female rape IS sex between a male and female.
    that sex could have included all that a male female couple could do sexually.

    Therefore ALL male /female sex is wrong.

    what if the passage is talking about temple ritual sex? In that case it would be sort of obvious WHY st paul prohibits such stuff in 1 cor which is a direct reference to lev 18 in the septuagint it appears.

    Now I could be wrong. But then again I suggest that my idea is very plausible.

    yeah (sigh ) you are just certain that I am trying to evade the “pLain” and “obvious” meaning of the text for personal reasons. That, I suppose , Is because you know I am a gay man. Because I was honest. as a christian is supposed to be. Sigh.

    So then…maybe dialog is not possible, since you are just so sure that this MUST be all so very obvious to me as well…. so then I must be being dishonest and just trying to throw whatever argument I can at you to evade the plain meaning.

    That puts alot of conjectures out there about my character and level of honesty doesnt it dear friend? What if you suspend those conjectures about me personally? what then ?

  • fws

    grace if romans 1 speaks about EVERYONE, what does it say about you personally? what part of it speaks about you and your own personal sin?

    Will Grace be evasive?

  • fws

    grace if romans 1 speaks about EVERYONE, what does it say about you personally? what part of it speaks about you and your own personal sin?

    Will Grace be evasive?

  • Grace

    fws, I am not, nor ever have been a homosexual – the passage I posted is for those who desire the same sex.

  • Grace

    fws, I am not, nor ever have been a homosexual – the passage I posted is for those who desire the same sex.

  • Grace

    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 proper;

    What is the definition of REPROBATE in Strong’s Greek Dictionary?

    Here it is:

    adokimos – ad-ok’-ee-mos

    unapproved, i.e. rejected; by implication, worthless (literally or morally) –castaway, rejected, reprobate.

  • Grace

    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 proper;

    What is the definition of REPROBATE in Strong’s Greek Dictionary?

    Here it is:

    adokimos – ad-ok’-ee-mos

    unapproved, i.e. rejected; by implication, worthless (literally or morally) –castaway, rejected, reprobate.

  • Grace

    A reprobate mind is not able to see the folly any longer, that is one of the reasons, homosexuals claim they cannot change. In essence, they don’t believe God can help them, or give them strength to turn from their sin.

    All the excuses in the world will not make homosexuality righteous!

  • Grace

    A reprobate mind is not able to see the folly any longer, that is one of the reasons, homosexuals claim they cannot change. In essence, they don’t believe God can help them, or give them strength to turn from their sin.

    All the excuses in the world will not make homosexuality righteous!

  • fws

    Grace March 6, 2012 at 4:21 pm @ 190

    “Leviticus was written for the Jews, BUT Romans 1 was written for everyone!”

    Grace March 6, 2012 at 4:35 pm 193

    fws, I am not, nor ever have been a homosexual – the passage I posted [romans 26-32] is for those who desire the same sex.

    Grace: what do you make of romans 2:1?

  • fws

    Grace March 6, 2012 at 4:21 pm @ 190

    “Leviticus was written for the Jews, BUT Romans 1 was written for everyone!”

    Grace March 6, 2012 at 4:35 pm 193

    fws, I am not, nor ever have been a homosexual – the passage I posted [romans 26-32] is for those who desire the same sex.

    Grace: what do you make of romans 2:1?

  • fws

    Grace, you are being evasive. Romans 2:1 says that romans 1 is all about the sins of Grace.

  • fws

    Grace, you are being evasive. Romans 2:1 says that romans 1 is all about the sins of Grace.

  • Grace

    fws

    You are being slippery, no one is evasive, you cannot accept the fact, ….. that portion of Scripture is about homosexuals. Now you skip to Romans 2. You’re confused fws. Christian Believers and those in real Believing Christian churches judge what is right and wrong, ACCORDING to the Word of God.

    9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

    10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

    11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

    12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

    13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
    1 Corinthians 5

    Those who purport to be Christians, but continue to sin willfully, and then going so far as to defend their sin, ….. we are not to even eat with them.

  • Grace

    fws

    You are being slippery, no one is evasive, you cannot accept the fact, ….. that portion of Scripture is about homosexuals. Now you skip to Romans 2. You’re confused fws. Christian Believers and those in real Believing Christian churches judge what is right and wrong, ACCORDING to the Word of God.

    9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

    10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

    11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

    12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

    13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
    1 Corinthians 5

    Those who purport to be Christians, but continue to sin willfully, and then going so far as to defend their sin, ….. we are not to even eat with them.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Regarding Romans 1, Grace said (@198) to FWS:

    you cannot accept the fact, ….. that portion of Scripture is about homosexuals.

    Indeed it is, Grace. Because it is about everybody. But you seem to want it to only be about gay people. My question, Grace, is: why?

    After all, can you honestly say that you are not accused multiple times in this list, Grace?

    They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

    Even if you will deny it, I know from reading your comments here that you are found guilty according to that passage. Not that I have to know anything about you, personally to say that. As FWS keeps trying to get you to understand, all you have to do is read the first verse in the next chapter to know who is guilty by Romans 1:

    You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

    And Grace, you are quite clearly passing judgment here.

    Later on, Grace, you said:

    Those who purport to be Christians, but continue to sin willfully, and then going so far as to defend their sin…

    But, Grace, you also sin willfully! We can read you doing so on this very blog! It happens not infrequently, you know! And, what’s more, you have even defended the sinfulness of your comments, at least in the past!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Regarding Romans 1, Grace said (@198) to FWS:

    you cannot accept the fact, ….. that portion of Scripture is about homosexuals.

    Indeed it is, Grace. Because it is about everybody. But you seem to want it to only be about gay people. My question, Grace, is: why?

    After all, can you honestly say that you are not accused multiple times in this list, Grace?

    They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

    Even if you will deny it, I know from reading your comments here that you are found guilty according to that passage. Not that I have to know anything about you, personally to say that. As FWS keeps trying to get you to understand, all you have to do is read the first verse in the next chapter to know who is guilty by Romans 1:

    You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

    And Grace, you are quite clearly passing judgment here.

    Later on, Grace, you said:

    Those who purport to be Christians, but continue to sin willfully, and then going so far as to defend their sin…

    But, Grace, you also sin willfully! We can read you doing so on this very blog! It happens not infrequently, you know! And, what’s more, you have even defended the sinfulness of your comments, at least in the past!

  • Grace

    “EVERYBODY”

    tODD, you’re playing devils advocate – but in this case, you’re playing with Scripture which is clear regarding homosexuality, it is specifically speaking about homosexuality.

    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 shameful, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was fitting.

    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 proper;

    _____then the list goes on, to elaborate on their sin_____

    29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

  • Grace

    “EVERYBODY”

    tODD, you’re playing devils advocate – but in this case, you’re playing with Scripture which is clear regarding homosexuality, it is specifically speaking about homosexuality.

    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 shameful, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was fitting.

    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 proper;

    _____then the list goes on, to elaborate on their sin_____

    29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace replied (@200):

    tODD, you’re playing devils advocate …

    Actually, Grace, I’m applying God’s Law (as found in Scripture) to show you your own sins. Do you think everyone who does that is “playing devils advocate”? If so, then Romans 1 applies to you all the more!

    … in this case, you’re playing with Scripture which is clear regarding homosexuality, it is specifically speaking about homosexuality.

    I’m not “playing” with Scripture, Grace, I’m quoting and applying it. This is not a game.

    As to the term “homosexuality”, it is unfortunately clear that you have not understood any of FWS’s foregoing points about that word. You will likely protest my saying so, but you have yet to demonstrate that you understand his points about words and what they mean. And yes, I am strictly speaking of comprehension, and not whether you agree or not — one can understand an opponent’s argument without agreeing.

    That said, yes, it is clear that Romans 1 specifically refers to same-sex sexual activity. And, furthermore, it clearly applies to homosexuals (since, again, it applies to everyone — see my earlier comment @199).

    If you want to argue that, by specifically referring to same-sex sexual activity, Romans 1 is strictly limited to those who engage in same-sex sexual activity, then you must apply this rubric consistently. As such, Romans 1 would speak specifically only about men and women who used to be heterosexual. And, furthermore, it would only speak to those particular former heterosexuals who worship physical idols in the shapes of “man and birds and animals and reptiles”. So you see that attempting to narrow the scope of Romans 1 as you do makes it apply to precious few people.

    It would also, conveniently, make it not apply to you.

    So again, I must quote Romans 2 to you:

    You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?

    Grace, you do sin willfully. You do so repeatedly. You may think you don’t, or that we don’t notice (though how could you; your willful sins are directed at us!), but God notices, Grace. Do you think you will escape God’s judgment?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace replied (@200):

    tODD, you’re playing devils advocate …

    Actually, Grace, I’m applying God’s Law (as found in Scripture) to show you your own sins. Do you think everyone who does that is “playing devils advocate”? If so, then Romans 1 applies to you all the more!

    … in this case, you’re playing with Scripture which is clear regarding homosexuality, it is specifically speaking about homosexuality.

    I’m not “playing” with Scripture, Grace, I’m quoting and applying it. This is not a game.

    As to the term “homosexuality”, it is unfortunately clear that you have not understood any of FWS’s foregoing points about that word. You will likely protest my saying so, but you have yet to demonstrate that you understand his points about words and what they mean. And yes, I am strictly speaking of comprehension, and not whether you agree or not — one can understand an opponent’s argument without agreeing.

    That said, yes, it is clear that Romans 1 specifically refers to same-sex sexual activity. And, furthermore, it clearly applies to homosexuals (since, again, it applies to everyone — see my earlier comment @199).

    If you want to argue that, by specifically referring to same-sex sexual activity, Romans 1 is strictly limited to those who engage in same-sex sexual activity, then you must apply this rubric consistently. As such, Romans 1 would speak specifically only about men and women who used to be heterosexual. And, furthermore, it would only speak to those particular former heterosexuals who worship physical idols in the shapes of “man and birds and animals and reptiles”. So you see that attempting to narrow the scope of Romans 1 as you do makes it apply to precious few people.

    It would also, conveniently, make it not apply to you.

    So again, I must quote Romans 2 to you:

    You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?

    Grace, you do sin willfully. You do so repeatedly. You may think you don’t, or that we don’t notice (though how could you; your willful sins are directed at us!), but God notices, Grace. Do you think you will escape God’s judgment?

  • kerner

    fws: I truly regret that I am as constrained by other matters. there is so much to respond to. But, I’ll do what I can.

    But, you have repeatedly made statements to the effect that there is something so different about the way gay men have sex that the phrase “as with a woman” couldn’t possibly describe it.

    Well, let’s review. Men have anal sex with women. Men have oral sex with women. Men kiss and caress women in a sexual way and are kissed and caressed by women. If gay men are not doing any of those things with each other, just what is this mysterious sexual thing that gay men do that men never do and/or can’t be done with a woman? I mean I hate to ask you to describe something that personal, but you have made statements like that so often, I can’t think of another way to understand your position.

    You have said one other thing that makes absolutely no sense is this:

    “You have way more invested in defending your understanding of the text than I do mine .”

    Really? REALLY? My understanding of this text doesn’t directly affect me. But it tells gay men that they can’t have sex with other men. And you don’t think gay men don’t have more invested in me being wrong than I have in being right? O please, you can’t be serious. Your position is that this text is directed to everyone EXCEPT gay men. And you don’t think that a gay man has more invested in that position than a straight man does? And you wonder why I say you are rationalizing.

  • kerner

    fws: I truly regret that I am as constrained by other matters. there is so much to respond to. But, I’ll do what I can.

    But, you have repeatedly made statements to the effect that there is something so different about the way gay men have sex that the phrase “as with a woman” couldn’t possibly describe it.

    Well, let’s review. Men have anal sex with women. Men have oral sex with women. Men kiss and caress women in a sexual way and are kissed and caressed by women. If gay men are not doing any of those things with each other, just what is this mysterious sexual thing that gay men do that men never do and/or can’t be done with a woman? I mean I hate to ask you to describe something that personal, but you have made statements like that so often, I can’t think of another way to understand your position.

    You have said one other thing that makes absolutely no sense is this:

    “You have way more invested in defending your understanding of the text than I do mine .”

    Really? REALLY? My understanding of this text doesn’t directly affect me. But it tells gay men that they can’t have sex with other men. And you don’t think gay men don’t have more invested in me being wrong than I have in being right? O please, you can’t be serious. Your position is that this text is directed to everyone EXCEPT gay men. And you don’t think that a gay man has more invested in that position than a straight man does? And you wonder why I say you are rationalizing.

  • Grace

    tODD,

    You’re technique is nothing short of devils advocate tactics, I’m not interested.

  • Grace

    tODD,

    You’re technique is nothing short of devils advocate tactics, I’m not interested.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@203), I’m sorry to hear you say that. I must say, yours isn’t a very Christian response.

    The Christian, when shown by Scripture that she is sinful, simply admits that she is a sinner. She doesn’t lash out at the person who points her to Scripture, accusing him of playing “devils advocate”. She doesn’t turn up her nose and say she’s “not interested”.

    No, she recognizes her wretched state and remembers that only God’s grace shown her in Christ can save her from her body of death. Only Jesus can cleanse her of her repeated willful sinning.

    But you are “not interested” in that?

    I would ask you to reconsider your reaction here. Reread the first few chapters of Romans — if not the whole book — and ask God to show you what he wants to tell you there. (Spoiler alert: it’s not a pretty picture, as far as you or I are concerned!)

    Ask yourself: why are you so interested in talking about other people’s sins, but so very uninterested in talking about your own (repeated, willful) sins?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@203), I’m sorry to hear you say that. I must say, yours isn’t a very Christian response.

    The Christian, when shown by Scripture that she is sinful, simply admits that she is a sinner. She doesn’t lash out at the person who points her to Scripture, accusing him of playing “devils advocate”. She doesn’t turn up her nose and say she’s “not interested”.

    No, she recognizes her wretched state and remembers that only God’s grace shown her in Christ can save her from her body of death. Only Jesus can cleanse her of her repeated willful sinning.

    But you are “not interested” in that?

    I would ask you to reconsider your reaction here. Reread the first few chapters of Romans — if not the whole book — and ask God to show you what he wants to tell you there. (Spoiler alert: it’s not a pretty picture, as far as you or I are concerned!)

    Ask yourself: why are you so interested in talking about other people’s sins, but so very uninterested in talking about your own (repeated, willful) sins?

  • Grace

    tODD @ 204

    “I’m sorry to hear you say that. I must say, yours isn’t a very Christian response.”

    You must be joking, you all TOO OFTEN have attacked my posts. :lol:

  • Grace

    tODD @ 204

    “I’m sorry to hear you say that. I must say, yours isn’t a very Christian response.”

    You must be joking, you all TOO OFTEN have attacked my posts. :lol:

  • http://Www.Toddstadler.com tODD

    Grace (@205) said:

    You must be joking, you all TOO OFTEN have attacked my posts.

    Of course, you are correct. I have all too often been unloving in my replies to you, and for that I am sorry. Please forgive me, Grace; I am a wretched man, as you are all too aware.

    That said, it is also true that it is not a Christian response, when one’s sins are pointed out to her, to change the subject to someone else’s sins.

    Once again (@204) I must ask: why are you so interested in talking about other people’s sins, but so very uninterested in talking about your own (repeated, willful) sins?

  • http://Www.Toddstadler.com tODD

    Grace (@205) said:

    You must be joking, you all TOO OFTEN have attacked my posts.

    Of course, you are correct. I have all too often been unloving in my replies to you, and for that I am sorry. Please forgive me, Grace; I am a wretched man, as you are all too aware.

    That said, it is also true that it is not a Christian response, when one’s sins are pointed out to her, to change the subject to someone else’s sins.

    Once again (@204) I must ask: why are you so interested in talking about other people’s sins, but so very uninterested in talking about your own (repeated, willful) sins?

  • kerner

    One problem I have always had with this topic is that it requires a lot of people to talk about someone else’s sins. Focusing on someone else’s sins creates a terrible temptation toward self-righteousness. tODD is trying to convince Grace that she needs to understand how Romans 1 is really about everyone. Maybe Grace knows that, she did say it.

    But fws doesn’t seem to want to accept similar principles. To you, fws, every Bible passage that discusses man-man sex is about everyone EXCEPT gay people. Come one Frank, do you really think that God’s inspired Word, when it discusses man-man or woman-woman sex, is intended solely for those who are NOT gay? Never, not once, does God’s Word have something to say about sex to people who actually ARE gay? Just a great big empty space there?

    And when the Bible says something positive about sex, it is always within the context of marriage, which is always, always, ALWAYS (in the Bible) a man-woman relationship. Take the passage about married (man-woman) couples in Ephesians 5:20-33. Men and women in sexual relationships needed to hear this, and there it is.

    Well, where is the similar passage about man-man (or woman-woman) sexual relationships? Ancient Greece certainly had plenty of these, and they weren’t regarded negatively by the ancients. Yet we hear all about how Christian husbands, wives, parents and children are to relate to each other, but not one word of guidance as to how Christians should relate to their same sex partners. Isn’t the best explanation for that glaring absence that there is no such thing as a Christian way for same sex partners to relate to each other, because man-man and woman-woman sex is always sin? Period. The end.

    But I digress. The point I started out to make, is that it is a really bad, and not Lutheran idea at all, to believe that the law condemns everyone except yourself. But that’s the way you are approaching this Frank. God’s Word on man-man sex (you seem to think) is talking to everybody except you who most need guidance on the subject. That’s a rationalization if I ever heard one.

  • kerner

    One problem I have always had with this topic is that it requires a lot of people to talk about someone else’s sins. Focusing on someone else’s sins creates a terrible temptation toward self-righteousness. tODD is trying to convince Grace that she needs to understand how Romans 1 is really about everyone. Maybe Grace knows that, she did say it.

    But fws doesn’t seem to want to accept similar principles. To you, fws, every Bible passage that discusses man-man sex is about everyone EXCEPT gay people. Come one Frank, do you really think that God’s inspired Word, when it discusses man-man or woman-woman sex, is intended solely for those who are NOT gay? Never, not once, does God’s Word have something to say about sex to people who actually ARE gay? Just a great big empty space there?

    And when the Bible says something positive about sex, it is always within the context of marriage, which is always, always, ALWAYS (in the Bible) a man-woman relationship. Take the passage about married (man-woman) couples in Ephesians 5:20-33. Men and women in sexual relationships needed to hear this, and there it is.

    Well, where is the similar passage about man-man (or woman-woman) sexual relationships? Ancient Greece certainly had plenty of these, and they weren’t regarded negatively by the ancients. Yet we hear all about how Christian husbands, wives, parents and children are to relate to each other, but not one word of guidance as to how Christians should relate to their same sex partners. Isn’t the best explanation for that glaring absence that there is no such thing as a Christian way for same sex partners to relate to each other, because man-man and woman-woman sex is always sin? Period. The end.

    But I digress. The point I started out to make, is that it is a really bad, and not Lutheran idea at all, to believe that the law condemns everyone except yourself. But that’s the way you are approaching this Frank. God’s Word on man-man sex (you seem to think) is talking to everybody except you who most need guidance on the subject. That’s a rationalization if I ever heard one.

  • fws

    kerner,

    so how is sex between two men different than the text you are quoting?

    It is like I would use a rape passage in scripture to characterize and define the sex you have with your wife Kerner. How is rape any different at all from the sex you have with your wife after all? Lets review. rape can involve vaginal sex JUST like you have with your wife. and rape can involve oral sex to0 and anal sex like you COULD have with your wife. So what is the difference Kerner. And I know you couldnt possibly be offended by how I am defining Kerners sex with his wife because I am basing what I am saying on the bible and it is so very obvious.

    after all , those rape stories in the bible are about 1) male female sex 2) they are doing EXACTLY what you do with your wife….. 3) therefore the rape stories in the bible are EXACTLY the equivalent of what you do with your wife right? I know that when you read those stories you think “wow, I see my sexual life there exactly like I am looking in a mirror and I see how sinful the sex I am having with my wife is. After all, Frank says it is so very obvious. And I dont want to be evasive or avoid the unpleasant truth of what I am reading and how it convicts me of sin. or maybe I do want to avoid it, since I have so much personally invested….

  • fws

    kerner,

    so how is sex between two men different than the text you are quoting?

    It is like I would use a rape passage in scripture to characterize and define the sex you have with your wife Kerner. How is rape any different at all from the sex you have with your wife after all? Lets review. rape can involve vaginal sex JUST like you have with your wife. and rape can involve oral sex to0 and anal sex like you COULD have with your wife. So what is the difference Kerner. And I know you couldnt possibly be offended by how I am defining Kerners sex with his wife because I am basing what I am saying on the bible and it is so very obvious.

    after all , those rape stories in the bible are about 1) male female sex 2) they are doing EXACTLY what you do with your wife….. 3) therefore the rape stories in the bible are EXACTLY the equivalent of what you do with your wife right? I know that when you read those stories you think “wow, I see my sexual life there exactly like I am looking in a mirror and I see how sinful the sex I am having with my wife is. After all, Frank says it is so very obvious. And I dont want to be evasive or avoid the unpleasant truth of what I am reading and how it convicts me of sin. or maybe I do want to avoid it, since I have so much personally invested….

  • Grace

    fws @ 108

    This is your attempt to justify homosexuality, expecting Kerner, myself or others to see your point –

    You now cannot distinguish between “rape” and a man and his wife having sex? If you’re that dense, then it’s no wonder you’ve twisted passages of Scripture, and developed such nonsensical doctrine.

  • Grace

    fws @ 108

    This is your attempt to justify homosexuality, expecting Kerner, myself or others to see your point –

    You now cannot distinguish between “rape” and a man and his wife having sex? If you’re that dense, then it’s no wonder you’ve twisted passages of Scripture, and developed such nonsensical doctrine.

  • Grace

    This thread should go down as one of the most obvious reasons why homosexuals are confused, not understanding what they read in the Bible………OR………..they don’t care, because homosexuality is worth more than anything else, and that includes God’s Word.

  • Grace

    This thread should go down as one of the most obvious reasons why homosexuals are confused, not understanding what they read in the Bible………OR………..they don’t care, because homosexuality is worth more than anything else, and that includes God’s Word.

  • kerner

    fws @208″

    Apples and oranges Frank. The difference between rape and consentual sex, is…um…CONSENT.

    But you are the one who came up with this ridiculous distinction that you can’t seem to define, saying over and over and over again:

    “FRANK: i COULD read it to say that it is ok for a man to lie with another man, as long as he is not doing it “as with a woman”.

    So, I’ll ask you again, Frank. How exactly does a man “lie with” another man that is so fundamentally different from the way a man “lies with” a woman?

  • kerner

    fws @208″

    Apples and oranges Frank. The difference between rape and consentual sex, is…um…CONSENT.

    But you are the one who came up with this ridiculous distinction that you can’t seem to define, saying over and over and over again:

    “FRANK: i COULD read it to say that it is ok for a man to lie with another man, as long as he is not doing it “as with a woman”.

    So, I’ll ask you again, Frank. How exactly does a man “lie with” another man that is so fundamentally different from the way a man “lies with” a woman?

  • fws

    Kerner @ 207

    come on now Kerner. Leviticus 18 is in no way about you. Not every sin passage in the bible convicts each and every one of us.

    I dont see either you or I ritually emasculating another man and turning him “into your bitch” to quote what is commonly said in prison. Leviticus 18 describes that if it is or is not about ritual religious temple sex, And no. I dont rape other men or emasculate them. How would you feel if a man sexually emasculated you? violated? You bet!

    So would this same passage apply equally to gay and heterosexual men?

    No.

    It doesnt really apply to either. It is a different cultural and situation context that you and I would never ever run into. as in… “well I was down at the pagan temple the other day and engaged in ritual sex with a castrated male presenting himself to me as a female.” But ok, hypothetically , if the situation did exist today, it would apply to both of us as a prohibition in the same way. Rape is wrong no matter who does it. Okay? Now tell me how I am excluding gay men from this Kerner.

    I believe that I sin sexually in exactly the same ways you do Kerner. How is that. lust and covet are the same greek word . That is a clue!

    According to the Apology art II all sin is really when our Old Adam viciously insists on seeking its good from created things, or his own keeping of the Law rather than on the Works of Another.

    In the second table this is wanting what is not ours to have. Why is not ours to have? because God forbids it? Nope. It is not ours to have because it belongs to our neighbor. That is exactly and only it. And wanting what belongs to our neighbor is why? because we dont trust God to provide us what we need. So our old adam heart grumbles when God seems to bless evil men with things, and we do without. We grumble at injustice. This is all based on coveting. How do you feel I am excluding myself from the guilt of any of this.

    But I do not agree that the Bible ever calls out a class of humans and says that a sin ONLY applies to them. and that IS what you are doing. If sex is sex is sex, then sex is wrong for you as it is for me. there is not gay sex or heterosexual sex. there is just sex.

    No. what is wrong is to use sex to a) hurt our neighbor in his body or to not b) help and befriend him in every bodily need.

    No I do not think that anal sex is wrong between a man and woman. Nor do I think that masturbation is wrong for any one. a very high percentage of gay couples ONLY masturbate. So? lesbians can do nothing but that actually. and and one other thing…. forgot that….

    You are reading biblical morality as a list of dos and donts that God gives us without giving us a reason for them. And our part is to just obey and not really question why.

    I would suggest that our lutheran confessions do not support this. the point of the Law is to kill us not to have us make the sacrifice of obedience. The entire point of the Law is rather mercy.

    You are thinking justice is its own end. it is not. that is your job as an attorney actually. to seek justice and help it be done.

    God intends for mercy to happen with the Law. think about that in your practice of Law.

    And I would very quickly and emphatically agree if you were to make the point that mercy simply cannot exist in Old Adam withhout justice. It is not then either or. it is both end.

    BUT. BUT! the will of God is for Mercy to be done among men. Justice is the means to that end. it is not the desired end itself.

    I agree that the norm in the bible is always male and female. Tell me this:

    since when is description also prescription? God made them male and female. so what about hermaphrodites. 1 in every 100000 births is hermaphrodite. so their very existence is sinful? oh. we focus on outward stuff. and not on the chemical stuff that is not visible. that is like telling a blind manL your eyes are perfectly normal, and you are sinning by not taking that airline pilots position to support your family.

    gay men and lesbians have all the right equipment so that means …. what exactly….

    Show me the bible passage that says male and female being created is prescription that God forbids deviation from. There are lots of disabilites that the bible doesnt talk about.

    The bible talks about depression. and it commands us (!) to be joyful always. so then do we translate that passage as “never be clinically depressed?” why not? You are dealing in anachronism Kerner. there was no such category as gay in the ot or nt. It is a rather recent discovery , as is alcoholism, clinical depression. tay sachs, cancer, and lots of stuff.including the phenomenon we call homosexuality only since 1980. and what we call homosexuality is not simply the same as sodomy and a new word for that. You know that Kerner. this is obvious right?

    so what? If homosexuality is not called out specifically then does that mean that I as a homosexual avoid every single sin list? no. I am included in exactly the same way as you are. And I am commanded to marry rather than burn with passion. Can I marry? no. no more than a man without legs can walk. but I can try to come as close to that ideal as I can. Why not. What is good in marriage for you Kerner is just as mucb good for me. Tell me why it would not be. I am human in all the ways you are. All of them.

    Do I believe that homosexuality is some sort of disability? I think it probably is. is it a sin?. No I dont think so. who is being harmed? and like any other disability, we make do. we want the person with that disability to have a life as close to “normal” as possible. gay men are human. when someone is born with a disability, it is only self evident mercy to help that person approximate a “normal ” life as much as possible isnt it?

    So why should it be surprising that God’s Law drives homosexuals to pair off and try to be monogamous rather than the only other alternative (according to st Paul in 1 cor 6) which is to be promiscious? I am suggesting that it is God’s Law that is written in the Reason of all men and is exactly the same Law as the decalog (per our confessions) that is driving them to strive for that. Against some pretty tremendous opposition from the christian right I might add. is it mariage in the same sense as male female marriage ? no. why does that matter. Every human can benefit by trying to get as close to that ideal as possible. and not every human , gays for example, are fully equipped. So they are to do the best they can and approxiate it as much as they can. this is a moral obligation actually.

    celebacy? our confessions agree with st paul that that condition is a rare gift that cannot be chosen. It is a miracle. Our Lord tells us it is sin to ask for a miracle when God wants to provide for us by ordinary means.

  • fws

    Kerner @ 207

    come on now Kerner. Leviticus 18 is in no way about you. Not every sin passage in the bible convicts each and every one of us.

    I dont see either you or I ritually emasculating another man and turning him “into your bitch” to quote what is commonly said in prison. Leviticus 18 describes that if it is or is not about ritual religious temple sex, And no. I dont rape other men or emasculate them. How would you feel if a man sexually emasculated you? violated? You bet!

    So would this same passage apply equally to gay and heterosexual men?

    No.

    It doesnt really apply to either. It is a different cultural and situation context that you and I would never ever run into. as in… “well I was down at the pagan temple the other day and engaged in ritual sex with a castrated male presenting himself to me as a female.” But ok, hypothetically , if the situation did exist today, it would apply to both of us as a prohibition in the same way. Rape is wrong no matter who does it. Okay? Now tell me how I am excluding gay men from this Kerner.

    I believe that I sin sexually in exactly the same ways you do Kerner. How is that. lust and covet are the same greek word . That is a clue!

    According to the Apology art II all sin is really when our Old Adam viciously insists on seeking its good from created things, or his own keeping of the Law rather than on the Works of Another.

    In the second table this is wanting what is not ours to have. Why is not ours to have? because God forbids it? Nope. It is not ours to have because it belongs to our neighbor. That is exactly and only it. And wanting what belongs to our neighbor is why? because we dont trust God to provide us what we need. So our old adam heart grumbles when God seems to bless evil men with things, and we do without. We grumble at injustice. This is all based on coveting. How do you feel I am excluding myself from the guilt of any of this.

    But I do not agree that the Bible ever calls out a class of humans and says that a sin ONLY applies to them. and that IS what you are doing. If sex is sex is sex, then sex is wrong for you as it is for me. there is not gay sex or heterosexual sex. there is just sex.

    No. what is wrong is to use sex to a) hurt our neighbor in his body or to not b) help and befriend him in every bodily need.

    No I do not think that anal sex is wrong between a man and woman. Nor do I think that masturbation is wrong for any one. a very high percentage of gay couples ONLY masturbate. So? lesbians can do nothing but that actually. and and one other thing…. forgot that….

    You are reading biblical morality as a list of dos and donts that God gives us without giving us a reason for them. And our part is to just obey and not really question why.

    I would suggest that our lutheran confessions do not support this. the point of the Law is to kill us not to have us make the sacrifice of obedience. The entire point of the Law is rather mercy.

    You are thinking justice is its own end. it is not. that is your job as an attorney actually. to seek justice and help it be done.

    God intends for mercy to happen with the Law. think about that in your practice of Law.

    And I would very quickly and emphatically agree if you were to make the point that mercy simply cannot exist in Old Adam withhout justice. It is not then either or. it is both end.

    BUT. BUT! the will of God is for Mercy to be done among men. Justice is the means to that end. it is not the desired end itself.

    I agree that the norm in the bible is always male and female. Tell me this:

    since when is description also prescription? God made them male and female. so what about hermaphrodites. 1 in every 100000 births is hermaphrodite. so their very existence is sinful? oh. we focus on outward stuff. and not on the chemical stuff that is not visible. that is like telling a blind manL your eyes are perfectly normal, and you are sinning by not taking that airline pilots position to support your family.

    gay men and lesbians have all the right equipment so that means …. what exactly….

    Show me the bible passage that says male and female being created is prescription that God forbids deviation from. There are lots of disabilites that the bible doesnt talk about.

    The bible talks about depression. and it commands us (!) to be joyful always. so then do we translate that passage as “never be clinically depressed?” why not? You are dealing in anachronism Kerner. there was no such category as gay in the ot or nt. It is a rather recent discovery , as is alcoholism, clinical depression. tay sachs, cancer, and lots of stuff.including the phenomenon we call homosexuality only since 1980. and what we call homosexuality is not simply the same as sodomy and a new word for that. You know that Kerner. this is obvious right?

    so what? If homosexuality is not called out specifically then does that mean that I as a homosexual avoid every single sin list? no. I am included in exactly the same way as you are. And I am commanded to marry rather than burn with passion. Can I marry? no. no more than a man without legs can walk. but I can try to come as close to that ideal as I can. Why not. What is good in marriage for you Kerner is just as mucb good for me. Tell me why it would not be. I am human in all the ways you are. All of them.

    Do I believe that homosexuality is some sort of disability? I think it probably is. is it a sin?. No I dont think so. who is being harmed? and like any other disability, we make do. we want the person with that disability to have a life as close to “normal” as possible. gay men are human. when someone is born with a disability, it is only self evident mercy to help that person approximate a “normal ” life as much as possible isnt it?

    So why should it be surprising that God’s Law drives homosexuals to pair off and try to be monogamous rather than the only other alternative (according to st Paul in 1 cor 6) which is to be promiscious? I am suggesting that it is God’s Law that is written in the Reason of all men and is exactly the same Law as the decalog (per our confessions) that is driving them to strive for that. Against some pretty tremendous opposition from the christian right I might add. is it mariage in the same sense as male female marriage ? no. why does that matter. Every human can benefit by trying to get as close to that ideal as possible. and not every human , gays for example, are fully equipped. So they are to do the best they can and approxiate it as much as they can. this is a moral obligation actually.

    celebacy? our confessions agree with st paul that that condition is a rare gift that cannot be chosen. It is a miracle. Our Lord tells us it is sin to ask for a miracle when God wants to provide for us by ordinary means.

  • fws

    kerner @ 211

    consent is the difference.

    Can you ever even conceive of yourself consentually doing the things described in sodom and gomorrah or lev 18 kerner? being sexually emasculated? I cant think of any situation outside of rape (which is not consentual) where I could see myself doing that.

    I assume the answer is no. You are utterly immune to this sin.

    So am I! So are all gay men I have ever known.

  • fws

    kerner @ 211

    consent is the difference.

    Can you ever even conceive of yourself consentually doing the things described in sodom and gomorrah or lev 18 kerner? being sexually emasculated? I cant think of any situation outside of rape (which is not consentual) where I could see myself doing that.

    I assume the answer is no. You are utterly immune to this sin.

    So am I! So are all gay men I have ever known.

  • fws

    kerner..

    “as with a woman”.

    assume you are that man being treated sexually as a woman.

    tempted to try it? why not?

    this kind of” temptation” is so far far removed from any reality that you could possibly envision for yourself. this is exactly true, in exactly the same way, for exactly the same reasons, as it is for a gay man.

    sex is not just the mechanical physical act. it is more than that. If it were JUST that, then there would be no category called “rape”.

    And in fact, there is no such category in the Bible! having sex in the OT is a property rights violation. It has NOTHING to do with volition of the female. So … hmmm. what does that mean if rape is not forbidden in the bible? Is it ok? your reasoning is anachronistic in exactly this way. It is not on any biblical sin list of do or dont. so argue that rape is wrong. why is it?

    we are not animals. we are human beings Kerner.

  • fws

    kerner..

    “as with a woman”.

    assume you are that man being treated sexually as a woman.

    tempted to try it? why not?

    this kind of” temptation” is so far far removed from any reality that you could possibly envision for yourself. this is exactly true, in exactly the same way, for exactly the same reasons, as it is for a gay man.

    sex is not just the mechanical physical act. it is more than that. If it were JUST that, then there would be no category called “rape”.

    And in fact, there is no such category in the Bible! having sex in the OT is a property rights violation. It has NOTHING to do with volition of the female. So … hmmm. what does that mean if rape is not forbidden in the bible? Is it ok? your reasoning is anachronistic in exactly this way. It is not on any biblical sin list of do or dont. so argue that rape is wrong. why is it?

    we are not animals. we are human beings Kerner.

  • fws

    Kerner. lets try a thought experiment:

    lets say that you believe there is nothing wrong with same gender sex just for arguments sake.

    what incentive would it take for you to try it? what would it take for you to participate in a lev 18 secenario or a sodom and gomorrah scenario ?

    In the same fashion, no gay man I know of would ever submit to the kind of sex described in lev 18, fully apart from it being right or wrong. Gay men would be the last men on the planet willing to be emasculated sexually and treated like a woman in bed.

    the flavor if this is that prison scene ” I am gonna turn you into my bitch”. that is more than just a sex act goin on Kerner.

    I

  • fws

    Kerner. lets try a thought experiment:

    lets say that you believe there is nothing wrong with same gender sex just for arguments sake.

    what incentive would it take for you to try it? what would it take for you to participate in a lev 18 secenario or a sodom and gomorrah scenario ?

    In the same fashion, no gay man I know of would ever submit to the kind of sex described in lev 18, fully apart from it being right or wrong. Gay men would be the last men on the planet willing to be emasculated sexually and treated like a woman in bed.

    the flavor if this is that prison scene ” I am gonna turn you into my bitch”. that is more than just a sex act goin on Kerner.

    I

  • fws

    it is the same difference between the sex you have with your wife and rape.

    rape removes the personhood of the victim.

    lev 18 is about removing the masculinity or maleness of one of the parties.

    Gay sex does not emasculate one of the parties. and it is not intended to do so . the Lev 18 picture is exactly about intending to do that.

  • fws

    it is the same difference between the sex you have with your wife and rape.

    rape removes the personhood of the victim.

    lev 18 is about removing the masculinity or maleness of one of the parties.

    Gay sex does not emasculate one of the parties. and it is not intended to do so . the Lev 18 picture is exactly about intending to do that.

  • kerner

    fws @207:
    “Can I marry? no. no more than a man without legs can walk. ”

    I can see this is painful for you Frank. I’m sorry to put you through it. But the text says what it says. We can’t make it say something else, no matter how much we would rather it did. And I know this is pain I will never feel, not just the way you do. The “problem of pain” is an old one for Christianity. And I don’t have any brilliant solutions to it as I sit here.

    fws @ 188:
    “I was married twice. I am a gay man”

    I don’t remember you mentioning that before. Do you want to talk about what happened? I understand if you don’t.

  • kerner

    fws @207:
    “Can I marry? no. no more than a man without legs can walk. ”

    I can see this is painful for you Frank. I’m sorry to put you through it. But the text says what it says. We can’t make it say something else, no matter how much we would rather it did. And I know this is pain I will never feel, not just the way you do. The “problem of pain” is an old one for Christianity. And I don’t have any brilliant solutions to it as I sit here.

    fws @ 188:
    “I was married twice. I am a gay man”

    I don’t remember you mentioning that before. Do you want to talk about what happened? I understand if you don’t.

  • kerner

    fws:

    Wait a minute. Where on God’s green earth did you get the idea that having sex with a woman automatically means “turning her into your bitch”? You seem to believe that being treated like a woman means being sexually humiliated and dehumanized. Where does that come from?

    And can you really claim to speak for all gay humankind when you say that one partner never adopts (usually) a sexually dominant role while the other (usually) adopts a sexually submissive role? I mean, I am driven to euphamisms, but don’t some people prefer to pitch while others prefer to catch? And what is all this about lesbians being so limited? Is there not a market for strap-on and hand held devices that allow one partner to take the “male” role?

    And as for married couples, there are men all over the world who sometimes want to be slightly, or aggressively, dominated by women in bed. Some want that all the time. Some women sometimes want to be aggressive in bed. What is with this rigid idea of how people behave, or want to behave, in their marriage beds? I would suggest to you that these are highly individual and mostly private matters.

    These things are probably mostly private for almost everyone, and there is almost certainly a very wide variety in the ways that 7 billion + people go about it. The prohibition is not about what you are doing. It’s about with whom you should be doing it.

  • kerner

    fws:

    Wait a minute. Where on God’s green earth did you get the idea that having sex with a woman automatically means “turning her into your bitch”? You seem to believe that being treated like a woman means being sexually humiliated and dehumanized. Where does that come from?

    And can you really claim to speak for all gay humankind when you say that one partner never adopts (usually) a sexually dominant role while the other (usually) adopts a sexually submissive role? I mean, I am driven to euphamisms, but don’t some people prefer to pitch while others prefer to catch? And what is all this about lesbians being so limited? Is there not a market for strap-on and hand held devices that allow one partner to take the “male” role?

    And as for married couples, there are men all over the world who sometimes want to be slightly, or aggressively, dominated by women in bed. Some want that all the time. Some women sometimes want to be aggressive in bed. What is with this rigid idea of how people behave, or want to behave, in their marriage beds? I would suggest to you that these are highly individual and mostly private matters.

    These things are probably mostly private for almost everyone, and there is almost certainly a very wide variety in the ways that 7 billion + people go about it. The prohibition is not about what you are doing. It’s about with whom you should be doing it.

  • Grace

    This and another statement @ 215 –

    “I dont see either you or I ritually emasculating another man and turning him “into your bitch” to quote what is commonly said in prison.

    So, you know what is “commonly said in prison” ?

    Very interesting ………..

    PER post 188:

    Kerner: I was married twice. I am a gay man.”

    If you knew you were a homosexual since you were 5 (you quote this age as the one most kids KNOW, who they are) why marry a second time? You’re talking in circles, and then getting tangled up in your own arguments.

  • Grace

    This and another statement @ 215 –

    “I dont see either you or I ritually emasculating another man and turning him “into your bitch” to quote what is commonly said in prison.

    So, you know what is “commonly said in prison” ?

    Very interesting ………..

    PER post 188:

    Kerner: I was married twice. I am a gay man.”

    If you knew you were a homosexual since you were 5 (you quote this age as the one most kids KNOW, who they are) why marry a second time? You’re talking in circles, and then getting tangled up in your own arguments.

  • fws

    kerner

    no this is not painful to talk about. there are a few things that I wont discuss here because this is a really public and permanent forum and so not the place to discuss them. we can do private emails if you like.

    Kerner:” And can you really claim to speak for all gay humankind when you say that one partner never adopts (usually) a sexually dominant role while the other (usually) adopts a sexually submissive role?”

    Frank : absolutely! there is absolutely no rule here. There is simply variety. Lots of people think that gays and lesbians try to imitate a hetero couple and one assumes the role of female and the other of the male sexually and otherwise. This does happen sometimes, but it is more the exception to the rule than the rule. I am glad you seem to be able to hear that.

    Again how is it that I am to think that Lev 18 applies to me and not to some situation that does not even exist today? I dont read it as “a man is not to lie with another man.” there is more text there that needs to be dealt with. …,~as with a woman~.

    I do believe there is a difference between male and female Kerner. And I do believe that if you forcably take away that difference it would look like a violence being done to about anyone it is done to. You disagee with that? That is really the idea I am trying to bring to you.

    And in Lev 18, that is precisely what is being done. I can’t think of any equivalent today to that, since what is being described in lev 18 simply doesnt exisst today. So I am reaching for prison rape to try to come up with as close an equivalent as I can come up with.

    I would also suggest that sex and the even the sex act is always way more than about that. Sex I would suggest is uniquely different than eating , sleeping or other things. You seem to keep reducing it to the mechanical part. Why? I know you dont believe it is just that either? To win an argument?

    Dont you find it wierd that you claim to be the blblically correct moralist here yet you reduce sex to it’s animal equivalent and I keep pushing for it being about far more? And you just keep on pushing back no matter what i say?

  • fws

    kerner

    no this is not painful to talk about. there are a few things that I wont discuss here because this is a really public and permanent forum and so not the place to discuss them. we can do private emails if you like.

    Kerner:” And can you really claim to speak for all gay humankind when you say that one partner never adopts (usually) a sexually dominant role while the other (usually) adopts a sexually submissive role?”

    Frank : absolutely! there is absolutely no rule here. There is simply variety. Lots of people think that gays and lesbians try to imitate a hetero couple and one assumes the role of female and the other of the male sexually and otherwise. This does happen sometimes, but it is more the exception to the rule than the rule. I am glad you seem to be able to hear that.

    Again how is it that I am to think that Lev 18 applies to me and not to some situation that does not even exist today? I dont read it as “a man is not to lie with another man.” there is more text there that needs to be dealt with. …,~as with a woman~.

    I do believe there is a difference between male and female Kerner. And I do believe that if you forcably take away that difference it would look like a violence being done to about anyone it is done to. You disagee with that? That is really the idea I am trying to bring to you.

    And in Lev 18, that is precisely what is being done. I can’t think of any equivalent today to that, since what is being described in lev 18 simply doesnt exisst today. So I am reaching for prison rape to try to come up with as close an equivalent as I can come up with.

    I would also suggest that sex and the even the sex act is always way more than about that. Sex I would suggest is uniquely different than eating , sleeping or other things. You seem to keep reducing it to the mechanical part. Why? I know you dont believe it is just that either? To win an argument?

    Dont you find it wierd that you claim to be the blblically correct moralist here yet you reduce sex to it’s animal equivalent and I keep pushing for it being about far more? And you just keep on pushing back no matter what i say?

  • fws

    Grace: This is not a conversation I am having witb you.
    Forgive me for completely ignoring you.

  • fws

    Grace: This is not a conversation I am having witb you.
    Forgive me for completely ignoring you.

  • fws

    kerner

    Here is where we seem to disagree:

    Kerner: The rules in the book of leviticus are moral rules that are to apply to everyone of all times. One cannot be a moral person therefore without knowing and following the rules in Leviticus. All of them. Pagans who do not have that book cannot be moral for that reason.
    Further: there is no need to apply reason to any of this. These are God’s rules. So we simply must obey. That is the purpose of morality, to obey the list of rules in the Bible. it is not appropriate to ask why therefore. However we can logically assume that if God has a rule there must be some reason for it to be harmful and we can speculate as to what those reasons are as long as we first, apriori, agree that what God says in the rule a)applies to us and not just the jews and b) is objectively bad.

    when one reads any document, one must determine to whom it is addressed. If one does not take that into account, then it will not be understood correctly. When God speaks to pastors in the NT, he is not speaking to me. if i ignore that fact, then I will not get a correct understanding of those passages. as an example. the OT was written to and for the Jews. it was not written to me. It was written for me to as a testament about the person and work of Christ. period. I know that only because Jesus has told me so.

    frank: leviticus, ALL of it, was written for the Jews. we can try to distinguish between civil ceremonial and moral but to do this is speculation and uncertain and there is no fixed rule as to how to go about doing this. Nothing in the OT moral code applies to us then. This includes the 10 commandments. It was written to the Jews.

    Does this mean there is no morality or Law? No. The Law of God is revealed and written in the reason of ALL men. And that Law in Reason is the SAME Law as that found in the Decalog. That is precisely why reason agrees with the Decalog.

    No one then , needs the bible to know how to go about doing the earthly morality that govern our behavior with and towards our neighbor. Reason is fully sufficient here.

    Now there IS a part of the Law of God, that is UNIQUELY found in the Decalog that is veiled to reason. That Law of God is uniquely found in the first table of the Decalog and deals with the heart and not what we do in thought word or dead.

    And that part of the Law simply cannot be known by Reason until it is first written in the heart. And that cannot happen until the prophecy in jeremiah 33 is fulfilled.

    Kerner, you are working out this puzzle backwards, you need to step back and consider what God says about the His Law. It is not the same as what you do in a courtroom at all!

    Here is what Dr Luther says about this matter in our Confessions (the passage I am citing is not in the Confessions, but it is referenced by our Confessions as a further explanation of them):

    You must not understand the word law here in human fashion, i.e., a regulation about what sort of works must be done or must not be done. That’s the way it is with human laws: you satisfy the demands of the law with works, whether your heart is in it or not. God judges what is in the depths of the heart. Therefore his law also makes demands on the depths of the heart and doesn’t let the heart rest content in works; rather it punishes as hypocrisy and lies all works done apart from the depths of the heart. All human beings are called liars (Psalm 116), since none of them keeps or can keep God’s law from the depths of the heart. Everyone finds inside himself an aversion to good and a craving for evil. Where there is no free desire for good, there the heart has not set itself on God’s law. There also sin is surely to be found and the deserved wrath of God, whether a lot of good works and an honorable life appear outwardly or not.

    Therefore in chapter 2, St. Paul adds that the Jews are all sinners and says that only the doers of the law are justified in the sight of God. What he is saying is that no one is a doer of the law by works. On the contrary, he says to them, “You teach that one should not commit adultery, and you commit adultery. You judge another in a certain matter and condemn yourselves in that same matter, because you do the very same thing that you judged in another.” It is as if he were saying, “Outwardly you live quite properly in the works of the law and judge those who do not live the same way; you know how to teach everybody. You see the speck in another’s eye but do not notice the beam in your own.”

    Outwardly you keep the law with works out of fear of punishment or love of gain. Likewise you do everything without free desire and love of the law; you act out of aversion and force. You’d rather act otherwise if the law didn’t exist. It follows, then, that you, in the depths of your heart, are an enemy of the law. What do you mean, therefore, by teaching another not to steal, when you, in the depths of your heart, are a thief and would be one outwardly too, if you dared. (Of course, outward work doesn’t last long with such hypocrites.) So then, you teach others but not yourself; you don’t even know what you are teaching. You’ve never understood the law rightly. Furthermore, the law increases sin, as St. Paul says in chapter 5. That is because a person becomes more and more an enemy of the law the more it demands of him what he can’t possibly do.

    In chapter 7, St. Paul says, “The law is spiritual.” What does that mean? If the law were physical, then it could be satisfied by works, but since it is spiritual, no one can satisfy it unless everything he does springs from the depths of the heart. But no one can give such a heart except the Spirit of God, who makes the person be like the law, so that he actually conceives a heartfelt longing for the law and henceforward does everything, not through fear or coercion, but from a free heart. Such a law is spiritual since it can only be loved and fulfilled by such a heart and such a spirit. If the Spirit is not in the heart, then there remain sin, aversion and enmity against the law, which in itself is good, just and holy.

    You must get used to the idea that it is one thing to do the works of the law and quite another to fulfill it. The works of the law are every thing that a person does or can do of his own free will and by his own powers to obey the law. But because in doing such works the heart abhors the law and yet is forced to obey it, the works are a total loss and are completely useless. That is what St. Paul means in chapter 3 when he says, “No human being is justified before God through the works of the law.” From this you can see that the schoolmasters [i.e., the scholastic theologians] and sophists are seducers when they teach that you can prepare yourself for grace by means of works. How can anybody prepare himself for good by means of works if he does no good work except with aversion and constraint in his heart? How can such a work please God, if it proceeds from an averse and unwilling heart?

    But to fulfill the law means to do its work eagerly, lovingly and freely, without the constraint of the law; it means to live well and in a manner pleasing to God, as though there were no law or punishment. It is the Holy Spirit, however, who puts such eagerness of unconstained love into the heart, as Paul says in chapter 5. But the Spirit is given only in, with, and through faith in Jesus Christ, as Paul says in his introduction. So, too, faith comes only through the word of God, the Gospel, that preaches Christ: how he is both Son of God and man, how he died and rose for our sake. Paul says all this in chapters 3, 4 and 10.

    That is why faith alone makes someone just and fulfills the law; faith it is that brings the Holy Spirit through the merits of Christ. The Spirit, in turn, renders the heart glad and free, as the law demands. Then good works proceed from faith itself. That is what Paul means in chapter 3 when, after he has thrown out the works of the law, he sounds as though the wants to abolish the law by faith. No, he says, we uphold the law through faith, i.e. we fulfill it through faith.

    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). http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

    We are going to continue to talk right past each other until we come to a common understanding on this point. And we are not there yet are we dear Kerner? This is why this discussion is not painful at all to me Kerner. I dont feel accused at all by lev 18 or romans 1. my reason informs me it is not talking to me or to you. I dont see myself or actions in those passages as in a mirror, and neither do you. True that, given the right circumstances, we are all capable of anything at all. We are sinners. But that is a hypothetical.

    Morality on earth is not to be done that way. Before God we confess ALL sin this way. but before our pastor or neighbor we confess those sins ONLY that we know and feel in our heart. Those sins that we can see we have actually committed. see more on this important distinction in Luthers instructions for private confession in the small catechism.

    Now here is Luthers writing on the Law of Moses. See if you can hear Luther saying the same stuff I just said….

    Kerner, I know you dont like this kind of discussion. You like to jump into the specifics. and argue from those. maybe that is your legal training kicking in or maybe it is how your mind works. In a previous series you presented to us some hypothetical situations and argued from those. casuistry. That is not to argue from God’s Word. My form of argumentation IS to argue from God’s Word I suggest. Only then are we equipped to consider casuistry.

    here is what Luther writes about the Law of Moses and Reason and morality as it relates to those two things:

    http://www.wordofhisgrace.org/LutherMoses.htm

    teaser highlight…

    These are two kingdoms: the temporal, which governs with the sword and is visible; and the spiritual, which governs solely with grace and with the forgiveness of sins. Between these two kingdoms still another has been placed in the middle, half spiritual and half temporal. It is constituted by the Jews, with commandments and outward ceremonies which prescribe their conduct toward God and men.

    The Law of Moses Binds Only the Jews and Not the Gentiles

    Here the law of Moses has its place. It is no longer binding on us because it was given only to the people of Israel. And Israel accepted this law for itself and its descendants, while the Gentiles were excluded. To be sure, the Gentiles have certain laws in common with the Jews, such as these: there is one God, no one is to do wrong to another, no one is to commit adultery or murder or steal, and others like them. This is written by nature into their hearts; they did not hear it straight from heaven as the Jews did. This is why this entire text does not pertain to the Gentiles. I say this on account of the enthusiasts. (2) For you see and hear how they read Moses, extol him, and bring up the way he ruled the people with commandments. They try to be clever, and think they know something more than is presented in the gospel; so they minimize faith, contrive something new, and boastfully claim that it comes from the Old Testament. They desire to govern people according to the letter of the law of Moses, as if no one had ever read it before.

    But we will not have this sort of thing. We would rather not preach again for the rest of our life than to let Moses return and to let Christ be torn out of our hearts. We will not have Moses as ruler or lawgiver any longer. Indeed God himself will not have it either. Moses was an intermediary solely for the Jewish people. It was to them that he gave the law. We must therefore silence the mouths of those factious spirits who say, “Thus says Moses,” etc. Here you simply reply: Moses has nothing to do with us. If I were to accept Moses in one commandment, I would have to accept the entire Moses. Thus the consequence would be that if I accept Moses as master, then I must have myself circumcised, (3) wash my clothes in the Jewish way, eat and drink and dress thus and so, and observe all that stuff. So, then, we will neither observe nor accept Moses. Moses is dead. His rule ended when Christ came. He is of no further service.

    That Moses does not bind the Gentiles can be proved from Exodus 20:1, where God himself speaks, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” This text makes it clear that even the Ten Commandments do not pertain to us.

  • fws

    kerner

    Here is where we seem to disagree:

    Kerner: The rules in the book of leviticus are moral rules that are to apply to everyone of all times. One cannot be a moral person therefore without knowing and following the rules in Leviticus. All of them. Pagans who do not have that book cannot be moral for that reason.
    Further: there is no need to apply reason to any of this. These are God’s rules. So we simply must obey. That is the purpose of morality, to obey the list of rules in the Bible. it is not appropriate to ask why therefore. However we can logically assume that if God has a rule there must be some reason for it to be harmful and we can speculate as to what those reasons are as long as we first, apriori, agree that what God says in the rule a)applies to us and not just the jews and b) is objectively bad.

    when one reads any document, one must determine to whom it is addressed. If one does not take that into account, then it will not be understood correctly. When God speaks to pastors in the NT, he is not speaking to me. if i ignore that fact, then I will not get a correct understanding of those passages. as an example. the OT was written to and for the Jews. it was not written to me. It was written for me to as a testament about the person and work of Christ. period. I know that only because Jesus has told me so.

    frank: leviticus, ALL of it, was written for the Jews. we can try to distinguish between civil ceremonial and moral but to do this is speculation and uncertain and there is no fixed rule as to how to go about doing this. Nothing in the OT moral code applies to us then. This includes the 10 commandments. It was written to the Jews.

    Does this mean there is no morality or Law? No. The Law of God is revealed and written in the reason of ALL men. And that Law in Reason is the SAME Law as that found in the Decalog. That is precisely why reason agrees with the Decalog.

    No one then , needs the bible to know how to go about doing the earthly morality that govern our behavior with and towards our neighbor. Reason is fully sufficient here.

    Now there IS a part of the Law of God, that is UNIQUELY found in the Decalog that is veiled to reason. That Law of God is uniquely found in the first table of the Decalog and deals with the heart and not what we do in thought word or dead.

    And that part of the Law simply cannot be known by Reason until it is first written in the heart. And that cannot happen until the prophecy in jeremiah 33 is fulfilled.

    Kerner, you are working out this puzzle backwards, you need to step back and consider what God says about the His Law. It is not the same as what you do in a courtroom at all!

    Here is what Dr Luther says about this matter in our Confessions (the passage I am citing is not in the Confessions, but it is referenced by our Confessions as a further explanation of them):

    You must not understand the word law here in human fashion, i.e., a regulation about what sort of works must be done or must not be done. That’s the way it is with human laws: you satisfy the demands of the law with works, whether your heart is in it or not. God judges what is in the depths of the heart. Therefore his law also makes demands on the depths of the heart and doesn’t let the heart rest content in works; rather it punishes as hypocrisy and lies all works done apart from the depths of the heart. All human beings are called liars (Psalm 116), since none of them keeps or can keep God’s law from the depths of the heart. Everyone finds inside himself an aversion to good and a craving for evil. Where there is no free desire for good, there the heart has not set itself on God’s law. There also sin is surely to be found and the deserved wrath of God, whether a lot of good works and an honorable life appear outwardly or not.

    Therefore in chapter 2, St. Paul adds that the Jews are all sinners and says that only the doers of the law are justified in the sight of God. What he is saying is that no one is a doer of the law by works. On the contrary, he says to them, “You teach that one should not commit adultery, and you commit adultery. You judge another in a certain matter and condemn yourselves in that same matter, because you do the very same thing that you judged in another.” It is as if he were saying, “Outwardly you live quite properly in the works of the law and judge those who do not live the same way; you know how to teach everybody. You see the speck in another’s eye but do not notice the beam in your own.”

    Outwardly you keep the law with works out of fear of punishment or love of gain. Likewise you do everything without free desire and love of the law; you act out of aversion and force. You’d rather act otherwise if the law didn’t exist. It follows, then, that you, in the depths of your heart, are an enemy of the law. What do you mean, therefore, by teaching another not to steal, when you, in the depths of your heart, are a thief and would be one outwardly too, if you dared. (Of course, outward work doesn’t last long with such hypocrites.) So then, you teach others but not yourself; you don’t even know what you are teaching. You’ve never understood the law rightly. Furthermore, the law increases sin, as St. Paul says in chapter 5. That is because a person becomes more and more an enemy of the law the more it demands of him what he can’t possibly do.

    In chapter 7, St. Paul says, “The law is spiritual.” What does that mean? If the law were physical, then it could be satisfied by works, but since it is spiritual, no one can satisfy it unless everything he does springs from the depths of the heart. But no one can give such a heart except the Spirit of God, who makes the person be like the law, so that he actually conceives a heartfelt longing for the law and henceforward does everything, not through fear or coercion, but from a free heart. Such a law is spiritual since it can only be loved and fulfilled by such a heart and such a spirit. If the Spirit is not in the heart, then there remain sin, aversion and enmity against the law, which in itself is good, just and holy.

    You must get used to the idea that it is one thing to do the works of the law and quite another to fulfill it. The works of the law are every thing that a person does or can do of his own free will and by his own powers to obey the law. But because in doing such works the heart abhors the law and yet is forced to obey it, the works are a total loss and are completely useless. That is what St. Paul means in chapter 3 when he says, “No human being is justified before God through the works of the law.” From this you can see that the schoolmasters [i.e., the scholastic theologians] and sophists are seducers when they teach that you can prepare yourself for grace by means of works. How can anybody prepare himself for good by means of works if he does no good work except with aversion and constraint in his heart? How can such a work please God, if it proceeds from an averse and unwilling heart?

    But to fulfill the law means to do its work eagerly, lovingly and freely, without the constraint of the law; it means to live well and in a manner pleasing to God, as though there were no law or punishment. It is the Holy Spirit, however, who puts such eagerness of unconstained love into the heart, as Paul says in chapter 5. But the Spirit is given only in, with, and through faith in Jesus Christ, as Paul says in his introduction. So, too, faith comes only through the word of God, the Gospel, that preaches Christ: how he is both Son of God and man, how he died and rose for our sake. Paul says all this in chapters 3, 4 and 10.

    That is why faith alone makes someone just and fulfills the law; faith it is that brings the Holy Spirit through the merits of Christ. The Spirit, in turn, renders the heart glad and free, as the law demands. Then good works proceed from faith itself. That is what Paul means in chapter 3 when, after he has thrown out the works of the law, he sounds as though the wants to abolish the law by faith. No, he says, we uphold the law through faith, i.e. we fulfill it through faith.

    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). http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

    We are going to continue to talk right past each other until we come to a common understanding on this point. And we are not there yet are we dear Kerner? This is why this discussion is not painful at all to me Kerner. I dont feel accused at all by lev 18 or romans 1. my reason informs me it is not talking to me or to you. I dont see myself or actions in those passages as in a mirror, and neither do you. True that, given the right circumstances, we are all capable of anything at all. We are sinners. But that is a hypothetical.

    Morality on earth is not to be done that way. Before God we confess ALL sin this way. but before our pastor or neighbor we confess those sins ONLY that we know and feel in our heart. Those sins that we can see we have actually committed. see more on this important distinction in Luthers instructions for private confession in the small catechism.

    Now here is Luthers writing on the Law of Moses. See if you can hear Luther saying the same stuff I just said….

    Kerner, I know you dont like this kind of discussion. You like to jump into the specifics. and argue from those. maybe that is your legal training kicking in or maybe it is how your mind works. In a previous series you presented to us some hypothetical situations and argued from those. casuistry. That is not to argue from God’s Word. My form of argumentation IS to argue from God’s Word I suggest. Only then are we equipped to consider casuistry.

    here is what Luther writes about the Law of Moses and Reason and morality as it relates to those two things:

    http://www.wordofhisgrace.org/LutherMoses.htm

    teaser highlight…

    These are two kingdoms: the temporal, which governs with the sword and is visible; and the spiritual, which governs solely with grace and with the forgiveness of sins. Between these two kingdoms still another has been placed in the middle, half spiritual and half temporal. It is constituted by the Jews, with commandments and outward ceremonies which prescribe their conduct toward God and men.

    The Law of Moses Binds Only the Jews and Not the Gentiles

    Here the law of Moses has its place. It is no longer binding on us because it was given only to the people of Israel. And Israel accepted this law for itself and its descendants, while the Gentiles were excluded. To be sure, the Gentiles have certain laws in common with the Jews, such as these: there is one God, no one is to do wrong to another, no one is to commit adultery or murder or steal, and others like them. This is written by nature into their hearts; they did not hear it straight from heaven as the Jews did. This is why this entire text does not pertain to the Gentiles. I say this on account of the enthusiasts. (2) For you see and hear how they read Moses, extol him, and bring up the way he ruled the people with commandments. They try to be clever, and think they know something more than is presented in the gospel; so they minimize faith, contrive something new, and boastfully claim that it comes from the Old Testament. They desire to govern people according to the letter of the law of Moses, as if no one had ever read it before.

    But we will not have this sort of thing. We would rather not preach again for the rest of our life than to let Moses return and to let Christ be torn out of our hearts. We will not have Moses as ruler or lawgiver any longer. Indeed God himself will not have it either. Moses was an intermediary solely for the Jewish people. It was to them that he gave the law. We must therefore silence the mouths of those factious spirits who say, “Thus says Moses,” etc. Here you simply reply: Moses has nothing to do with us. If I were to accept Moses in one commandment, I would have to accept the entire Moses. Thus the consequence would be that if I accept Moses as master, then I must have myself circumcised, (3) wash my clothes in the Jewish way, eat and drink and dress thus and so, and observe all that stuff. So, then, we will neither observe nor accept Moses. Moses is dead. His rule ended when Christ came. He is of no further service.

    That Moses does not bind the Gentiles can be proved from Exodus 20:1, where God himself speaks, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” This text makes it clear that even the Ten Commandments do not pertain to us.

  • fws

    Kerner: a suggestion: as long as you and I do not agree upon the basic nature, workings and purpose of the Law of God as it pertains to morality and to God’s judgement upon us beyond morality (morality pertains to all that we do with our neighbor), we will fail in trying to have any discussion beyond that.

    That is my observation. And it seems to be true. we continually talk past each other. the specifics/casuistry that you love to dig into, in a real sense, simply does not matter at all in the way you simply ASSUME it does.

    Until you change certain assumtions that you are just so certain you know, or…… at least identify those and debate them with me, then we have yet to build the foundation upon which any other moral discussion must rest.

    Lets back up and do some heavy theological lifting here before we glibly think we are qualified to render judgement as to the Law of God and how it applies to others.

  • fws

    Kerner: a suggestion: as long as you and I do not agree upon the basic nature, workings and purpose of the Law of God as it pertains to morality and to God’s judgement upon us beyond morality (morality pertains to all that we do with our neighbor), we will fail in trying to have any discussion beyond that.

    That is my observation. And it seems to be true. we continually talk past each other. the specifics/casuistry that you love to dig into, in a real sense, simply does not matter at all in the way you simply ASSUME it does.

    Until you change certain assumtions that you are just so certain you know, or…… at least identify those and debate them with me, then we have yet to build the foundation upon which any other moral discussion must rest.

    Lets back up and do some heavy theological lifting here before we glibly think we are qualified to render judgement as to the Law of God and how it applies to others.

  • fws

    Kerner,

    and if you think my calling a time out the way I just have is just a dodge, then you have not read what I quoted from Luther or you read it and it has not challenged you to think outside of your current way of thinking. What I quoted from Dr Luther is all in our Confessions. ity is how Lutherans are to think about the Law.

  • fws

    Kerner,

    and if you think my calling a time out the way I just have is just a dodge, then you have not read what I quoted from Luther or you read it and it has not challenged you to think outside of your current way of thinking. What I quoted from Dr Luther is all in our Confessions. ity is how Lutherans are to think about the Law.

  • fws

    kerner @ 218

    where we have taken this is into the realm of pure speculation or conclusions based upon our own personal observations. It will be unproductive to continue along those lines if we want to determine a) what the text means and b) how it applies to us morally.

    i would suggest that what I present in 222, is, in contrast, to bind our Reason to the Word of God.

    and I further suggest that that must be the first step. we have been dancing around that for the longest and you never got back to me did you on the Law of God vs Aristotle vs Reason and how they relate to each other. We need to do that work. I know you get all excited about homosexuality and how it pertains to morality. But we need to do first things first.

    If you and I cannot agree on the Law we will go round and round and round. you want to go from specific to find a general rule. or say that some specific rule defines the general rule.

    It does not work that way even in your profession does it? you first find a general rule or principle. then you test the validity of that rule or general principle to see if it can be applied to every situation. That is how Law is properly made. And there are exceptions to every rule. but the exception in this case confirms the rule.

  • fws

    kerner @ 218

    where we have taken this is into the realm of pure speculation or conclusions based upon our own personal observations. It will be unproductive to continue along those lines if we want to determine a) what the text means and b) how it applies to us morally.

    i would suggest that what I present in 222, is, in contrast, to bind our Reason to the Word of God.

    and I further suggest that that must be the first step. we have been dancing around that for the longest and you never got back to me did you on the Law of God vs Aristotle vs Reason and how they relate to each other. We need to do that work. I know you get all excited about homosexuality and how it pertains to morality. But we need to do first things first.

    If you and I cannot agree on the Law we will go round and round and round. you want to go from specific to find a general rule. or say that some specific rule defines the general rule.

    It does not work that way even in your profession does it? you first find a general rule or principle. then you test the validity of that rule or general principle to see if it can be applied to every situation. That is how Law is properly made. And there are exceptions to every rule. but the exception in this case confirms the rule.

  • fws

    Kerner

    1) As a Lutheran , I do not see the Levitical Laws or even the 10 commandments as applying, per se (note the per se please) to me.
    So this is not at all painful as a discussion for me. the meaning of Lev 18 is a meaning that applies only to the jews.

    2) what was the meaning to the jews? It doesnt matter to me. But if we need to spin around and around as to that question, we would need to place ourself in the position of a jewish male of that time. We cant read it as a 21st century christian. Do I think we can fully do that? no. But again, why does it matter (cf 1).

    3) the ot is written as a testimony that points to Christ. That is what I look for when i read the OT. Tell me how your understanding of Lev 18 does that at all. Christ himself has commanded us to read the OT in exactly that way.

    4) I suggest that the divine commentary for Lev 18 is found in 1 cor and written to the corintian congregation, not to us, by the Holy Apostle St Paul. And to the extent that that commentary can be applied to us. It does. We no longer have ritual temple sex as both the OT and NT had. Further, what is the overall point and context of I cor? I suggest that it is this:

    1) we are no longer slaves to sin and the Law.
    2) we are now a slave to Christ,.
    3) So we are free from the Law to be a slave to being useful to others.
    4) all things are legal and lawful for a Christian
    5) but not all things are useful to our neigbor.
    6) we were barred from the kingdom(and still are!) according to what we were, which was 100% Old Adam.
    7) now we are included in the kingdom. how? by keeping the Law. No. By being useful to others? no again. HOw? by being washed and sanctified by Holy Baptism and faith in Christ alone. alone . alone.

    Good works and keeping Gods Law is useful on earth to avoid God’s punishment and the punishment of others and to enjoy a long and peaceful life serving others. But if we wish to deal with God, we must aim higher. And only then will we see , and fully so, what the Law demands of us as Luther tells us in his preface to Romans. Only then the Law will terrify us. and then we will hide all our works in the Works of Another rather than pointing homosexuals to what they need to do to fix themselves externally implying that they are outside the kingdom of heaven unless they DO something.

  • fws

    Kerner

    1) As a Lutheran , I do not see the Levitical Laws or even the 10 commandments as applying, per se (note the per se please) to me.
    So this is not at all painful as a discussion for me. the meaning of Lev 18 is a meaning that applies only to the jews.

    2) what was the meaning to the jews? It doesnt matter to me. But if we need to spin around and around as to that question, we would need to place ourself in the position of a jewish male of that time. We cant read it as a 21st century christian. Do I think we can fully do that? no. But again, why does it matter (cf 1).

    3) the ot is written as a testimony that points to Christ. That is what I look for when i read the OT. Tell me how your understanding of Lev 18 does that at all. Christ himself has commanded us to read the OT in exactly that way.

    4) I suggest that the divine commentary for Lev 18 is found in 1 cor and written to the corintian congregation, not to us, by the Holy Apostle St Paul. And to the extent that that commentary can be applied to us. It does. We no longer have ritual temple sex as both the OT and NT had. Further, what is the overall point and context of I cor? I suggest that it is this:

    1) we are no longer slaves to sin and the Law.
    2) we are now a slave to Christ,.
    3) So we are free from the Law to be a slave to being useful to others.
    4) all things are legal and lawful for a Christian
    5) but not all things are useful to our neigbor.
    6) we were barred from the kingdom(and still are!) according to what we were, which was 100% Old Adam.
    7) now we are included in the kingdom. how? by keeping the Law. No. By being useful to others? no again. HOw? by being washed and sanctified by Holy Baptism and faith in Christ alone. alone . alone.

    Good works and keeping Gods Law is useful on earth to avoid God’s punishment and the punishment of others and to enjoy a long and peaceful life serving others. But if we wish to deal with God, we must aim higher. And only then will we see , and fully so, what the Law demands of us as Luther tells us in his preface to Romans. Only then the Law will terrify us. and then we will hide all our works in the Works of Another rather than pointing homosexuals to what they need to do to fix themselves externally implying that they are outside the kingdom of heaven unless they DO something.

  • fws

    kerner , I suggest that you pose a different law and gospel for gays. gays must first DO something or refrain from DOING something to gain heaven. But for heterosexuals it is different isnt it?

    Name one religious requirement you, as a heterosexual must do in order to get to heaven.

    a religous requirement is one that stands irregardless of whether or not we can identify with reason where it harms our neighbor and helps and befriends him. it is a rule that demands that we keep it whether or not we can reasonably see its purpose. it is done solely to obey God.

    I suggest that this is the false religion that the Lutheran Third Use specifically is intended to curb.

  • fws

    kerner , I suggest that you pose a different law and gospel for gays. gays must first DO something or refrain from DOING something to gain heaven. But for heterosexuals it is different isnt it?

    Name one religious requirement you, as a heterosexual must do in order to get to heaven.

    a religous requirement is one that stands irregardless of whether or not we can identify with reason where it harms our neighbor and helps and befriends him. it is a rule that demands that we keep it whether or not we can reasonably see its purpose. it is done solely to obey God.

    I suggest that this is the false religion that the Lutheran Third Use specifically is intended to curb.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I have to admit, Grace, I am rather disappointed in your response to my comment (@206).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I have to admit, Grace, I am rather disappointed in your response to my comment (@206).

  • Grace

    tODD

    “I have to admit, Grace, I am rather disappointed in your response to my comment (@206).”

    There was NO RESPONSE, to your post @206. ZERO.

    @206 – “Once again (@204) I must ask: why are you so interested in talking about other people’s sins, but so very uninterested in talking about your own (repeated, willful) sins?”

    You forget, this thread is about Lesbians in the news, which means it’s about homosexuals, and their belief it isn’t sinful. The thread isn’t about me,it’s about homosexuals taking Communion, etc.

    It’s too bad you’re disappointed, there is no reason to fixate on my posts.

  • Grace

    tODD

    “I have to admit, Grace, I am rather disappointed in your response to my comment (@206).”

    There was NO RESPONSE, to your post @206. ZERO.

    @206 – “Once again (@204) I must ask: why are you so interested in talking about other people’s sins, but so very uninterested in talking about your own (repeated, willful) sins?”

    You forget, this thread is about Lesbians in the news, which means it’s about homosexuals, and their belief it isn’t sinful. The thread isn’t about me,it’s about homosexuals taking Communion, etc.

    It’s too bad you’re disappointed, there is no reason to fixate on my posts.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@229):

    There was NO RESPONSE, to your post @206. ZERO.

    Yes. My point exactly.

    Rather than respond to my earlier comment (@204), you changed the topic and accused me (@204) of “attacking” you in the past. While I still wanted you to actually respond to my earlier comment, you were correct, and, chastised, I asked you to forgive me.

    Your response? Nothing. So were you honestly lodging a complaint with me, Grace, or did you just want to change the subject? Did you just want to talk about my sins, but, once again, not about yours? Because it feels very unloving — very un-Christian — to be ignored when I have asked you to forgive me.

    You forget, this thread is about Lesbians in the news, which means it’s about homosexuals, and their belief it isn’t sinful.

    No, that’s not what this thread is about. Dr. Veith himself asked us all to “stick to the issues raised in this story.” You have not done that, you have instead decided to pursue a conversation about how homosexuals are wrong. Which is fine with me, but don’t pretend that you’re any more on topic than I am at this point.

    I will keep asking: Why are you so interested in talking about other people’s sins, but so very uninterested in talking about your own (repeated, willful) sins? I’m pretty certain you won’t answer at this point, but I do intend to point out that this is exactly what you’ve done, repeatedly, in this thread.

    One gets the impression that you somehow think you don’t sin willfully or repeatedly. If so, I must bear bad news: you do.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@229):

    There was NO RESPONSE, to your post @206. ZERO.

    Yes. My point exactly.

    Rather than respond to my earlier comment (@204), you changed the topic and accused me (@204) of “attacking” you in the past. While I still wanted you to actually respond to my earlier comment, you were correct, and, chastised, I asked you to forgive me.

    Your response? Nothing. So were you honestly lodging a complaint with me, Grace, or did you just want to change the subject? Did you just want to talk about my sins, but, once again, not about yours? Because it feels very unloving — very un-Christian — to be ignored when I have asked you to forgive me.

    You forget, this thread is about Lesbians in the news, which means it’s about homosexuals, and their belief it isn’t sinful.

    No, that’s not what this thread is about. Dr. Veith himself asked us all to “stick to the issues raised in this story.” You have not done that, you have instead decided to pursue a conversation about how homosexuals are wrong. Which is fine with me, but don’t pretend that you’re any more on topic than I am at this point.

    I will keep asking: Why are you so interested in talking about other people’s sins, but so very uninterested in talking about your own (repeated, willful) sins? I’m pretty certain you won’t answer at this point, but I do intend to point out that this is exactly what you’ve done, repeatedly, in this thread.

    One gets the impression that you somehow think you don’t sin willfully or repeatedly. If so, I must bear bad news: you do.

  • Carl Vehse

    As for the original title to this thread, one can also add on “Denying Communion to a self-proclaimed Buddhist.

  • Carl Vehse

    As for the original title to this thread, one can also add on “Denying Communion to a self-proclaimed Buddhist.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Kerner,

    What do you think of this conversational interview? Excerpted:

    Nicolosi: Andy, as you know, there has been a lot of controversy lately about the reality of absolute sexual-orientation change. The debate seems to be between two groups: psychotherapists, many of whom are in NARTH, vs. some spokesmen in the ex-gay movement who deny complete change. In your forty years experience, do you believe anyone can be completely free of homosexuality?

    Comiskey: I have heard people report that.

    Nicolosi: There are men that I’ve worked with who have said, “I have no more homosexual desire.” In our final sessions, they may consciously try to conjure up the old gay fantasies, the porn images, whatever, and it’s just nothing: “That’s it. Finished.” I tell them, “I’m sorry to have spoiled your fun.”

    Comiskey: Yes, I can understand that.

    Nicolosi: Or a man sees a good-looking guy in a gym locker room and he says to himself; “I remember I used to get a charge from that, but I just see him now as a nice-looking guy and that’s it.”

    Comiskey: Yes, I can see that. But for most, the healing process occurs along a continuum in which people make movement from a same-sex to an opposite-sex orientation. That is the experience of my friends and colleagues. It is a process in which we
    encourage each other daily toward being a good offering for our spouses, special friends, etc. For these people, I see movement long that continuum.

    Nicolosi: I think we agree that each individual moves along that continuum to the best of his ability. Some people are able to go two steps; some, ten steps.

    Andy, let me ask you this: would you consider this an example of change? A man is walking down the street; he sees a good-looking guy, and gets a bodily reaction. Some of my clients call it the ‘zap,’ but it may not necessarily be a genital zap. It could be a shot in his chest, like, “Oh, wow!” Gays would say that this is evidence that he is still homosexual. But he says to himself: “Ah, yeah, this feeling is about my old way of relating to men. This is the kind of guy that I idealized. I know what this is about.” In other words, the bodily response is the same, but now, he attaches a different meaning of it. He experiences that moment in a new way, which makes it for him, not a sexual moment. He knows what that moment is really about – namely, his old way of desiring to connect with men. Now, is that homosexuality?

    Comiskey: I would say not. That momentary experience indicates that the person continues to work out a clear sense of self-acceptance in the light of seeing another man to whom he may be tempted to abdicate himself. I don’t see that as an indicator of essential homosexuality, but as an indicator of continued integration that he is still working out.

    Nicolosi: There is another aspect to this. Some men report that their bodily reaction to another man serves them as a signal that they are not “in their integrity.” I remember when Richard Cohen and I did a TV show and the hostess said, “Richard you’re now married; can you say that you no longer have any homosexual thoughts or feelings?” Richard answered: “When I have a homosexual feeling it’s a signal to me that I’m not taking care of myself.”

    In those cases, can we say that a man is still homosexual when he feels the “zap” which becomes a signal to ask himself: “OK what’s really going on with me?”

    Comiskey: What they do is to withdraw the focus of energy from that other person and metaphorically, bounce it back to themselves. Ultimately these attractions are all about themselves.

    Nicolosi: Yes. They’re not really about the other guy.

    Comiskey: Cultural norms also intensify this self-absorption, this disintegration. Today’s culture is all about affirming the gay self. We live in a culture of excess that is the opposite of one of positive restraint. The cultural message is: “I feel, therefore I do.”

    Nicolosi: “Therefore, I consume.”

    Comiskey: Therefore I abandon my true self!

    Comiskey: One key is his own motivation, which can range from immature to mature. Does a person want to change for church or for Mother or some other powerful figure in one’s life? I think a mature motivation is: “I want to be free for my own sake.”

    Nicolosi: I want this for me.

    Comiskey: I want this for me, and I think it takes time to know that, and it takes time to get there. There also needs to be a strong spiritual component. Our yearning for God is related to our sexuality. A transition out of homosexuality requires a presence more powerful than self, and a mature willingness to submit to that higher power.

    Nicolosi: So it’s personal desire aligned with this transcendent force outside oneself.

    Comiskey: No person can escape the fact that what we are created for, sexually-speaking, is written on our hearts. No amount of cultural shifting can erase that.

    When you see the ardor in the gay activist, you can’t help but think he is working his conflict out on us, and on the culture — trying in vain to prove just “how good and normal I am” through another legal victory like gay marriage.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Kerner,

    What do you think of this conversational interview? Excerpted:

    Nicolosi: Andy, as you know, there has been a lot of controversy lately about the reality of absolute sexual-orientation change. The debate seems to be between two groups: psychotherapists, many of whom are in NARTH, vs. some spokesmen in the ex-gay movement who deny complete change. In your forty years experience, do you believe anyone can be completely free of homosexuality?

    Comiskey: I have heard people report that.

    Nicolosi: There are men that I’ve worked with who have said, “I have no more homosexual desire.” In our final sessions, they may consciously try to conjure up the old gay fantasies, the porn images, whatever, and it’s just nothing: “That’s it. Finished.” I tell them, “I’m sorry to have spoiled your fun.”

    Comiskey: Yes, I can understand that.

    Nicolosi: Or a man sees a good-looking guy in a gym locker room and he says to himself; “I remember I used to get a charge from that, but I just see him now as a nice-looking guy and that’s it.”

    Comiskey: Yes, I can see that. But for most, the healing process occurs along a continuum in which people make movement from a same-sex to an opposite-sex orientation. That is the experience of my friends and colleagues. It is a process in which we
    encourage each other daily toward being a good offering for our spouses, special friends, etc. For these people, I see movement long that continuum.

    Nicolosi: I think we agree that each individual moves along that continuum to the best of his ability. Some people are able to go two steps; some, ten steps.

    Andy, let me ask you this: would you consider this an example of change? A man is walking down the street; he sees a good-looking guy, and gets a bodily reaction. Some of my clients call it the ‘zap,’ but it may not necessarily be a genital zap. It could be a shot in his chest, like, “Oh, wow!” Gays would say that this is evidence that he is still homosexual. But he says to himself: “Ah, yeah, this feeling is about my old way of relating to men. This is the kind of guy that I idealized. I know what this is about.” In other words, the bodily response is the same, but now, he attaches a different meaning of it. He experiences that moment in a new way, which makes it for him, not a sexual moment. He knows what that moment is really about – namely, his old way of desiring to connect with men. Now, is that homosexuality?

    Comiskey: I would say not. That momentary experience indicates that the person continues to work out a clear sense of self-acceptance in the light of seeing another man to whom he may be tempted to abdicate himself. I don’t see that as an indicator of essential homosexuality, but as an indicator of continued integration that he is still working out.

    Nicolosi: There is another aspect to this. Some men report that their bodily reaction to another man serves them as a signal that they are not “in their integrity.” I remember when Richard Cohen and I did a TV show and the hostess said, “Richard you’re now married; can you say that you no longer have any homosexual thoughts or feelings?” Richard answered: “When I have a homosexual feeling it’s a signal to me that I’m not taking care of myself.”

    In those cases, can we say that a man is still homosexual when he feels the “zap” which becomes a signal to ask himself: “OK what’s really going on with me?”

    Comiskey: What they do is to withdraw the focus of energy from that other person and metaphorically, bounce it back to themselves. Ultimately these attractions are all about themselves.

    Nicolosi: Yes. They’re not really about the other guy.

    Comiskey: Cultural norms also intensify this self-absorption, this disintegration. Today’s culture is all about affirming the gay self. We live in a culture of excess that is the opposite of one of positive restraint. The cultural message is: “I feel, therefore I do.”

    Nicolosi: “Therefore, I consume.”

    Comiskey: Therefore I abandon my true self!

    Comiskey: One key is his own motivation, which can range from immature to mature. Does a person want to change for church or for Mother or some other powerful figure in one’s life? I think a mature motivation is: “I want to be free for my own sake.”

    Nicolosi: I want this for me.

    Comiskey: I want this for me, and I think it takes time to know that, and it takes time to get there. There also needs to be a strong spiritual component. Our yearning for God is related to our sexuality. A transition out of homosexuality requires a presence more powerful than self, and a mature willingness to submit to that higher power.

    Nicolosi: So it’s personal desire aligned with this transcendent force outside oneself.

    Comiskey: No person can escape the fact that what we are created for, sexually-speaking, is written on our hearts. No amount of cultural shifting can erase that.

    When you see the ardor in the gay activist, you can’t help but think he is working his conflict out on us, and on the culture — trying in vain to prove just “how good and normal I am” through another legal victory like gay marriage.

  • fws

    tud @ 232

    This conversation is really typical of this group. thanks for providing it. It is purely anecdotal. Note there is no statistical evidence presented for their assertions that homosexuals can be turned into heterosexuals. There is no discussion of the methods used. One will look for that sort of stuff in vain on their site.

    Let me know when you find even one original research or study of homosexuality by this group. It seems to be an echo box of a group.

    nicolosi belongs to a group of psychiatrists that split away from the mainstream group of psychiatrist called, if i remember right.. NARTH. The sole purpose of the organization was to object to the removal of homosexuality from the list of pathologies by the mainstream group the APA.

    It is good to note that this group has done NO original research, and is known for misusing the research of others and for misusing the research of others. They seem to mostly follow Freud…. absent detached father… overly loving mother…. homosexuality as the result of child abuse …. all this stuff has been disproven by repeatedly by quite a few studies….. I am always surprised that conservative christians, like the roman catholic nicolosi lean so heavily upon Sigmund Freud. Amazing that.

    In the end, who really knows about alot of this. It is , and will probably always remain, alot of speculation.

  • fws

    tud @ 232

    This conversation is really typical of this group. thanks for providing it. It is purely anecdotal. Note there is no statistical evidence presented for their assertions that homosexuals can be turned into heterosexuals. There is no discussion of the methods used. One will look for that sort of stuff in vain on their site.

    Let me know when you find even one original research or study of homosexuality by this group. It seems to be an echo box of a group.

    nicolosi belongs to a group of psychiatrists that split away from the mainstream group of psychiatrist called, if i remember right.. NARTH. The sole purpose of the organization was to object to the removal of homosexuality from the list of pathologies by the mainstream group the APA.

    It is good to note that this group has done NO original research, and is known for misusing the research of others and for misusing the research of others. They seem to mostly follow Freud…. absent detached father… overly loving mother…. homosexuality as the result of child abuse …. all this stuff has been disproven by repeatedly by quite a few studies….. I am always surprised that conservative christians, like the roman catholic nicolosi lean so heavily upon Sigmund Freud. Amazing that.

    In the end, who really knows about alot of this. It is , and will probably always remain, alot of speculation.

  • fws

    tud @ 232

    fact:

    when someone actually presents hard evidence in the form of a study that proves that homosexuals can be turned into heterosexuals, there will be lots of money to be made.

    there will be homosexuals willing to pay just about any price for whoever discovers the drug, or therapy or whatever that yields this result in a provable way.

    But that has not been done yet, in spite of the staggering potential for profit. why? it does not exist.

  • fws

    tud @ 232

    fact:

    when someone actually presents hard evidence in the form of a study that proves that homosexuals can be turned into heterosexuals, there will be lots of money to be made.

    there will be homosexuals willing to pay just about any price for whoever discovers the drug, or therapy or whatever that yields this result in a provable way.

    But that has not been done yet, in spite of the staggering potential for profit. why? it does not exist.

  • fws

    tud @ 232

    the study hints at what lots of ex gay groups are pushing towards. It is the idea that a 12 step program that was designed for alcoholics by alcoholics anonymous that has proven to be successful for drug dependency, eating disorders and any number of other compulsive behavioral disorders can work for homosexuality.

    This idea has failed and miserably so. That is because homosexuality is not a compulsive disorder as are alcoholism, drug addiction and eating disorders.

    Men and women identify that they first saw they were gay around age 5. homosexuality is just a different animal. and for this same reason it would be wrong to compare it to the disease chronic child molesters have.

  • fws

    tud @ 232

    the study hints at what lots of ex gay groups are pushing towards. It is the idea that a 12 step program that was designed for alcoholics by alcoholics anonymous that has proven to be successful for drug dependency, eating disorders and any number of other compulsive behavioral disorders can work for homosexuality.

    This idea has failed and miserably so. That is because homosexuality is not a compulsive disorder as are alcoholism, drug addiction and eating disorders.

    Men and women identify that they first saw they were gay around age 5. homosexuality is just a different animal. and for this same reason it would be wrong to compare it to the disease chronic child molesters have.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    “In the end, who really knows about alot of this. It is , and will probably always remain, alot of speculation.”

    God knows. Speculate on the fact that there are ex-gays who surrendered to God, who acknowledged that same-sex behavior is sin, and who were helped immensely by these ministries.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    “In the end, who really knows about alot of this. It is , and will probably always remain, alot of speculation.”

    God knows. Speculate on the fact that there are ex-gays who surrendered to God, who acknowledged that same-sex behavior is sin, and who were helped immensely by these ministries.

  • fws

    tud @ 236

    I know lots of people whos lives were made much worse by exodus and similar programs . many lost their faith, and others were badly damaged along with their parents and families. facts .

    I would LOVE to see some long term studies on the persons these groups claimed to have cured or have betterd the lives of in some way. Sincerely. If their claims are true, they should make all possible effort to do such studies. It would be a godsend to so many people.

    But there are no such studies are there? just people like you, asserting, anecdotally, that these programs are somehow bettering the lives of someone.

  • fws

    tud @ 236

    I know lots of people whos lives were made much worse by exodus and similar programs . many lost their faith, and others were badly damaged along with their parents and families. facts .

    I would LOVE to see some long term studies on the persons these groups claimed to have cured or have betterd the lives of in some way. Sincerely. If their claims are true, they should make all possible effort to do such studies. It would be a godsend to so many people.

    But there are no such studies are there? just people like you, asserting, anecdotally, that these programs are somehow bettering the lives of someone.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    FWS,

    You could contact these ministries yourself and find out for yourself that what they say has happened has really happened. In fact, why not try reparative therapy for yourself?

    Perhaps you might get lucky and get a counselor like Kerner.
    ;-)

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    FWS,

    You could contact these ministries yourself and find out for yourself that what they say has happened has really happened. In fact, why not try reparative therapy for yourself?

    Perhaps you might get lucky and get a counselor like Kerner.
    ;-)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    TUaD (@238), so you’re the one who brings up the NARTH interview, but when challenged on it, you show little to no interest in researching its accuracy yourself.

    Is it safe to assume, then, that whatever facts there may be behind their efforts aren’t really all that important?

    While we’re talking about it, why don’t you try “reparative therapy” for yourself? Not to remove gayness — a good Christian like you wouldn’t struggle with that, of course — but to remove the sinful nature that causes you to to repeatedly feel tempted and willfully give in to those temptations? Wouldn’t you want that for yourself, as much as you want it for the gays?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    TUaD (@238), so you’re the one who brings up the NARTH interview, but when challenged on it, you show little to no interest in researching its accuracy yourself.

    Is it safe to assume, then, that whatever facts there may be behind their efforts aren’t really all that important?

    While we’re talking about it, why don’t you try “reparative therapy” for yourself? Not to remove gayness — a good Christian like you wouldn’t struggle with that, of course — but to remove the sinful nature that causes you to to repeatedly feel tempted and willfully give in to those temptations? Wouldn’t you want that for yourself, as much as you want it for the gays?

  • Grace

    No one will most likely seek God’s help to rid them of homosexuality, until thry believe its a sin. It’s the sin that they stumble upon.

    No one knows how many have been delivered by the LORD from homosexuality. If a man or woman needs numbers to prove God’s power, they are playing games with HIS divine power.

    No one knows how many homosexual NEVER TOLD A SOUL, instead they asked the LORD to help them. The groups who are involved in these ministries do a wonderful work, in spite of all the NAY SAYERS which are many.

  • Grace

    No one will most likely seek God’s help to rid them of homosexuality, until thry believe its a sin. It’s the sin that they stumble upon.

    No one knows how many have been delivered by the LORD from homosexuality. If a man or woman needs numbers to prove God’s power, they are playing games with HIS divine power.

    No one knows how many homosexual NEVER TOLD A SOUL, instead they asked the LORD to help them. The groups who are involved in these ministries do a wonderful work, in spite of all the NAY SAYERS which are many.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Grace: “No one will most likely seek God’s help to rid them of homosexuality, until they believe its a sin.”

    From pastor Wayne A’s linked file in #82: “The homosexual can change, and the first step is acceptance of Biblical teaching about homosexuality … that it is sin and must
    be forsaken in God’s power.
    One pastor, who helped a number
    of homosexuals when other pastors and physicians could do
    nothing with them, was asked the secret of his effectiveness.

    They have got to see that it’s sin; I hold them to that.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Grace: “No one will most likely seek God’s help to rid them of homosexuality, until they believe its a sin.”

    From pastor Wayne A’s linked file in #82: “The homosexual can change, and the first step is acceptance of Biblical teaching about homosexuality … that it is sin and must
    be forsaken in God’s power.
    One pastor, who helped a number
    of homosexuals when other pastors and physicians could do
    nothing with them, was asked the secret of his effectiveness.

    They have got to see that it’s sin; I hold them to that.

  • fws

    TUD & Grace

    Let’s set aside the fact that your definition of the word ‘homosexuality” is different than that of the medical community of a homosexual. That sort of hinders any meaningful exchange with you.

    What part of a 6 year old homosexuals life is sinful in any way at all that is different from that of a non homosexual six year old. The thinking of a homosexual or medical professional would go exactly there with what you are saying. They see from studies and personal experience that homosexuality is set before that age.

    So they are saying that homosexuality is not about sex urges and compulsions definitionally. And for you sexual urges are at the core of your definition of homosexuality as far as I can tell. Cognitive . Dissonance.

    But I am sure you won’t really get my point. And I am sad to be so sure.

    Fact: All homosexuals make a choice about their homosexuality.

    And what is that choice? Every homosexual I have ever known made the deliberate choice to do everything at all in their power to not be homosexual. But in every case that plan simply did not work out.

    From that you should know that a huge number of Homosexuals would pay literally ANY amount of money for a pill or form of therapy that would have a good chance of turing them into true heterosexuals. Someone could make a huge fortune at that.

    And , from a personal perspective, I would love to see that option available. I would love to see something that looks like a cure for homosexuality. Lets agree that “cure” here would be defined as a fag being transformed into a heterosexual.

    Living life as a gay man or woman is not easy with all the prejudice and other problems that abound still. Just like I would like to see whites and black have the option of changing colors at will. But acceptance of what is is what we are stuck with.

  • fws

    TUD & Grace

    Let’s set aside the fact that your definition of the word ‘homosexuality” is different than that of the medical community of a homosexual. That sort of hinders any meaningful exchange with you.

    What part of a 6 year old homosexuals life is sinful in any way at all that is different from that of a non homosexual six year old. The thinking of a homosexual or medical professional would go exactly there with what you are saying. They see from studies and personal experience that homosexuality is set before that age.

    So they are saying that homosexuality is not about sex urges and compulsions definitionally. And for you sexual urges are at the core of your definition of homosexuality as far as I can tell. Cognitive . Dissonance.

    But I am sure you won’t really get my point. And I am sad to be so sure.

    Fact: All homosexuals make a choice about their homosexuality.

    And what is that choice? Every homosexual I have ever known made the deliberate choice to do everything at all in their power to not be homosexual. But in every case that plan simply did not work out.

    From that you should know that a huge number of Homosexuals would pay literally ANY amount of money for a pill or form of therapy that would have a good chance of turing them into true heterosexuals. Someone could make a huge fortune at that.

    And , from a personal perspective, I would love to see that option available. I would love to see something that looks like a cure for homosexuality. Lets agree that “cure” here would be defined as a fag being transformed into a heterosexual.

    Living life as a gay man or woman is not easy with all the prejudice and other problems that abound still. Just like I would like to see whites and black have the option of changing colors at will. But acceptance of what is is what we are stuck with.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    FWS: ‘Every homosexual I have ever known made the deliberate choice to do everything at all in their power to not be homosexual.”

    FWS, do you genuinely want to stop being homosexual?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    FWS: ‘Every homosexual I have ever known made the deliberate choice to do everything at all in their power to not be homosexual.”

    FWS, do you genuinely want to stop being homosexual?

  • fws

    tud @243

    I can very honestly say that doing everything I could think to do in my power and seeking God’s help as well as a christian quite literally consumed my life from my teens until well into my 40′s

    And I managed to refrain from any homosexual sex at all well into my 30s. never ever even fantasized sexually about sex with another guy. My struggle was not at all with resisting gay sexual urges. And yet I was most certainly a homosexual by the definition of every homosexual you would meet or any medical professional. My desires were not for sex. It was something else that was in me. I have no power over whether you chose to believe this or not.

    I finally realized that being very honest was the only way to be happy. St James promises us that if we confess our sins to one another we will be healed. I believe , from personal experience, that that promise is true.

  • fws

    tud @243

    I can very honestly say that doing everything I could think to do in my power and seeking God’s help as well as a christian quite literally consumed my life from my teens until well into my 40′s

    And I managed to refrain from any homosexual sex at all well into my 30s. never ever even fantasized sexually about sex with another guy. My struggle was not at all with resisting gay sexual urges. And yet I was most certainly a homosexual by the definition of every homosexual you would meet or any medical professional. My desires were not for sex. It was something else that was in me. I have no power over whether you chose to believe this or not.

    I finally realized that being very honest was the only way to be happy. St James promises us that if we confess our sins to one another we will be healed. I believe , from personal experience, that that promise is true.

  • Grace

    NARTH is a viable organization, there is no reason to ridicule that which helps the homosexual seek God, and healing.

    Mocking God’s power, and then flipping a remark against the individual who offered help – suggesting they receive help for their sins (whatever they might be ) is just playing a game of VERBAL SABOTAGE- it is what kids do when they want to dominate their parents.

  • Grace

    NARTH is a viable organization, there is no reason to ridicule that which helps the homosexual seek God, and healing.

    Mocking God’s power, and then flipping a remark against the individual who offered help – suggesting they receive help for their sins (whatever they might be ) is just playing a game of VERBAL SABOTAGE- it is what kids do when they want to dominate their parents.

  • Grace

    Truth @ 241

    “They have got to see that it’s sin; I hold them to that.”

    That’s right!

  • Grace

    Truth @ 241

    “They have got to see that it’s sin; I hold them to that.”

    That’s right!

  • Grace

    fws @242

    YOU WROTE: “Let’s set aside the fact that your definition of the word ‘homosexuality” is different than that of the medical community of a homosexual. That sort of c with you. ”

    No, you’re wrong. According to you, you want to set the rules, feeling that IF you don’t have control, it “hinders any meaningful exchange” NONSENSE!

  • Grace

    fws @242

    YOU WROTE: “Let’s set aside the fact that your definition of the word ‘homosexuality” is different than that of the medical community of a homosexual. That sort of c with you. ”

    No, you’re wrong. According to you, you want to set the rules, feeling that IF you don’t have control, it “hinders any meaningful exchange” NONSENSE!

  • Grace

    The comment @ 247 in my post by fws copied wrong.

    Should read

    “That sort of hinders any meaningful exchange with you. “

  • Grace

    The comment @ 247 in my post by fws copied wrong.

    Should read

    “That sort of hinders any meaningful exchange with you. “

  • fws

    I think it is cruel to tell someone that they are still a homosexual because a) they not try hard enough not to be b) they did not want to NOT be homosexual badly enough c) they didnt have enough faith in God or d) it is somehow their parents fault for how they were raised.

    Who is in the position to pass judgement on these things?

  • fws

    I think it is cruel to tell someone that they are still a homosexual because a) they not try hard enough not to be b) they did not want to NOT be homosexual badly enough c) they didnt have enough faith in God or d) it is somehow their parents fault for how they were raised.

    Who is in the position to pass judgement on these things?

  • Grace

    There is a very good piece entitled:

    Kirk Cameron is right

    http://online.worldmag.com/2012/03/07/kirk-cameron-is-right/#comments

  • Grace

    There is a very good piece entitled:

    Kirk Cameron is right

    http://online.worldmag.com/2012/03/07/kirk-cameron-is-right/#comments

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Can’t help but notice that TUaD and Grace are studiously avoiding answering FWS’s question (@242). Pretty certain they will continue to. Feel free to prove me wrong, though, you two.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Can’t help but notice that TUaD and Grace are studiously avoiding answering FWS’s question (@242). Pretty certain they will continue to. Feel free to prove me wrong, though, you two.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@245):

    NARTH is a viable organization, there is no reason to ridicule that which helps the homosexual seek God, and healing.

    What makes it “viable”? Per your own admission (@240), “No one knows how many have been delivered by the LORD from homosexuality.” So no one can know if NARTH or whatever has been effective in their treatments, by that same argument.

    And is this about “the homosexual seeking God”, or is it about the homosexual seeking heterosexuality? Because FWS here is, per his own confession, a homosexual who not only sought God, he found him! Or, more accurately, FWS knows that the Son of Man came to seek and save him, while he was yet lost.

    Yet you have no problem mocking FWS, Grace, even as you complain about others ridiculing NARTH. Are you really interested in the healing that God offers, or are you just interested in making gays follow rules?

    No, you’re wrong. According to you, you want to set the rules, feeling that IF you don’t have control, it “hinders any meaningful exchange” NONSENSE!

    Wow, Grace. That doesn’t sound very Christian of you. Maybe you should seek out some reparative therapy to make you stop acting like that?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@245):

    NARTH is a viable organization, there is no reason to ridicule that which helps the homosexual seek God, and healing.

    What makes it “viable”? Per your own admission (@240), “No one knows how many have been delivered by the LORD from homosexuality.” So no one can know if NARTH or whatever has been effective in their treatments, by that same argument.

    And is this about “the homosexual seeking God”, or is it about the homosexual seeking heterosexuality? Because FWS here is, per his own confession, a homosexual who not only sought God, he found him! Or, more accurately, FWS knows that the Son of Man came to seek and save him, while he was yet lost.

    Yet you have no problem mocking FWS, Grace, even as you complain about others ridiculing NARTH. Are you really interested in the healing that God offers, or are you just interested in making gays follow rules?

    No, you’re wrong. According to you, you want to set the rules, feeling that IF you don’t have control, it “hinders any meaningful exchange” NONSENSE!

    Wow, Grace. That doesn’t sound very Christian of you. Maybe you should seek out some reparative therapy to make you stop acting like that?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    FWS, @244,

    A better rephrase of the question:

    Do yougenuinely want to stop being homosexual right NOW?

    The question isn’t about before. The question is about right now.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    FWS, @244,

    A better rephrase of the question:

    Do yougenuinely want to stop being homosexual right NOW?

    The question isn’t about before. The question is about right now.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Suppose a pedophile proclaims the following:

    “I finally realized that being very honest was the only way to be happy. St James promises us that if we confess our sins to one another we will be healed. I believe , from personal experience, that that promise is true.”

    Is the pedophile saying that he understands that his pedophilia is a sin and that by confessing his sin of pedophilia to another person he is healed of his sins of pedophilia?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Suppose a pedophile proclaims the following:

    “I finally realized that being very honest was the only way to be happy. St James promises us that if we confess our sins to one another we will be healed. I believe , from personal experience, that that promise is true.”

    Is the pedophile saying that he understands that his pedophilia is a sin and that by confessing his sin of pedophilia to another person he is healed of his sins of pedophilia?

  • fws

    tud @ 253
    What are you talking about?

    TUD @ 254

    So you don’t believe the promise God makes to us through the words of St James TUD?

    I don’t know about your hypothetical and it really doesnt interest me since I dont personally know and pedophiliacs. Why does it matter to you?

  • fws

    tud @ 253
    What are you talking about?

    TUD @ 254

    So you don’t believe the promise God makes to us through the words of St James TUD?

    I don’t know about your hypothetical and it really doesnt interest me since I dont personally know and pedophiliacs. Why does it matter to you?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    TUaD (@253) asked FWS:

    Do you genuinely want to stop being homosexual right NOW?

    Is that what you think this is all about? That homosexuals should not only have as their goal to engage only in God-pleasing sex, but that they should actually seek, by their own actions, to stop being homosexual?

    What horrid theology must undergird such a question! It’s not enough to, with God’s help, overcome temptation. Oh, no. One must actually seek to rid one’s self of temptation!

    I am quite certain you would never in a million years apply this ghastly line of thinking to yourself. This is the sort of thing you could only foist on others — others that you don’t understand, nor consider to be anything like you.

    Yes, let’s let the normal, straight Christians struggle with their sins, but you gay folk, you have to go beyond that, to actually stop being gay! It’s not merely enough to be celibate in thought, word, and deed.

    Meanwhile, we straight people will not insist that we have to stop being jerks. Of course not — that’s impossible! It’s merely enough for us just to try not to give into our jerky temptations. Even if we still think jerky thoughts quite frequently. But for gays to continue to have their kind of thoughts, well, that will not be allowed!

    I’m almost certain you won’t get my point here, TUaD, precisely because you have failed to properly use terms and understand what makes someone homosexual. I’m pretty certain you’re not even clear on what the Bible condemns in this area.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    TUaD (@253) asked FWS:

    Do you genuinely want to stop being homosexual right NOW?

    Is that what you think this is all about? That homosexuals should not only have as their goal to engage only in God-pleasing sex, but that they should actually seek, by their own actions, to stop being homosexual?

    What horrid theology must undergird such a question! It’s not enough to, with God’s help, overcome temptation. Oh, no. One must actually seek to rid one’s self of temptation!

    I am quite certain you would never in a million years apply this ghastly line of thinking to yourself. This is the sort of thing you could only foist on others — others that you don’t understand, nor consider to be anything like you.

    Yes, let’s let the normal, straight Christians struggle with their sins, but you gay folk, you have to go beyond that, to actually stop being gay! It’s not merely enough to be celibate in thought, word, and deed.

    Meanwhile, we straight people will not insist that we have to stop being jerks. Of course not — that’s impossible! It’s merely enough for us just to try not to give into our jerky temptations. Even if we still think jerky thoughts quite frequently. But for gays to continue to have their kind of thoughts, well, that will not be allowed!

    I’m almost certain you won’t get my point here, TUaD, precisely because you have failed to properly use terms and understand what makes someone homosexual. I’m pretty certain you’re not even clear on what the Bible condemns in this area.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    fws: “tud @ 253
    What are you talking about? “

    What don’t you understand?

    Do you genuinely want to stop being homosexual right NOW?

    The question isn’t about before. The question is about right now.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    fws: “tud @ 253
    What are you talking about? “

    What don’t you understand?

    Do you genuinely want to stop being homosexual right NOW?

    The question isn’t about before. The question is about right now.

  • fws

    tud 257

    what i dont understand is your question.

    why does it matter to you? how does it matter to you? what difference does it make to you or me or to God?

    and …I don’t fully think I know what it is you mean by the word “homosexual”. what is it exactly that you want to know if I want to stop being that or not.

    tell me more…..

  • fws

    tud 257

    what i dont understand is your question.

    why does it matter to you? how does it matter to you? what difference does it make to you or me or to God?

    and …I don’t fully think I know what it is you mean by the word “homosexual”. what is it exactly that you want to know if I want to stop being that or not.

    tell me more…..

  • fws

    TUD @258

    also,… are you accustomed to walking up to total strangers in a public place, and fully masked so no one can see or know anything about you, and asking them those sorts of questions?

    If so, you must have an…um… interesting life TUD.

  • fws

    TUD @258

    also,… are you accustomed to walking up to total strangers in a public place, and fully masked so no one can see or know anything about you, and asking them those sorts of questions?

    If so, you must have an…um… interesting life TUD.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    FWS, #242: “Every homosexual I have ever known made the deliberate choice to do everything at all in their power to not be homosexual.”

    Q: Do you genuinely want to stop being homosexual right NOW?

    The question isn’t about before. The question is about right now.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    FWS, #242: “Every homosexual I have ever known made the deliberate choice to do everything at all in their power to not be homosexual.”

    Q: Do you genuinely want to stop being homosexual right NOW?

    The question isn’t about before. The question is about right now.

  • Grace

    Walking up to a total stranger is very different from a blog title, and then discussing the subject matter.

  • Grace

    Walking up to a total stranger is very different from a blog title, and then discussing the subject matter.

  • fws

    grace @ 261

    how is it different Grace and why?

    Dont the same rules of kindness, courtesy, civility and any other moral rule that governs our posture , attitude and demeanor towards others govern our behavior whereever we are and whoever we are speaking to regardless of what the media is? if you disagree with this why?

  • fws

    grace @ 261

    how is it different Grace and why?

    Dont the same rules of kindness, courtesy, civility and any other moral rule that governs our posture , attitude and demeanor towards others govern our behavior whereever we are and whoever we are speaking to regardless of what the media is? if you disagree with this why?

  • fws

    grace @ 261

    I am , of course, thinking of 1 cor 13 and what that demands of my behavior towards you Grace.

    I cant see how I am somehow exempted from that very very exacting standard merely because we are both anonymous here in that we can’t look each other in the eye etc.

    So what is the bible passage that prompted you to say what you said in 261?

  • fws

    grace @ 261

    I am , of course, thinking of 1 cor 13 and what that demands of my behavior towards you Grace.

    I cant see how I am somehow exempted from that very very exacting standard merely because we are both anonymous here in that we can’t look each other in the eye etc.

    So what is the bible passage that prompted you to say what you said in 261?

  • fws

    grace @ 261

    Note I said MY behavior towards YOU Grace.

    I am not at all responsible for policing your behavior. Thank God for that! So I apologize for at times having tried to do just that.

    But I do get to note that I have a hard time most of the time looking at your posture here as an example of 1 cor 13 in action. ;)

  • fws

    grace @ 261

    Note I said MY behavior towards YOU Grace.

    I am not at all responsible for policing your behavior. Thank God for that! So I apologize for at times having tried to do just that.

    But I do get to note that I have a hard time most of the time looking at your posture here as an example of 1 cor 13 in action. ;)

  • fws

    grace @ 261

    Note I said MY behavior towards YOU Grace.

    I am not at all responsible for policing your behavior. Thank God for that! So I apologize for at times having tried to do just that.

  • fws

    grace @ 261

    Note I said MY behavior towards YOU Grace.

    I am not at all responsible for policing your behavior. Thank God for that! So I apologize for at times having tried to do just that.

  • Grace

    fws @262

    “grace @ 261 how is it different Grace and why?”

    You cannot understand the difference between discussing a subject on a blog, and walking up to a stranger and bringing up the same subject out of the blue? If you can’t manage to see the difference, that’s too bad,

  • Grace

    fws @262

    “grace @ 261 how is it different Grace and why?”

    You cannot understand the difference between discussing a subject on a blog, and walking up to a stranger and bringing up the same subject out of the blue? If you can’t manage to see the difference, that’s too bad,

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FWS, have you noticed how they play this game, yet? They’re totally ignoring me, and they’re ignoring any interesting questions you ask, as well.

    It’s all about going after you, the gay guy. TUaD, of course, is now in his patented “I will only repeat my one question over and over” phase, thinking that he’s making a point in so doing. And Grace is just intent on showing you how sinful you are (sin is apparently not something she struggles with herself), I guess.

    Of course, you don’t need anyone to tell you you’re a sinner, do you, FWS? Because as a Lutheran, you understand sin more fully than most. Thankfully, you also know that God has paid for all your sins with his Son’s atoning sacrifice on the Cross. I’m glad you know that, FWS. Nothing can separate you from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FWS, have you noticed how they play this game, yet? They’re totally ignoring me, and they’re ignoring any interesting questions you ask, as well.

    It’s all about going after you, the gay guy. TUaD, of course, is now in his patented “I will only repeat my one question over and over” phase, thinking that he’s making a point in so doing. And Grace is just intent on showing you how sinful you are (sin is apparently not something she struggles with herself), I guess.

    Of course, you don’t need anyone to tell you you’re a sinner, do you, FWS? Because as a Lutheran, you understand sin more fully than most. Thankfully, you also know that God has paid for all your sins with his Son’s atoning sacrifice on the Cross. I’m glad you know that, FWS. Nothing can separate you from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    A confessional Lutheran pastor meets with two men after service in his parish office.

    Active Homosexual: “Hi, Pastor Wayne. I’m a baptized Lutheran.”

    Active Pedophile: “Hi Pastor Wayne. I’m a baptized Lutheran too.”

    Pastor Wayne: “Nice to meet you both. What can I do for you?”

    Active Homosexual: “Pastor Wayne, I’m an active homosexual.”

    Active Pedophile: “Pastor Wayne, I’m an active pedophile.”

    Active Homosexual: “But Pastor Wayne, I get a pass.”

    Pastor Wayne: “Why do you get a pass?”

    Active Homosexual: “I finally realized that being very honest was the only way to be happy. St James promises us that if we confess our sins to one another we will be healed. I believe , from personal experience, that that promise is true.”

    Active Pedophile, quickly follows: “I finally realized that being very honest was the only way to be happy. St James promises us that if we confess our sins to one another we will be healed. I believe , from personal experience, that that promise is true.”

    Active Homosexual: “Hey! That’s what I said! You can’t take my rationale and use it for your case!”

    Active Pedophile: “Yes, I can! If you get a pass for that reasoning, then I get a pass too since that reasoning applies to me too!”

    Pastor Wayne: “Mr. Pedophile is right. Either both of you gets a pass or neither one of you gets a pass.”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    A confessional Lutheran pastor meets with two men after service in his parish office.

    Active Homosexual: “Hi, Pastor Wayne. I’m a baptized Lutheran.”

    Active Pedophile: “Hi Pastor Wayne. I’m a baptized Lutheran too.”

    Pastor Wayne: “Nice to meet you both. What can I do for you?”

    Active Homosexual: “Pastor Wayne, I’m an active homosexual.”

    Active Pedophile: “Pastor Wayne, I’m an active pedophile.”

    Active Homosexual: “But Pastor Wayne, I get a pass.”

    Pastor Wayne: “Why do you get a pass?”

    Active Homosexual: “I finally realized that being very honest was the only way to be happy. St James promises us that if we confess our sins to one another we will be healed. I believe , from personal experience, that that promise is true.”

    Active Pedophile, quickly follows: “I finally realized that being very honest was the only way to be happy. St James promises us that if we confess our sins to one another we will be healed. I believe , from personal experience, that that promise is true.”

    Active Homosexual: “Hey! That’s what I said! You can’t take my rationale and use it for your case!”

    Active Pedophile: “Yes, I can! If you get a pass for that reasoning, then I get a pass too since that reasoning applies to me too!”

    Pastor Wayne: “Mr. Pedophile is right. Either both of you gets a pass or neither one of you gets a pass.”

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oh, look. Now TUaD (@268) has suddenly decided to add the word “active” to all his arguments, as if that’s going to clarify his confusion over the term “homosexual”.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oh, look. Now TUaD (@268) has suddenly decided to add the word “active” to all his arguments, as if that’s going to clarify his confusion over the term “homosexual”.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Kerner,

    Earlier in the thread you asked about “false converts” and I endeavored to explain it to you, but was rather unsuccessful since you still didn’t grasp it.

    Anyways, here’s a book review about a book that may help you understand it better:

    Epidemic of False Conversions in U.S. Churches.

    Excerpts:

    “In their new book, Falsified: The Danger of False Conversion, authors Vincent and Lori Williams seek to use Scripture to identify what they define as an “epidemic” of false conversions currently sweeping evangelical churches in the U.S. The couple speak from personal experience, as they too were once false converts.

    “That’s the problem. All these people think ‘I just have to believe in Jesus and then I’m saved.’ And that’s what is cranking out the false conversions. There’s no repentance, there’s no turning from the sin,” she added.

    Other victims of false conversion include those who are baptized as children, believing that because they underwent this sacrament as a child, they are forever saved, no matter their moral compass as adults.”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Kerner,

    Earlier in the thread you asked about “false converts” and I endeavored to explain it to you, but was rather unsuccessful since you still didn’t grasp it.

    Anyways, here’s a book review about a book that may help you understand it better:

    Epidemic of False Conversions in U.S. Churches.

    Excerpts:

    “In their new book, Falsified: The Danger of False Conversion, authors Vincent and Lori Williams seek to use Scripture to identify what they define as an “epidemic” of false conversions currently sweeping evangelical churches in the U.S. The couple speak from personal experience, as they too were once false converts.

    “That’s the problem. All these people think ‘I just have to believe in Jesus and then I’m saved.’ And that’s what is cranking out the false conversions. There’s no repentance, there’s no turning from the sin,” she added.

    Other victims of false conversion include those who are baptized as children, believing that because they underwent this sacrament as a child, they are forever saved, no matter their moral compass as adults.”

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    So on the same thread that TUaD touted gay conversion therapy, he now wants to warn us about “false conversions” in the churches. Um, irony much?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    So on the same thread that TUaD touted gay conversion therapy, he now wants to warn us about “false conversions” in the churches. Um, irony much?

  • fws

    it is worse than that Todd.

  • fws

    it is worse than that Todd.

  • http://hunnius.blogspot.com Nick H.

    @270 TUad
    “That’s the problem. All these people think ‘I just have to believe in Jesus and then I’m saved.’ And that’s what is cranking out the false conversions. There’s no repentance, there’s no turning from the sin,” she added.
    ——————————-
    All they have to do is believe in Jesus….crickets….crickets…. I guess it would be nice to know what they mean by ‘believe in Jesus’. But, if, you know, it’s like believing in Jesus as the one who shed His blood for them, I’d say that’s a valid thing to believe, wouldn’t you? Unless we just want to deny sola fide and become Catholics. Granted, I’m not too sure what faith looks like without repentance.

  • http://hunnius.blogspot.com Nick H.

    @270 TUad
    “That’s the problem. All these people think ‘I just have to believe in Jesus and then I’m saved.’ And that’s what is cranking out the false conversions. There’s no repentance, there’s no turning from the sin,” she added.
    ——————————-
    All they have to do is believe in Jesus….crickets….crickets…. I guess it would be nice to know what they mean by ‘believe in Jesus’. But, if, you know, it’s like believing in Jesus as the one who shed His blood for them, I’d say that’s a valid thing to believe, wouldn’t you? Unless we just want to deny sola fide and become Catholics. Granted, I’m not too sure what faith looks like without repentance.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X