So what about Joseph?

[George Erdner]

Can't you people stop making it all about sex and arguments about sex (and, before you even pipe up about it, arguing that commitment is more important than sex is still an argument about sex) for once and peacefully contemplate the mystery of the Incarnation? 

How does one contemplates the mystery of the Incarnation via posts in a discussion forum? When I contemplate such things, I sit alone and quietly with my thoughts, in a contemplative manner. The nature of a forum such as this is to engage in back and forth exchanges of ideas, not contemplation. How does one "peacefully contemplate" anything by making posts in an internet discussion forum?

[Coach-Rev]

Indeed, let's use the Holy Family as a way to shoehorn in homosexual "marriages" or "unions."

Any such idea is vile, disgusting and perverse.

 

the fuzzball asks,

And who exactly is doing that?

Hmm, Jeffrey Johnson, one of those expelled in 1989 and recently re-admitted to the ELCA roster, for one.  Back in 1994, I wrote a rebuttal article that was published in the (then) Great Commission Network's newsletter.  It rebutted his position that Jesus was gay and engaged in gay sex with a "young man" who purportedly spent the night with him, which he took from a gnostic fragment that is not accepted to be part of mark's Gospel.

Suffice to say that several key mistranslations of the greek led him to his false and perverted conclusions, which when translated appropriately and properly make no assertions even close to what Johnson asserted in his article from the LLGM newsletter.

FYI, Johnson is one of the key players in bringing about the changes that occurred at the 2009 CWA, and has been since the formation of the ELCA.

So in answer to your question: Jeffrey Johnson, that's who.

[Coach-Rev]

and talk about topic drift!  Sheesh.   

[Steven Tibbetts]

The nature of a forum such as this is to engage in back and forth exchanges of ideas, not contemplation. How does one "peacefully contemplate" anything by making posts in an internet discussion forum?

I'd say that's Keith's point; this was a post for contemplating, not debating.

[DCharlton]

Bunk! I stated numerous times that...  came from a book I read in the early 70's,

 

[Richard Johnson]

Hmm, Jeffrey Johnson, one of those expelled in 1989 and recently re-admitted to the ELCA roster, for one. 

Not "re-admitted," since he was never admitted in the first place.

[totaliter vivens]

People, people...

The text is being ignored here. The structure and grammar of the pericope clearly show that the point of this passage is the announcement of the impending birth of the Savior and His Name. Matthew is NOT interested in mechanics or making pronouncements beyond the announcement of the imminent Incarnation.

SPS
 

[Charles_Austin]

I asked who was equating the Holy Family with any discussion about same sex unions and coachrev wrote:
Hmm, Jeffrey Johnson, one of those expelled in 1989 and recently re-admitted to the ELCA roster, for one.  Back in 1994, I wrote a rebuttal article that was published in the (then) Great Commission Network's newsletter. 

I respond:
Of course, I was asking who here, in this forum, was doing that, not what someone who was not on the ELCA clergy roster said 16 years ago. Some of us do not yank out decades-old declarations clearly indicating a pathological homophobia and if we did so, today's "traditionalists" would say: "Well! I don't believe that!" So let's keep the discussion current.

[Coach-Rev]

I asked who was equating the Holy Family with any discussion about same sex unions and coachrev wrote:
Hmm, Jeffrey Johnson, one of those expelled in 1989 and recently re-admitted to the ELCA roster, for one.  Back in 1994, I wrote a rebuttal article that was published in the (then) Great Commission Network's newsletter. 

I respond:
Of course, I was asking who here, in this forum, was doing that, not what someone who was not on the ELCA clergy roster said 16 years ago. Some of us do not yank out decades-old declarations clearly indicating a pathological homophobia and if we did so, today's "traditionalists" would say: "Well! I don't believe that!" So let's keep the discussion current.

So the fuzzball now accuses me of "pathological homophobia" eh?  Dang, well I guess you nailed it!  Charles said it about me, so it must be true!  Thanks for enlightening me as to my true nature!  I could have never figured that out so it means so much that you've got it figured out for me!!! 

Come on Charles, you can't do any better than that??  That's the typical, stock answer to anyone who objects to the 2009 CWA actions: they are a homophobe.

Why do I even bother getting sucked into these threads, and WORSE, this incessant topic drift, often created by the likes of you?  Maybe I'll have to add to the moderator's woes and start complaining about all of your name calling... 

[Harvey_Mozolak]

I have restrained myself.  But if you look back to the first couple of pages, this was a very nice (not sicky sweet), even perceptive topic that even fed my sermon last night and today thanks to what Richard wrote about Joseph's fear of true and close up holiness.  Sad.  So what about us?   No such fear on our parts.   You know there is a meeting that talks about what to do about the fact that there is too much to save of our postings.  I have come up with a methodology which is sort of not nice but also makes me feel better.  When a thread that I start has somewhat run its course and either gets side tracked or just is plain over, I have gone back and deleted all  my postings.  That loses a history I suppose, altho it is my own to keep if I want, but it also sort of guts any misuse and thwarts thread drift that is innane when compared to where the topic could be going either in intent or even fruitful drift.    Ah, back to St. Joseph, guardian...      Harvey Mozolak

[Coach-Rev]

thank you for pulling it back on track, Harvey.  I too am building off of this for the sermon today.

[Team Hesse]

This may lead to more thread drift, but this thread in particular has struck me with the truth of scripture that the wrath of God is actually when he withdraws and allows His creatures "the futility of their own minds." Certain folks can no longer control themselves- they are simply unable to not draw conversations off into the realm where they are being "held in futility". Such obsession gives one pause. "There but for the Grace of God go I."

Apologies,
Lou

[revjagow]

I have restrained myself.  But if you look back to the first couple of pages, this was a very nice (not sicky sweet), even perceptive topic that even fed my sermon last night and today thanks to what Richard wrote about Joseph's fear of true and close up holiness.  Sad.  So what about us?   No such fear on our parts.   You know there is a meeting that talks about what to do about the fact that there is too much to save of our postings.  I have come up with a methodology which is sort of not nice but also makes me feel better.  When a thread that I start has somewhat run its course and either gets side tracked or just is plain over, I have gone back and deleted all  my postings.  That loses a history I suppose, altho it is my own to keep if I want, but it also sort of guts any misuse and thwarts thread drift that is innane when compared to where the topic could be going either in intent or even fruitful drift.    Ah, back to St. Joseph, guardian...      Harvey Mozolak

Earlier in the week (when the thread was one page long), I put a link up on Twitter and Facebook and encouraged people to read Richard's post and then scroll down for your prose, Harvey. 

I'm hoping people looked at it then and didn't find some of the later conversation.  *sigh*

A good reminder that folk from all corners of the Body can look in here and we are all accountable for the example we set. 

[kls]

A good reminder that folk from all corners of the Body can look in here and we are all accountable for the example we set.  

QUOTE OF THE WEEK!!!!  I am one who is beginning to believe the "P" in ALPB will seemingly stand for something other than Publicity thanks to the posting habits of some.  

Addendum to original post:  I may have left that too wide open  and was referring to a comment I made here:
http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=3527.msg195767#msg195767

[Mike Bennett]

ptmccain writes:
Indeed, let's use the Holy Family as a way to shoehorn in homosexual "marriages" or "unions." Any such idea is vile, disgusting and perverse.

I ask:
And who exactly is doing that? Not me. I just wondered whether the basis of a marriage between a man and a woman (or even Joseph and Mary) might be commitment, vocation, care, etc. etc., rather than boudoir activity, or the creation of children. I made no mention of same sex unions. That seems to be the obsession of ptmccain, not me.

Eddie Haskell strikes again.  Golly, Mr. Cleever, the words "same sex unions" never passed my lips.

And another perfectly good topic is trashed.

Mike Bennett