The thread for info on churches voting to change affiliation & all follow-up.

[SmithL]

How about Genesis and Matthew where one man and one woman are mentioned?

Doesn't say that one man and one man are excluded.

They were excluded.
If two men were not included in the definition of marriage, then they were excluded.  If you want to pretend that it's OK for two men to marry, then you must also accept every other possible pairing that isn't mentioned.

[Michael Slusser]

Haven't there been thirteen other threads on this topic?

Peace,
Michael

[Scott6]

Haven't there been thirteen other threads on this topic?

Peace,
Michael

Thirteen?  Much more than that, methinks -- up to 13 times 13.  With the same inanities arguments from Brian every time.

[Team Hesse]

There is one reality Brian. That is what is real, and is true. or so many of us have tried to assert.

That reality is only known to us through our perceptions of it.

Kant, right? autonomy rules! How really out of synch with Christian thought this is.

Lou

[Team Hesse]

Haven't there been thirteen other threads on this topic?

Peace,
Michael

Thirteen?  Much more than that, methinks -- up to 13 times 13.  With the same inanities arguments from Brian every time.

But for the sake of first-timers and lurkers.....

Lou

[Bergs]

Haven't there been thirteen other threads on this topic?

Peace,
Michael

An excellent point Father Slusser!    Perhaps the good people on both sides of this issue might take this argument and creat a FAQ page.  Then as soon as it starts, someone can post a link to the debate and new readers can quickly be transported to see each side's fine debate points.  I have to admit learning much from this debate the first time I read it but like you have tired of seeing it played out again and again.  Being good theologians, the participants will yield little and rise to each occasion for immediate engagement.  So think about it folks.

Brian J. Bergs
Minneapolis, MN

[Scott6]

There is one reality Brian. That is what is real, and is true. or so many of us have tried to assert.

That reality is only known to us through our perceptions of it.

Kant, right? autonomy rules! How really out of synch with Christian thought this is.

Lou

Yes, Brian's obviousness needs to be called out.  The fact that we perceive phenomenon via different forms of signs in no way affects the way reality is, independent of our perceptions, which may be more or less accurate to that reality (John Deely is quite good on this, btw; for folks who are interested, check out his trilogy where he brings Augustine, Descartes and Peirce into conversation with Poinsot).  If it weren't this way, the entire scientific enterprise would collapse.

[Scott6]

Haven't there been thirteen other threads on this topic?

Peace,
Michael

An excellent point Father Slusser!    Perhaps the good people on both sides of this issue might take this argument and creat a FAQ page.  Then as soon as it starts, someone can post a link to the debate and new readers can quickly be transported to see each side's fine debate points.  I have to admit learning much from this debate the first time I read it but like you have tired of seeing it played out again and again.  Being good theologians, the participants will yield little and rise to each occasion for immediate engagement.  So think about it folks.

Brian J. Bergs
Minneapolis, MN

Quite true, which is why I've, as a general rule, stopped engaging Brian on this issue.  The problem is, as Lou notes, that there are first-time visitors and occasional lurkers who are ignorant of past debates.  I think I'll start a thread for all things dealing with homosexual behavior, and perhaps all discussion could be confined there.  It was only a year or so ago that I came up with the idea of creating a type of annotated bibliography referencing previous posts on the issue under debate.  If I have time, perhaps I'll do so again so that when Brian brings up argument X, response Y will be ready to hand.

[Maryland Brian]

There is one reality Brian. That is what is real, and is true. or so many of us have tried to assert.

That reality is only known to us through our perceptions of it.

Kant, right? autonomy rules! How really out of synch with Christian thought this is.

Lou

Or "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe." Gravity is only perception.  We know this because it's lithe flying: the fine art of throwing yourself at the ground and missing.

[Timotheus Verinus]

There is one reality Brian. That is what is real, and is true. or so many of us have tried to assert.

That reality is only known to us through our perceptions of it.

Kant, right? autonomy rules! How really out of synch with Christian thought this is.

Lou

Yes, Brian's obviousness needs to be called out.  ...(John Deely is quite good on this, btw; for folks who are interested, check out his trilogy where he brings Augustine, Descartes and Peirce into conversation with Poinsot).  If it weren't this way, the entire scientific enterprise would collapse.

Actually Johann Georg Hamann pretty much handed Kant his head along these lines, such that Kant threw up his hands and gave up arguing. That ongoing real world direct dialog is worth examining as well.

I won't speak to science, but I was once dragging fighters across the Pacific Ocean, and every one had an opinion and perception of a storm we faced. One tough fighter jock didn't want to go into the storm, a navigator figured we could go a little further south and burn some more fuel and still get around it, etc. etc. We turned into it and barely made it to the beaches (LAX and El Toro) with empty tanks. What we didn't argue was whose perception seemed reasonable, and how maybe both were right ... We were mostly preoccupied with reality, and trying to get our perceptions lined up with that.

TV

[Scott6]

There is one reality Brian. That is what is real, and is true. or so many of us have tried to assert.

That reality is only known to us through our perceptions of it.

Kant, right? autonomy rules! How really out of synch with Christian thought this is.

Lou

Yes, Brian's obviousness needs to be called out.  ...(John Deely is quite good on this, btw; for folks who are interested, check out his trilogy where he brings Augustine, Descartes and Peirce into conversation with Poinsot).  If it weren't this way, the entire scientific enterprise would collapse.

Actually Johann Georg Hamann pretty much handed Kant his head along these lines, such that Kant threw up his hands and gave up arguing. That ongoing real world direct dialog is worth examining as well.

Milbank would agree as he traces the influence for his "radical orthodoxy" via a Hamann-Vico trajectory.  However, I'm not speaking of theological / metaphysical speculation along those lines but rather a semiotic analysis of human interaction with nature and with God via His signs in revelation.  It's an entirely different line of critique.

[Paul L. Knudson]

During the run up to the 2009 assembly, it was the common assumption that much of the opposition to the actions soon to be taken came from the Dakotas and the rural Minnesota synods.  A look at the blog identifying the votes from around the country reveals that to date very few congregations from the Dakotas and rural Minnesota have left the ELCA.  Indeed from the most liberal of Minnesota Synods, the Minneapolis Synod several congregations have left.  Go figure.

Erma or someone else from South or North Dakota what light can you shed on the dirth of congregations from these synods leaving.  I would imagine Bishop Zellmer is mighty proud of holding the troups in line to date.  Don't think actual leaving to date tells the whole story.  I know of several places where there is considerable disagreement and unrest.  Still few if any churches have left from South Dakota.  This is a bit hard to believe.

[Timotheus Verinus]

During the run up to the 2009 assembly, it was the common assumption that much of the opposition to the actions soon to be taken came from the Dakotas and the rural Minnesota synods.  A look at the blog identifying the votes from around the country reveals that to date very few congregations from the Dakotas and rural Minnesota have left the ELCA.  Indeed from the most liberal of Minnesota Synods, the Minneapolis Synod several congregations have left.  Go figure.

Erma or someone else from South or North Dakota what light can you shed on the dirth of congregations from these synods leaving.  I would imagine Bishop Zellmer is mighty proud of holding the troups in line to date.  Don't think actual leaving to date tells the whole story.  I know of several places where there is considerable disagreement and unrest.  Still few if any churches have left from South Dakota.  This is a bit hard to believe.

You see the same thing in South Carolina, where the Synod (only one?) has resisted, bringing overtures to overturn the CWA. There is some patience and expectation that Synod / Bishop will not follow the examples of others ... rightly or wrongly. Organizations like OLSC are keeping ciongregations in, as they wait.

TV

[bluejay]

Is it true that in 2002-03 the ELCA lobbied the U.S. congress in support of partial-birth abortion? If so, where would this be documented? If it is true, I didn't know about it and doubt my ELCA friends did either. Might be one of many reasons to consider leaving the ELCA.

Thanks.

bluejay
Laity

[Christopher Miller]

During the run up to the 2009 assembly, it was the common assumption that much of the opposition to the actions soon to be taken came from the Dakotas and the rural Minnesota synods.  A look at the blog identifying the votes from around the country reveals that to date very few congregations from the Dakotas and rural Minnesota have left the ELCA.  Indeed from the most liberal of Minnesota Synods, the Minneapolis Synod several congregations have left.  Go figure.

Erma or someone else from South or North Dakota what light can you shed on the dirth of congregations from these synods leaving.  I would imagine Bishop Zellmer is mighty proud of holding the troups in line to date.  Don't think actual leaving to date tells the whole story.  I know of several places where there is considerable disagreement and unrest.  Still few if any churches have left from South Dakota.  This is a bit hard to believe.

As a soon-to-be-former pastor of the Eastern North Dakota Synod, I'll tell you exactly why. Too many congregations in "Region 3" have gotten stuck in survival mode, and any change is perceived as "rocking the boat", and therefore dangerous to the survival of the congregation. They are too worried about their building or alienating their friends in the small town to make a stand that they may know is right. They just want everything to look nice in order that they can slowly die as opposed to quickly die.

[/rant]