ECLA votes on gay issues

I agree with both you both. I'm SBC. Same holds true though. I'd not stay.

The scholar on NPR just helped me understand why the conflict exists -- why are reading it two ways. I am conservative in my religious beliefs. I believe there is sin and I don't think it should be affirmed.

I think part of the reason this particular scholar's statements meant so much to me was that I work with kids. Kids -- and their parents -- who are in your face and say, "I don't care if I'm (or my child) is rotten. You have to take me like I am and accommodate me. I've got my attorney on the other line." Then we have kids who say, "I'm so sorry (or I'll kill him when he gets home). It won't happen again." Same kind of thing -- wanting affirmation or willing to transform.

 

The Augsburg Confession Philip Melanchthon (1530)

Introduction
In 1530, Charles V, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, called together the princes and cities of his german territories in a Diet at Augsburg. He sought unity among them to fend off the attacks of Turkish armies in Eastern Austria. He called upon the Lutheran nobility to explain their religious convictions, with the hope that the controversy swirling around the challange of the Reformation might be resolved. To this end, Philip Melanchthon, a close friend of Martin Luther and a Professor of New Testament at Wittenberg University, was called upon to draft a common confession for the Lutheran Lords and Free Territories. The resulting document, the Augsburg Confession was presented to the emperor on June 25, 1530.

Text

Your Imperial Majesty's faithful subjects:

John, Duke of Saxony, Elector.
George, Margrave of Brandenburg.
Ernest, Duke of Lueneberg.
Philip, Landgrave of Hesse.
John Frederick, Duke of Saxony.
Francis, Duke of Lueneburg.
Wolfgang, Prince of Anhalt.
Senate and Magistracy of Nuremburg.
Senate of Reutlingen.

------------------------

I thought Luther stayed home because he had a writ of death or whatever the RCC issued over him.

 

Melanchton is quoted as having said of Luther, "I would rather die than be separated from this man."

Now that's friendship!

 

What if it were that and homosexuality? I'm not saying it was, but what if? Would it be any less meaningful?

(Ohgod... we're launching after all, aren't we?)

 

I know you're not saying it was, but...

Of course it would be less meaningful, just as David's relationship with Jonathan would be less meaningful if they were doing each other on the side.

And not only less meaningful, but damnably wrong.

You can make arguments from modern culture, you can make arguments from emotions--but you can't make arguments from the Scriptures (at least not when taken in any meaningful context). And if the Scriptures are what we're talking about (certainly Luther was talking about them, he was prepared to be roasted alive in support of their integrity, and many of his contemporaries suffered that very fate), then that's what you're stuck with here.

Remember "Sola Scriptura"? Actually, I'm sure you do and as a Lutheran in good standing, could likely lecture me on it. But what meaning would it have if the Scriptures are made out by modern cultural understanding to mean precisely the opposite of what they actually say? And not because of any logical exegesis or textual analysis, but because of the mood du jour.

Either the Scriptures mean what they say or they mean nothing at all.

If we can read the Scriptures and all of their pronouncements on homosexuality, and then go out and use the church to give homosexual unions a Christian imprimatur, then I do not believe that church has a right to call itself Christian. This isn't a matter of subtle interpretation about which reasonable Christian minds disagree--such as our earlier debate on the thread on dispensationalism--this is a matter of whether we're prepared (as another poster said quite eloquently) to be transformed by the Word of G-d, because we actually believe it to be such, or whether our church is just a non-spiritual social club for people who want some of the accoutrements of religion to give them a little more meaning in life.

Call it the First Egalitarian Church of the New Millenium, write your own sacred text, develop your own othodoxy, your own traditions. But leave Christianity out of it.

Those were strong words from me, Gregg. But I still love you (in a purely platonic way, of course)

 

I don't know. Do you think his marriage to Katie von Bora Luther might have been just a convenient cover-your-ass story allowing Dr. Luther plausible deniability if he were ever asked if he was on the down low?

 

"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant has thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." (2 Samuel 1:26)

 

Based on the love he had from the women he had, such as Saul's daughter Michal (who upbraided him for daring to praise G-d in public) and Bathsheeba (you know the story there), I think that statement makes perfect sense. Jonathan really loved the guy, was willing to be treasonous towards his own father--and in so doing destroy his chances to the throne of what was at the time the most powerful kingdom on earth (albeit for a very short time)--to befriend David. Must have killed David inside when he fell in battle.

 

Ted. Don't be a bulvon.

 

Dammit! Why did I ask that question!?!

I said I wouldn't bite... but then I turned around and did worse: I launched!

What's wrong with me!?!

 

What's a bulvon?

 

What he would have known of the love of his wife Michal was that she saved his hide from her father Saul who was trying to kill him (1 Samuel 19) and that Saul forced a divorce upon them and gave her to Palti (1 Samuel 25). What he would have known of the love of his wife Abigail is that she saved him from the insolence of her then-husband Nabal (1 Samuel 25) and then married David after Nabal's death. What he would have known of the love of his wives Abigail and Ahinoam was that they had been captured by the Amelkites (1 Samuel 30), though he recovered them soon therafter.

He would not have known at the time (2 Samuel 1) that he would recover Michal from her new husband Palti (2 Samuel 3) or that she would upbraid him for dancing before the Lord (2 Samuel 6). Nor would he have known yet of the love of a wife named Bathsheba, meaning daughter of Sheba/Ethiopia (2 Samuel 11).

Of course, imagine Michal's position here. David's position as the new king was based in no small part on the ancient Near Eastern principle of matrilineal succession. So David owes her, by YHWH. Not only has he taken these extra wives (Abigail and Ahinoam), but now he publicly disgraces himself in his victory procession by allowing his loincloth to flop around and show off his manhood for all the daughters of Zion to see! How much can a girl take?

 

I can never understand a religion who accepts and praises God but yet excludes one of his creations because it doesn't fit their definition of normalcy.

If god created man, then god created all men (and women). With all of their flaws - good and bad - hetero and homosexual it doesn't matter.

I still will always beleive that marriage should only be a civil manner in the eyes of the government. Of course individual religions (being private institutions), should be able to abide by their own rules.

 

a gut yiddishe vitz far Ted

A mol iz geven drai Indians. Di mama, Pocayenta, der tate, Geronowitz, un di tokhter, Minihorowitz.
Ein tog, kumt aheim Minihorowitz un zogt, "Mama, ikh vil heretn!"
"Heretn! 'siz shoyn tsait! Du bist yetst an alte moid! Zekhtsen yor alt! Ver iz der bokher?"

"Oy, Mama, hob ikh getrofn mit a bokher! Shtark, heldish, ..."

"Vos iz zain nomen?"

"Sitting Bulvon."

"Vos far a yikhus hot er?"

"Zeyn tate iz Meshigine Ferd, der gantser macher fun di Shvartsfus tribe."

"Oy, veln mir hobn a khasene! Ale di Shvartsfus, ale di Shmohawks, un di gantse mishpokhe...
Oy oy oy, mir hobn ein tsore!"

"Vos iz di mer?"

"Di tsipi iz nisht groys genuk far ale di gestn fun khasene.
Geronowitz! Geronowitz, shtey af dem tukhes un gei krig far mir a buffalo!"

"Farvus vilstu a buffalo?"

"Mitn fleish fun buffalo, ken ikh makhen a gut gedempte buffalo tsimis.
Un mitn pelts ken ikh makhen groyser di tsipi, un mir veln kenen ainleidn di gantse velt tsum khasene!"

Geit avek Geronowitz. Ein tog. Tsvei tog. Nisht ken Geronowitz.
A vokh shpeter, kumt aheim Geronowitz, mit gornisht in zeyn hent.

"Shlemeil! Vu iz mayn buffalo?" zogt Pocayente.

"Du un dayn buffalo tsimis! Ikh hob eikh beide in bod!"

"Vos iz di mer?"

"Ershtn tog, hob ikh gezen a buffalo. Nit groys genuk far tsipi, nit gut genug far tsimis. Tsveitn tug, hob ikh gezen an andere buffalo. Gut genuk, groys genuk, ober mit aza farfoilte pelts! A mieskayt fun a buffalo, hob ikh keinmol nit gezen! A por mer teg, hob ikh gezen an andere buffalo. Groys genuk, gut genuk, a perfect buffalo!"

"Nu, vuden?"

"Vuden? Bin ikh gegangn tsu shokhetn de buffalo. Hob ikh gekukt in mayn tash, un Goyishe Kop! Ikh hob genumen mit mir di milkhedike tomahawk!"

 

Sorry, Janko, but now I'm more confused than ever.

 

You're a serial launcher--and so am I. Just admit it; facing it is the first step.

 

Good one! Touche!

But he had an ephod--a priestly undergarment--on. I don't think David was exactly looking like a Chippendale's dancer swinging about out there!

 

More likely, David simply decided to entertain himself with other wives while not servicing Michal's needs. As a result, having come to the throne by matrilineal succession (being the husband of the king's daughter), he could establish the principle of patrilineal succession (leaving the throne to a son of his own choosing, and not a son-in-law through Michal, which would have been a continuation of the house of Saul).

 

Hi Jimmy - Good topic. It's one that I don't generally wade into specifically because of all the religious/political overtones (of course, the political overtones are just a reflection of the religious overtones - politicians really don't give a damn, they just don't want to lose votes). Your post demonstrates my own view, that this is just a matter of cultural evolution. One by one the votes on the issues change. It has been going on for years and it will continue. 100 years from now people will shake their heads at us for our "confusion." It doesn't matter if I think it's good or bad. It is happening and it will continue to happen. You've listed one story, here's another.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/08/12/thou_art_no_romeo/
Jack

 

I thought of coming up with some snappy little smarta-- response, but I owe you better behavior than that.

Here's what I honestly think, from my heart. I believe in the integrity of the Bible, I believe it was inspired by G-d. And as I read it, I can't help but conclude that it says the practice--if not the state of being--of homosexuality is wrong.

Normalcy is irrelevant. G-d never said that normalcy should be the standard for anything. In fact, practicing Christians are supposed to be anything but normal! "Do not be conformed to the patterns of this world...".

I do not personally believe that G-d created anyone with flaws. I believe that flaws exist because nature is out of whack and that nature is out of whack because we, in our arrogance, told G-d that we could go it alone just fine without His help, thank you. And He partially honored this request. And we are now left with a flawed world where babies die from birth defects, dictators tyrannize innocents, and people are either born with or develop myriad unnatural tendencies.

But let us suppose for the sake of argument that homosexual tendencies are inborn. This would still be of no measure. There are people born with--or develop at an early age through environmental factors--shorter fuses, higher levels of heterosexual desire, greater desires to acquire wealth, weaknesses for mind-altering substances. But would that justify the person becoming a violent tyrant, an adulterer, a thief or a drunkard?

Of course not.

We are all born with a desire to sin, to be selfish, to hate those who cross us, but does that justify acting upon these very real desires which we never asked for? Again, of course not. Not everybody has exactly the same weakness, but we all have them. And having them, even if we're born with them, doesn't justify acting upon them.

I have a fairly high libido and teach at a small college. But I can assure you that were I ever to act upon it and get caught in the embrace of a coed, my dean would not listen to any prattle about my inborn nature--he wouldn't give a rip. And my wife would be quite justified in neutering me with a ball peen hammer.