Those pesky Lutherans voted to accept gay ministers, and many of their own churches and pastors are appalled. One pastor was so embarrassed he covered up “Lutheran” on his churches sign:
“I asked that be done because I’m ashamed,” the church’s pastor, Richard Mahan, told the congregation later Sunday morning. “I’m ashamed of what the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has done to a church I’ve loved for 40 years”….
“We welcome the sinner, but we do not welcome the sin,” he told the congregation. “All are welcome, but the sin is not.”
“We have always welcomed gays and lesbians to our church, but according to the word of god, we do not believe they are to be ordained. I am not speaking out against the gay and lesbian community, but I am speaking out against the ordination of gays and lesbians as pastors and bishops and leaders of the church – and the blessing of same-sex marriages.”
I’m sure they must feel very welcomed — “Oh hai disgusting sinner, we do love you, but hate your filthy sin! No you can’t join our church! No you can’t be married here! No you can’t be ordained! But we hope you feel loved and very welcome! Jesus loves you and so do we!”
“I have been called homophobic, a racist, a hatemonger,” Mahan said. “God is in control. Maybe he just wants me to stand up for what I believe in.”
They seem to miss the irony that white people used to think similarly about black people — “Oh, we sure do love them black folk, just as long as they don’t join and preach at our churches, have any authority over us, or marry our daughters.”
How long do you think it will be before gay marriage is as accepted as interracial marriage?
“We welcome the sinner, but we do not welcome the sin.”
Translation:
“Unless you renounce your evil ways you’re not welcome here.”
At least one or two generations. I think gay marriage is much harder for many people to come to grips with emotionally. My sister married another woman and while my folks like my sister-in-law there seems to be continuing unease.
The Boomer generation will mostly continue to be uneasy with it until they die. There will be exceptions, but the majority will be uneasy with it.
The Gen X generation will be more evenly split between folks who are relaxed about it and folks who are uneasy about it. And even among the folks who are uneasy about it, there will be a split between people who denounce it and people who personally don’t like it but keep their mouths shut because they support it in theory even if they don’t like it when it’s their son or daughter who is the one with the boyfriend or girlfriend, or because they don’t want to be lumped in with bigots.
The children of Gen X and later groups will have progressively fewer and fewer people who are uneasy about it at all. Within 25 years even the churches with the exception of a few hard core hold outs will discover that the majority has left them behind and they will scramble to catch back up again.
This is pretty much the exact same pattern that interracial marriage faced. I may be a bit too optimistic about my generation (gen X), but you can lump them in with the Boomers and move the arrow up a group and the effect is the same – within 25 years all but the most conservative of churches will have turned around on this. And the conservative churches will feel the need to keep their bigotry silent and hope no one notices.
You are much more optimistic then I am. It look to me like large groups of society are marching happily back to the dark ages and unless something change we may find ourself in a world where interracial marriage are again as unacceptable as gay marriage.
In the U.S., I don’t know, because there are a lot of other factors on hand, such as a return to religiosity. However, Europe, afaik, is pretty OK with it. Maybe that influence will help.
Well, call me an optimistic Gen-X-er, too, then. I agree with you. People in their teens and twenties seem more accepting and inclusive to me. But then I’m in Massachusetts where gay marriage has been legal for years. So I’m not sure if kids and young adults around here are a good example.
“God is in control”
I always liked that excuse…
It’s basically saying, when the pressure is on, “Hey, don’t look at me! It’s His idea.”
“Oh hai disgusting sinner, we do love you, but hate your filthy sin! No you can’t join our church! No you can’t be married here! No you can’t be ordained! But we hope you feel loved and very welcome! Jesus loves you and so do we!”
The above is hilarious if you read it in a Big Gay Al (from South Park) voice.
And someone needs to ask Mahan this simple question: where does the Wholly Babble say anything about ordination of pastors in the first place?
Oh, yeah, it DOESN’T. The only thing about qualifications for any “office” in the church is regarding bishops and deacons. Jesus sure as all fire didn’t say a blessed thing about who was qualified to be a “pastor.” And what kind of crackheaded cognitive dissonance could he possess that he says that he’s NOT speaking out against the LGBT community…but, um, hell to the naw, you can’t get ordained or have your relationship affirmed or blessed in our church?
What most churches call a pastor is identical to the functions ascribed to the biblical terms of bishop or elder.
Personally I think it will become more accepted by society as a whole, and by extension religous communities.
My one quibble here is that nobody here (atheists) are relying on the Bible as a guide to morality, but do realize that a majority of Christians attempt to. A majority of atheists I’ve seen post here also know as much if not more of the Bible than the average Christian, which leads me to my problem of comparing gay marriage to interacial marriage.
The arguments I always heard against interacial marriage were complete distortions of a verse for example Genesis 1:25 where kind after kind was taken to mean black for black and white for white instead of species for species. The assumption was that there were multiple “races” instead of the biblical view of an integrated human family. I can only think of God prohibting marriage for Israelites to other nations, but that was a spiritual check to combat idolatry. Moses siblings were even struck by God for judging Moses when he took an Ethiopian wife.
On the flip side though, even though the texts aren’t numerous, there are plain commands against homosexuality in the NT and OT.
If you are going to make a moral judgement about people who don’t accept gay marriage or ordination, that’s your perogative. But I don’t think you can fault a pastor who thinks that the change in policy at ELCA is against biblical precedent, because it is.
Yes, but eating of certain meats and wearing certain fabrics were against precedent too, but we ignore those now. How about women covering their heads in church or not wearing jewelry or make-up? That is very clear in the NT, but we do it anyway. How about the ordination of women? Yes, some churches are against it and some aren’t. Most churches are against sex before marriage, but that doesn’t stop a majority of church goers from engaging in it. So, really, to continue this silliness about teh gayz being immoral is just stupid and bigoted.
Christians, take the log out of your own eye…
Oh– and fundies especially need to take the log out of their own eye because Jesus said “what you do for the least of these you do for me”, yet they are screaming and yelling about not giving the working poor health coverage. Nope, they’re concerned with keeping their money… you know, the money that Jesus said was the root of all evil…
Yes, but there’s also the ‘ick’ factor. I don’t think most bigots are motivated only by religion; it’s a convenient excuse, yes, but it’s not all. I’ve heard more than one person oppose it on “it’s different! It’s icky!!” grounds…
Your right about what “laws” we pick to follow and not follow.
The OT laws don’t carry weight any more in the sense of salvation, see Paul, but as Christians I think we can glean the motives behind those laws. Some were used to separate the Israelites from the pagan nations, hence this may be an explanation for some of the “weird” laws like not mixing fabrics or not cooking a kid in its mothers milk. Other laws have to do with the nature of humanity (identiy and purpose) and our relationship to God. I think this is where idolatry and laws prohibiting certain types of actions. The OT also prohibits murder and bestiality, do any here want to quibble over these?
The NT prohibition against jewerly was also a cultural consideration. It would also be wrong of me to pull up in a Bentley with a $5000 suit on to work at a soup kitchen, that doesn’t make nice things wrong, just how we use and abuse the abundance in our lives.
But your right about the hypcrisy of many Christians in establishing a heirarchy of sin and also being inconsistent in lifestyle (pre-marital sex). The problem is that failure to live the ideal isn’t really a knock on the ideal itself, just on the person in the situation.
Personally I try to be as humble as I can, but why can’t I be friends with those that I disagree with. I have friends that are gay but I also have friends who lie, cheat on their wives, are prideful, violent, etc. My being their friend neccessites me taking the log out of my own eye, and realizing that’s a hard thing to do continually, and therefore showing grace to everyone else. At the same time when I’m asked for advice or counsel and I can’t lie to them about what I think, to do so for expedience would be disengenous and therefore not true friendship.
All of morality is a cultural consideration. There are no ideals. Why? Because your “ideals” as you call them are (1) difficult if not impossible to define (see Plato’s dialogues if you have doubts about this), and (2) manage to change over time even within the Bible (thus making them relative and not absolute).
To tell me that gayness is an absolute sin is wrong. Gayness is a biological condition as natural as having blue eyes or being left handed. Further, attitudes toward gayness are varied across cultures and times, just as attitudes toward any behavioral disposition are. In the case of premarital sex, you could be stoned for it 2000 years ago, but today it is considered just “kicking the tires” so to speak. How about divorce? The bible says that God hates divorce, but it it perfectly acceptable today. So you think that ideally people should wait to get married to have sex and stay married to one person their whole life? And if they don’t? What are you going to do? Would you block someone from church because of these conditions? Would you block them from ordination because of them?
Okay, I’m not up on the science of this question, but I am curious. Is homosexuality (or bisexuality) always/ genetic? I was under the impression that it can be the result of sexual trauma or abuse at a young age. Am I way off base?
I am not a well educated man on the subject, but I’ve always imagined it being like being right or left handed. If you break your right arm, you learn to write with the left.
The nature (sex) and nurture (gender) components of sexuality of any kind are difficult to separate. However, gay people have certain physiological differences that very likely affect to whom they are attracted.
Also it is a huge fallacy to say that sexual trauma causes gayness. Plenty of people are sexually traumatized and remain straight. I think this fallacy is just an attempt to show that gayness is “sick,” when really it is natural.
However, here is a better discussion on all of that:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/
LRA – I know that personal testimony means little, but. My best friend was sexually abused by her father. And she’s lesbian. Though, she doesn’t remember it (clearly) and doesn’t hate men, she still has that background.
She was also raised very religiously, and tried to live as a straight woman for years. Tried coming out when she was 14, and then was put deeper into the closet for the next 8 years.
Oh no. No, no. This is residual nonsense from propaganda – being abused doesn’t change your sexual orientation. Nor is it like breaking your arm and learning to use the other…?
The misinformation that abuse can alter someone’s sexual orientation is a way to transform that orientation into something wrong. An injury – a result of something horrible – a perversion from what could have been normal. Roughly 10% of animals across species participate in homosexual behaviors and that stat is nearly the same for humans (the human animal).
Abuse: less than 10% of abuses are reported – for a wide variety of reasons (no need to go into the details – trying to keep this comment as short as possible)
Nevertheless: “The largest retrospective study on the prevalence of child sexual abuse found 27 percent of women and 16 percent of men reported abuse.”
“The National Resource Council estimates the percent of the U.S. population which has been sexually abused to range from a low of 20-24 percent to a high of 54-62 percent of the population; the higher estimate includes sexualized exposure without touching, such as masturbating in front of the child.”
Forensic Psychology is my field of study – it is very important to understand that in a room of 10 people, statistically, it is likely that a few of them have experienced some form of abuse (sexual and otherwise).
Sexual abuse can influence a lot of mental health issues – sexual problems – behavioral problems – lots and lots of stuff – but non-abused people may be gay or not – abused people may be gay or not.
What does fit closer to the concept Sock described is the understanding of pedophilia and other sexually relevant psychological disorders. That is, child molesters most likely suffered some abuse as children (sexual or otherwise) – that is NOT to say that all abused children will become abusive. Certainly not. But of those adults who are abusing children – nearly all were mistreated in their past.
Abuse as a child is a horrible thing…most often it is perpetrated by a close family member or loved one. It is the destruction of safety and love in what should be the safest environment for the child that is most traumatizing. The child is vulnerable, all power ripped from them, and they are not in control of their own bodies. If loved ones do not protect them, their view of the world is shaped very differently. Thankfully, supportive, safe environments post-abuse can deflect many of the issues that may have developed if the child had no support post-abuse.
No research shows a link with homosexuality.
Homosexuality was considered a disorder in the not too distant (and quite unfortunate) past – however, science has squashed that foolish claim.
Oops – here is a link for those quotes:
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=410&Itemid=336
Interesting! Thanks.
I have met many bisexial and lesbians so I do know that you are born like that. You do not beome gay because of something.
What I do also know is that a lot of gay people try to be hetro because that is how they have learned it to be. So chances is that suddenly a hetro becomes a gay because all this time he tried te be a hetro but failed.
The same is true for polyamory. The love for multiple partners is built into you. You don’t become polyamore, you are it. But just like gays you have learned that monogamous is the only true love so you tried to fit into your live and try to become monogamous, but unhappy since it is unnatural for you.
Note polyamory is sometimes misused by people that are totally not polyamore, they just see it as an easy way to cheat. Those people should be hanged up with their balls on a tree because they lie to their partners!
Yes, you’re just repeating lies made up by people who want to claim that being gay is demonstrably wrong.
However, sexuality doesn’t seem to have a strictly genetic component; there probably is a genetic aspect, but the biggest determinant seems to be the hormone load in the mother’s womb; for example the more older brothers you have, the more likely you are to be gay. Also, the more similar in length your index and ring finger are, the more likely you are to be gay. These are factors I’m sure you’ll agree people don’t “choose”, and being raped as a baby isn’t likely to affect them, but they also aren’t controlled entirely by genetics.
Has anybody considered what sexual trauma might do to a bi-sexual person? I don’t see how something like that could make a straight person gay or vice versa, but might it sometimes affect the preference of a person who was normally attracted to both sexes?
Heidi – certainly – as someone has already mentioned, Kinzey posited, and many support – the idea that our sexuality lies on a spectrum. Some people are closer to the extremes than others – but hardly anyone is at the absolute extremes. Think of the two ends of a line as either attraction to male or female (hetero or homosexual depending on your gender). Gender, you may find interesting, is also said to lie on a similar spectrum – some identify as fundamentally male or female in every respect, but most people do not hit the absolute extreme. Some even are born looking one way, but feel another way – but most are not born that way.
I have worked with individuals that identify as exclusively heterosexual yet experienced EXTREME heterosexual sexual, emotional, and physical trauma for years of their childhood. Some have serious sexual issues (problems w/ lubrication – refusal of any penetration (results in flashbacks and feelings of being attacked)). Interestingly, those that identify as heterosexual still hold to that orientation, yet deal with those issues (however difficultly). Furthermore, they continue to be alone or avoid getting too deep into relationships with men because they fear the “next step” of sexual contact. It doesn’t make them gay, it makes them afraid of that scenario which throughout their childhood brought them pain, fear, sadness, guilt, PAIN, powerlessness, despair, and tore freedom from them and took control of their bodies.
I can definitely imagine that someone who identifies in the middle ground of the sexuality spectrum could feel more comfortable with the end that did not inflict that horrible pain on them. If you had the capacity to love and feel fulfilled by both ends of the spectrum but your childhood was filled with one of those ends inflicting horrible pain and humiliation on you – it would hold to reason and theory that one might avoid the dangerous and gravitate to the comfortable.
However, many clients that are heterosexual and abused heterosexually remain heterosexual throughout life. Your middle spectrum question would allow for more flux.
Thanks. I’ve wondered that for a while, and thought maybe that was why people think supposedly straight people magically turn gay after a trauma. Maybe they weren’t straight to begin with.
My sister’s ex-partner was gang-raped when she was 12. I don’t know if she normally would have been bi- or not, but it has made me wonder if some people who are, have that experience.
Also, many churches do not allow divorced and remarried people to be elders. “Husband of one wife” and all that. From the NT, those who are divorced and remarried are completely and totally allowed to attend church.
Also, tag fail… :(
I would say that your right in that “morality” seems to evolve over time and we often view a subject changes. I think that those changes however still don’t exclude the idea that morality can be absolute, my apologies to Plato. (we don’t have cover the euthyphro dilemma here). Though we disagree on the details we all have the moral backdrops such as fairness, justice, etc. You said that to declare “gayness” as an absolute sin was wrong. Well is it wrong for us right now, or how about 2000 years ago, or even better 2000 years in the future. My guess is that you would say always and everywhere, which in my book is an absolute you given.
for your last question about blocking ordination of people with past issues. I can only appeal to the criteria listed by Paul and so yes there would be a list of people I wouldn’t think as worthy of ordination. Among those would be drunks, those with violent tempers, lazy couch potatoes, the foolish, etc.
“You said that to declare “gayness” as an absolute sin was wrong. Well is it wrong for us right now, or how about 2000 years ago, or even better 2000 years in the future. My guess is that you would say always and everywhere, which in my book is an absolute you given.”
Nope. I would say it is wrong now. I would say that I can’t judge what people were doing in a different culture 2000 year ago because I wasn’t there.
That is a valid point, Barry. Though, in the case of homosexuality, that’s not the real issue. It’s sex that’s the issue. And I’ve to say that from the beginning of time to the end of time, sex is absolutely fine.
No one is trying to force straight men to have their tight buttholes invaded. It’s all about sex, which is usually done between two consenting adults. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
Well is it wrong in our world as a whole, or just Western industrialized nations? Is it wrong in the U.S. or just in the deep south and bible belt. Or maybe it’s wrong in the next town over and okay in my town. There is often different cultural assumptions even within my own family. At the end of the day you’ll land on some absolute statement even if it just happens to be your opinion on what is right or wrong.
Which is why I’m glad we live in a democracy! Especially one that allows morals to evolve over time.
Lol I’m glad I live in a democracy too. But also remember democracy in a double edged sword, just as it will reflect the positive changes of morality in culture it can and will reflect negative ones as well.
Ah, but it’s only “wrong” for some people. Who is right?
Hellenistic cultures had no problem with homosexuality. Neither did the Chinese, for a long time. Some cultures embrace it, some don’t, some religions speak against it, some don’t give a crap – who’s got the correct absolute moral?
I would say that to declare gayness *any* kind of sin is wrong. That’s like saying it’s a sin to be left-handed.
I would further say that it has always been wrong, and always will be wrong. The fact that people were ignorant 2000 years ago doesn’t somehow make what they did right.
Heidi: agreed.
To say something natural, over which people have no control, that harms no one, is a “sin”, is silly.
Sorry to nitpick, but 2000 years ago, waaay before Christianity, homosexuality was a non-issue, especially in Ancient Greece. It wasn’t endorsed as a preferrable attraction or anything, but it certainly did not result in being stoned to death.
Personally I try to be as humble as I can, but why can’t I be friends with those that I disagree with. I have friends that are gay but I also have friends who lie, cheat on their wives, are prideful, violent, etc. My being their friend neccessites me taking the log out of my own eye, and realizing that’s a hard thing to do continually, and therefore showing grace to everyone else. At the same time when I’m asked for advice or counsel and I can’t lie to them about what I think, to do so for expedience would be disengenous and therefore not true friendship.
Please tell me you’re not attempting to equate one’s innate sexuality with cheating, lying, violent actions and so forth.
Well the phrase “worthy of ordination” was also used for those eligible to be church leaders. So though Biblical inerrantists claim equality for all “roles”, their language betrays them. There are definite higher values placed on those they deem eligible for church offices.
The OT laws don’t carry weight any more in the sense of salvation, see Paul,
Really? See Jesus.
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”(Matt. 5:18-19)
that doesn’t make nice things wrong, just how we use and abuse the abundance in our lives.
You wanna know why I laugh when I hear the phrase “biblical morality”? This is why.
“And the multitudes asked him, “What then shall we do?” And he answered them, “He who has two coats, let him share with him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise.” (Luke 3:10-11)
“Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.” (James 5:1-5)
If you’re reading this on a personal computer, you’re probably in the top 1% of the worlds population in terms of wealth. I think the Gospels make pretty clear what we’re supposed to do with that abundance: get rid of it. The early church fathers went so far as to say that superfluity was theft; having more than you need means depriving someone else and is therefore a sin.
Look at the disciples in Acts 2:44-45: “All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.”
These were the disciples of Jesus and their immediate followers. They essentially gave all their possession to the community and lived simple lives. But what did they know? They’d just known Jesus, heard Jesus, spoken with Jesus and seen how Jesus conducted himself. We’ve got the bible!
*claps*
You, sir, are the bomb!
Your interpretation is flawed on Mt 5:18-19, even Peter an apostle gave up the dietary laws. Your take isn’t unlike that of the Pharisees who accused Jesus of breaking the sabbath Mt. 12:1-12. They and many other miss the heart of the law and also great teachings like that found in the Sermon on the Mount.
James is dealing with the idolatry of trusting in wealth and the sin of cheating those out of their due fruit.
But at the end of the day your not wrong about the excess of the Western church, especially here in America. Jesus and Paul both warned about trusting in money and not being generous, but what we often get are two extreme arguments on this topic. The first is yours, that all Christians should subject themselves to abject poverty, but this simply isn’t found in the Bible and often material blessings are pointed to as a sign of favour Proverbs 3:9-10. We should be generous with what we are given though, and help those that we can. The second extreme which is more popular, is that if your not healthy and wealthy you aren’t one of Gods elect. Another tangent of this extreme is that capitalism is ordained by God and anything socialistic at all is from the Devil. Many believe this, but it’s another extreme that I find to be difficult to reconcile with many teachings like the Sermon on the Mount.
Again the ideal is the involvement in community and realizing that all we have, even if it’s not a lot, is a blessing and one that we should share when we are called on. But this call isn’t to be used as a bludgeon wielded indiscriminately. If I lived in homeless shelter in the US I’d still be living better than the majority of the world.
Vorjack…
You are viewing the (seemingly) harsh, legalistic words from a (self) performance perspective. Self effort is self defeating. Christ is the only One capable of fulfilling the law. When Paul had the revelation that “its no longer “I” who lives but Christ who is (doing the living) in me” Gal 2.20 then you begin to get the picture.
John said “I must decrease and He (Christ in me) must increase. When we have decreased to the point that there’s nothing left of us…then who’s left? That is the definition of Christian “perfection” but few comprehend it. We are merely containers as scripture says that we “carry this treasure (Christ, this pearl of great price) in our earthen vessels” meaning in our bodies.
The true gospel message is one of liberty, not burdensome, not religious (Jesus saying “my burden is easy, my load is light so take my burden upon you) but very few know the liberating “truth that makes us free” and so try and carry their own (heavy) burdens of fulfilling the law, being “moral”, etc.
Only Christ can fulfill the law in us, you and I cant do it. The question is, how dead (to ourselves, old identities) are we willing to be and how alive (unto Him) will we make (humble) ourselves. The true measure of a man’s worth in the kingdom of God (in the here and now) is summed up in that very equation.
If anyone is (sincerely) interested in reading a good little book on that same subject I would be happy to recommend it…but I’m not holding my breath, lol. All the very best to my unbelieving friends today.
That’s a convenient excuse to avoid doing what Jesus himself told you folks to do, starting from the principle you’ll never be able to measure up anyway.
What if “we” were never intended to “measure up”? Would be liberating eh? And what if it wasn’t about performance anyway, but love and grace? And what if the truth was better than we could ever imagine….so most of us simply…dont, but oh if we did.
Take care Siberia…
John, I don’t know whether you’ve missed my point or proven it.
Further, I think you’re missing about half of the concept of “Christian liberty,” at least as it was defined during the Reformation. Yes, it means that we are saved by the grace of God due to the sacrifice of Christ. Yes, it means that we are free from the cycle of breaking the commandment by coveting salvation. But having accepted Jesus as our savior and attained the state of Christian liberty, what then?
The reformers argued that once we’d realized that salvation no longer depended on good works, we would still continue to do good works. Not because they were necessary for salvation, not because we were bound by the law, but simply because they were good works. Luther argued that Christians would actually perform more good works simply out of gratitude to the Lord.
It’s very similar to the Buddhist concept of detachment. A monk who has attained enlightenment will continue to live an ascetic lifestyle and do works of charity, even though he no longer needs the insight such a lifestyle granted him. He also no longer craves the feeling of altruism. He continues because he realizes that such works are good for their own sake.
In fact, if the monk attained enlightenment and immediately went to the bar to look for prostitutes, we’d seriously question whether he’d actually become enlightened. Just the same, we have to wonder about someone who accepts Jesus as savior without it affecting their upper-middle class lifestyle. Why are you worried about your house when God has given you a mansion in heaven? Why not sell your house and give the proceeds to someone who is too tired and hungry to hear the message of Jesus? Why this attachment to worldly affluence? Where is your gratitude? Perhaps you really haven’t internalized the meaning of the crucifixion.
Of course, doing good works requires knowing which works are good. That’s presumably why we have moral lessons in the Gospels. Again, Jesus makes clear that “living simply so that others may simply live” is a good work. His immediate followers, who would presumably know what Jesus wanted better than we do, created a commune. Frankly, I can’t see how your reformed Christian theology can trump that simple fact. You seem to be declaring that you know Jesus and his message far better than the people he actually lived with and preached to.
John;
It may be liberating, the way being a sub can be liberating: surrender all control, all worries. But in the cold reality of day, all I’d find is emptiness – nothing to strive for, nothing to wish for, nothing to dream for. Meaningless.
And that still doesn’t excuse inaction – because even if you don’t need it, don’t require it, why wouldn’t you do it? Like Vorjack said, why do you need all the security and coziness if you have something so much better – freedom?
>>Again, Jesus makes clear that “living simply so that others may simply live” is a good work. His immediate followers, who would presumably know what Jesus wanted better than we do, created a commune.<<
Yeah, and I learned about this more after I left Christianity than while I was in it. I find this is pretty key in understanding Jesus – that so many churches glide right by it is surprising and dishonest.
"You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." ( Mark 10:21)
And of course, there is the widow's offering.
I do think one could argue that Jesus did not *mandate* giving away possessions but he did strongly imply it is the highest calling. This is just like singleness. Both Jesus and Paul say that singleness is the higher calling – but today's fundamentalist churches ignore these passages and claim the highest calling is marriage.
Liberal Christians note often that Jesus spoke WAY more about sharing with others than sexual relations of any kind. Yet you would never guess that from the behavior of Bible Christians.
If I were to guess the number of people even attempting to live fully Biblically in the world, it would have to be under a half a million – and most of them probably aren't even Christians.
Some of today’s fundamentalist churches focus on the church community in lieu of commune living. There is a sense of taking care of each other within a given particular church and that is based on early Christian behavior. Now what I’ve seen in practice is that is pretty limited and I agree with you that Jesus really advocated limitless giving.
“You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” ( Mark 10:21)
And of course, there is the widow’s offering.
I do think one could argue that Jesus did not *mandate* giving away possessions but he did strongly imply it is the highest calling. This is just like singleness. Both Jesus and Paul say that singleness is the higher calling – but today’s fundamentalist churches ignore these passages and claim the highest calling is marriage.
Liberal Christians note often that Jesus spoke WAY more about poverty than sexual relations of any kind. Yet you would never guess that from what people scream about the loudest. If I were to guess the number of people even attempting to live fully Biblically in the world, it would have to be under a half a million – and most of them probably aren’t even Christians.
(sorry if this is a double post, posted before but didn’t see the first attempt)
Incidentally….after leaving Christianity and the evangelical Protestant interpretation of the Bible….looking at the book with fresher eyes….I can see more clearly why the Catholic Church has some of its practices. The whole priests not marrying and clergy orders taking vows of poverty – for example – are totally Biblical. They may have it more Biblically right than the Luther followers these days (at least in theory).
Why? I think it would be pretty cool to see a rich guy rolling up his sleeves and pitching in. It would show that your whole attitude isn’t “throw money at it until it goes away.” Granted, you might mess up the suit, so it would be a poor choice on those grounds. But were you going to buy a new car just to use for volunteer work? That doesn’t make sense.
Barry, you can’t have your biblical cake and eat it too. If you’re going to delve back into the OT to support bigoted nonsense against homosexuals, then you have to support those who read the OT as supporting bigoted nonsense against Africans. Of course, if you want to use the OT to support one bit of nonsense, then you have to take into account the other six hundred bits of nonsense (what the frak does cooking a calf in it’s mother’s milk have to do with holiness anyway?).
And as far as the NT is concerned, the Christian church *hardly* looks anything like its first century predecessor both in form and content (let’s not even talk about rapture theology, which is–say it with me–a distortion of random passages from the NT). Not too many American Christians are “selling all they have and giving to the poor,” are they? And as far as the NT being “plain” about homosexuality–wrong. First, the composers of the NT had no idea of “homosexuality”–their beef was about sexual acts; now, clearly, we understand that sexuality is a great deal more complex and involved than merely where one sticks what in whom. It is the height of illogicality to appeal to a set of Bronze Age writings in order to condemn different sexual orientations.
“It is the height of illogicality to appeal to a set of Bronze Age writings in order to condemn different sexual orientations.”
So what’s the big deal, then? Most of the people commenting on this site don’t think that religion has anything to do with logic or rationality.
The big deal is that the moral compass of the society is still determined by its majority, and if the bronze age book the the majority says dictates their morality sez “stone dem gays”, and you happen to be gay and live in that society, it becomes a big deal in a practical way for you, despite your opinion about where the stuff in the book came from or whether it is rational.
To the majority, I would also add the powerful. There are many moral constructs emanating from power not numbers – even our own democracy was established because the European settlers militarily overpowered the indigenous tribes of North America. If you can physically force others to live by your morality, then your morality rules.
Very true.
As for the OT see my previous comment to LRA.
I think it may be arrogant to say that the composers of the NT had no idea of homosexuality and that they were dealing only with sex acts. We may know more about genetic factors that influence our makeup, but I don’t even know homosexuals who separate their identity from the sexual acts or at least attraction.
Paul was clearly condemning same sex acts, some have tried to say that it was outcry against temple prostitution or against heterosexuals engaging in homosexual activities, but for me those explanations are against the context of the passage in which the verses are found.
My point wasn’t to try to establish grounds for a biblical ethic, just that that ethic has been viewed on the Christian church to be monogamous and heterosexual and the the ELCA decision goes against it. Therefore to attack the pastor on the grounds that were being given was unfair.
The Holy word of God would cover everything in each testament, don’t you think?
Also, who cares what Paul thought? He was clearly a misogynistic bastard.
Out of curiosity, what hetero would engage in gay sex? You mean like when women have anal with their boyfriend?
“Also, who cares what Paul thought? He was clearly a misogynistic bastard.”
As i said I wasn’t trying to establish grounds for the biblical ethic, just defending the pastor’s understanding of what that ethic is.
You really don’t know anyone who is in a heterosexual relationship who has experimented with homosexual actions? I know a girl who was as outgoing of a lesbian as you could be for the first 5 years i knew her, and she just got engaged………………to a man. And as far as I know she hasn’t gone through any kind of religious conversion to force such a change.
That doesn’t mean she’s hetero. That means she’s bi.
jonjon
” I was under the impression that it can be the result of sexual trauma or abuse at a young age. Am I way off base?”
you are not only off base but waaaay off the fucking map
Well, I am aware of cases where this is claimed as the cause. As I clearly said, however, I’m not an expert nor particularly well researched on this topic.
Really? I’ve seen people claim that, but mostly just baseless gossip about someone or another.
Then again, nurture has a powerful influence on people, as much as nature. A lot of gay people manage to lie their way through heterosexuality precisely because of that; doesn’t make them heteros, just unhappy. Throw bisexuality in the midst – and if one’s to believe Kinsey’s study, most everyone lies somewhere in the bisexual lane – and it muddles things even more.
And of course, there are those like me, who hate everyone equally. :D
Certainly that is true, being molested could turn you around in all sorts of ways. And I’m sure that a few people “chose to be that way”. But many others — perhaps most, but my sample size is somewhat small — are simply naturally attracted to the same gender. Did you choose to like girls?
How does what other people do in their bedroom affect you at all — at all. The only rationale I can think of is wanting to keep the vicinity free of iniquity, so Yahweh won’t hit your town with a hurricane or something, which you know is silly.
No victim, no crime. Consenting adults and all.
Paul’s whole theology is based on a literal Adam and Eve (Christ as the second Adam). If you can’t trust Paul about justification by faith, why would you set up his statements about gay people as infallible?
Bisexual people exist, y’know.
Then again, I couldn’t care less about what Paul said or didn’t say.
How is that arrogant to say that the writers of the NT knew nothing about sexuality (and knew nothing of homo- or heterosexuality)? You do realize that sodomy at one point meant *any* sexual activity that didn’t lead to procreation, regardless of gender, don’t you? Also, you do realize that the term “homosexual” didn’t come about until 1869 in Germany, don’t you?
And it’s no attack to call this alleged “pastor” a bigot; it’s merely stating the bleeding obvious.
I wonder if the whole “abomination” thing wasn’t a way for self-affirmation of their culture, either. Sure, they were pretty damn patriarchal, but so were the Romans, and they were pretty OK with same-sex lovin’ – as long as he eventually shacked up and bred. Likewise with the Greeks and, afaik, the Egyptians.
One can interpret Paul’s rant against the Romans in Romans ch. 1 as a way of saying “Hey, the Romans totally suck–don’t be like them at all!” and, much like the political rhetoric of today, picks up on one, two, or three points and blows them all up to be damned. After all, this burgeoning cult was trying to find ways to distinguish itself from the world which surrounded it. Heck, look at how the writer of Acts makes the philosophers of the time appear…the writing sounds a LOT like the stuff coming out of religious corners today; take one good gander at the ID v. evolution debates, and those who support a “young earth,” as well as other religious-inspired stuff immediately begin attacking intellectuals and the rest of the culture as vile, devious, etc, etc.
“How long do you think it will be before gay marriage is as accepted as interracial marriage?”
I don’t know about you, but even interracial marriage is pretty unaccepted where I live. And among the older people in my family. Perhaps once they all die it will be more acceptable. As for homosexual marriage, I think it will be 50 years at least before it starts to be accepted outside of very liberal places.
I’ve had a similar experience. Before she moved, I had a black friend who used to LOVE being seen in public with me because of the looks we’d get as people would assume that we were an interracial couple. I noticed it too, after she pointed it out to me. So much animosity in those stares. From both races.
That’s depressing.
Once people stop making a big deal out of gay marriage, it won’t be a big deal at all
The bible also says , don’t covet, kill, lust, so by that standard all churches should be empty since not one of us is without sin. I can’t believe I followed such bullshit.
I was considered to be in an interracial marraige when I lived in the south. We’d hear Bubba spouting some kind of scripture in our general direction as he would pinch the ass off a passing waitress, go figure.
Is this numbskull actually suggesting that the ordained are sin-free?
As I recall the things I was taught about chrisitanity and sin, was that all sins were considered equal. So, how is it that this guy, along with many others, has decided to classify one type of ‘sin’ as to be above others in severity and therefore keep one from being ordained?
The hypocrisy drives me nuts! I’m so thankful I shed all this nonsense beginning about 5 years ago.
From what I remember from Lutheran clergy explaining it to me, because gay folks do not repent of their “sin” – they claim it as just the way they are, the way they were born, and don’t plan to stop being gay, then they are unfit – because a pastor can easily be sorry for everything he or she does.
The argument also was always that “gay peeps cannot get married, therefore being gay means you participate in sexual acts outside of marriage – boom, sin.” But if they are allowed to marry (as our society slowly wakes-up) then the Lutherans fall backwards to just being gay is wrong. I don’t know why they don’t just step forward and say…nah, they’re cool.
Because! The Book!
WOW, aren’t priests that are men not supposed to be married with god and Jezus?
A bit off topic, but on BBC 4 is no running the documentart “The Cell”.
We are about to create life!
And I mean completely new life from scratch that never existed before custom made.
Somewhere in the next year. This life will have a real creator!
Christians: Yeah, but we didn’t poof life out of nothing, therefore God exists and his name is Jehovah and he hates the same people I do.
I think that about sums up the predictable reactions…
Said a certain pope: “Scientists would adulterate the God-wanted grammar of life”. To take God’s place without being God was insanely arrogant, dangerous and risky.
I wish I could be paid for just talking out of my ass like that.
You know those creationists always clame that there are no transitional fossiles, but the transitional fossiles they expect like the crocoduck would actually proof that god exists since evolution tells us that these cannot exist.
But with this new technology we can actually create a real transitional living crocoduck. LOL
I wonder why the platypus doesn’t count in the crockoduck family.
Mammals that make omelettes should be in a class by themselves. :)
Yeah, what would be a “transitional form”, exactly? Every form is transitional. Taxonomy is artificial, strictly there is no such thing as “species”, it’s all more or less a gradient. I am distantly related to the tree outside the window; as far as we know, there is only one kind of life on Earth.
We are looking at a snapshot of an inconceivably vast ocean of time. If human civilization survives for a hundred thousand years, they will still be looking at a freeze-frame, an instant, evolution on Pause.
Many arguments against evolution seem to rely on misconceptions about evolution.
Fifty years at most. By then everyone who cares will be dead or irrelevantly old.
On second thought, “everyone” is a bit expansive. Interracial marriage isn’t completely accepted, either.
Churches are embarrassed over ANY progress. Is anyone surprised by this reaction? I’m not.
“Hate the sin, love the sinner” is such a veiled statement. Under that logic, you can say “we love women, so we won’t let them do anything,” or, “oh, we love people, but we think some should be bought and sold as property.”
Oh wait, those are in the Bible, too.