Author Topic: Sexuality amendments  (Read 7465 times)

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: Sexuality amendments
« Reply #15 on: August 16, 2005, 03:47:31 PM »
Quote
And Pr. Frost quoted from the ELCA constitution, no?  At the risk of stating the obvious, the Confessions are even more clear about the authority of Scripture and Lutheran hermeneutics than is the ELCA.

The idea that the ELCA (and predecessors) has accepted the historical-critical method and therefore that is the correct Lutheran approach to Scripture without dispute or doubt, would necessarily imply that essentially all Lutheran churches on the planet misunderstood how to approach Scripture until about 1960.   That's nothing but chronological arrogance.  


Or maybe it was catching up to the rest of the Lutheran world, that had never been influenced by the particularly American brand of biblical fundamentalism.

Gladfelteri

  • Guest
Re: Sexuality amendments
« Reply #16 on: August 16, 2005, 09:06:58 PM »
Quote


Or maybe it was catching up to the rest of the Lutheran world, that had never been influenced by the particularly American brand of biblical fundamentalism.
Biblical fundamentalism?  The Bible claims to be God's word.  Either it is, or it is not.  You cannot have it both ways.  That would be like claiming to be a little bit pregnant.  Either one is or one is not.  

The Bible says that what it says is true.  Either it is or it is not.  That would be like claiming to be a little bit pregnant.  Either one is or one is not.  

To believe and teach that the Bible is not God's word and that it is not ultimate truth narrowly defined, for all times and cultures as the Bible says it is, and then turn around and say that truth (whatever it is for you or me or someone else) is bound to language and culture and that ultimate truth for all times, places, and cultures, does not exist sure sounds like sophistry to me.

Either universal truth exists or it does not.  Either God exists as a self-aware, sentient, supreme being who can and does intervene in our dimensions of space-time, suspending the laws of Science whenever and wherever He pleases, or he does not exist and is only a concept.  Either ultimate, universal truth exists or it does not.  And, either the Bible is what it says it is - God's actual written word, inerrent and infallible, or it is not.  Either the miracles in the Bible happened or they did not.  Either traditional, classical, orthodox, conservative Christianity is true or it is not.  To claim the affirmative in all of the preceeding is not "American Biblical Fundamentalism."  It is not Protestant, Catholic, Lutheran, or Eastern Orthodox; it is simply "Mere Christianity."

If, like Robert Funk, one "denounces the existence of a personal God, the possiblity of miracles or answered prayer, the deity, virgin birth, atoning death, and resurrection of Christ, all end-time prophecy, and virtually every other historic doctrine of Christianity;"  If, like Marcus Borg, one "rejects the idea that Christianity is about belief in certain historical events or factual statements about the supernatural and prefers to focus on the linguistic, psychological, and cultural 'lenses' through which we see reality and the importance of seeing whatever insights may be found in biblical stories even though they did not really happen;"  If, like Karen Armstrong, one "denies that the Bible teaches any clear theology or relevant ethics," then such people and other liberal / neo-liberal proponents of the historical-critical method are telling us (reluctantly, and perhaps sadly) that what the Bible says is simply not true.  Or as Sportin' Life (AKA the devil) sang in Porgy and Bess, "They ain't necessarily so, the things that you liable to read in dat Bible, they ain't necessarily so."  If one really believes that the Bible is not what it say it is - universal truth, and God's written word, then, sooner or later one will have to face the question as to why they still continue to have anything to do with a faith they do not believe is true and if it would more honest intellectually and spiritually to move into some non-Judeo-Christian, non-theistic spirituality.

Discussions and decisions about a given Church's teachings on human sexuality must necessarily hinge on that that Church believes, teaches, and confesses about the nature, authority, and truth of the Biblical statements which are the foundations for that Church's teachings about these things.  

And what it decides about this will determine that Church's teachings, policies, and practices in areas concerning human sexuality, marriage, and the place of homosexuals in the Church.  Once a Church has come to a firm agreement across the board - without a disconnect between the beliefs of the clergy and of the laity, on the nature and authority of Scripture, truth, and the nature of God, etc., then the teachings of that Church on issues of human sexuality will be obvious and a broad agreement across the board on doctrines, policies, and procedures will be easily achieved without any "strum und drang," heavy-duty politics, protesters in rainbow sashes and the like.  At least that is how this interested observer sees it.

Peace,
Irl

Reference:  Statements about the above-referenced theologians may be found on the website, Christian Authors Database ( http://faith.propadeutic.com/authors/liberal.html )
« Last Edit: August 19, 2005, 07:18:03 AM by Gladfelteri »

ROB_MOSKOWITZ

  • Guest
Re: Sexuality amendments
« Reply #17 on: August 20, 2005, 12:42:46 PM »
Irl:
  Isn't it the truth.     We are on the bring of total biblical obscurity.   This indeed is the danger presented by the Bp of the ELCA.   From now on any direct understanding of the Word will immediately be discounted as fundamentalism while revisionism will be heralded as the new Gospel.   Indeed we see the immergence of more symptoms.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44460
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Sexuality amendments
« Reply #18 on: August 20, 2005, 01:51:21 PM »
Quote
From now on any direct understanding of the Word will immediately be discounted as fundamentalism while revisionism will be heralded as the new Gospel.   Indeed we see the immergence of more symptoms.

Let me ask you, Rob, did the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve have sex with each other? Is all of humanity the result of incest?

Do you agree with the beliefs of a LCMS minister who stated that there were no such things as dinosaurs?They are not mentioned in the Bible. They do not fit into the 6000 years of biblical history. The fossels we see were created by God to confuse unbelievers.

These are some results of a "direct understanding" of God's Word.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2005, 01:54:13 PM by Brian_Stoffregen »
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Gladfelteri

  • Guest
Re: Sexuality amendments
« Reply #19 on: August 21, 2005, 06:06:43 AM »
Since all of mankind descended from Adam and Eve, obviously yes, but in this case the use of the word, "incest" is unnecessarily inflammatory.

Dinosaurs?  Of course they existed.  Either they did not survive the flood ( my humble opinion, ) or the LCMS Pastor you cited is correct.

There is an Episcopal Church priest not far from where I live, who calls himself "a postmodern humanist of Judeo-Christian 'heritage.'"  It is curious to see how a person is able to not believe the Bible and the claims of Christianity are literally true and continue to be a Christian, let alone a cleric; instead of leaving and continuing to serve mankind as a secular humanist teacher, psychologist or social worker.  

I could go on but I had better stop right here.  Between the revisionists and traditional, conservative, orthodox "Bible-believing" Christians there is obviously to be a "great gulf fixed." . . .  Personally, I'm staying on the traditional orthodox side of that gulf!!  Though I am a trained scientist with an earned doctorate, and am a published researcher, postmodernism makes no sense at all to me as a philosophy, and neither does the historical critical method.  The Bible says it is true.  Either it is or it is not.  I am absolutely convinced that it is true; and from where I sit, the Bible "trumps" the hard sciences every time.  That is simply how it is.  'nuff said . . .  :-X
« Last Edit: August 21, 2005, 01:33:12 PM by Gladfelteri »

Chuck

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 509
    • View Profile
Re: Sexuality amendments
« Reply #20 on: August 21, 2005, 11:01:30 AM »
Quote
Dinosaurs?  Of course they existed.  Either they did not survive the flood ( my humble opinion, )... <snip>

Though I am a trained scientist with an earned doctorate, ... <snip>


So as a "trained scientist" you believe that dinosaurs and homo sapiens co-existed? Really?

I find that astonishing.
Chuck Ruthroff

I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it. —George Bernard Shaw

Terry_Mitchell

  • Guest
Re: Sexuality amendments
« Reply #21 on: August 21, 2005, 11:25:30 AM »
As a lay person, I do so enjoy 'listening in' on these discussions.    Not only do I glean much from my learned 'elders' (started to say 'superiors', but thought better of it), but it is strengthening my faith in the Word of God.    I am more and more grateful for God's Grace and for His Son Jesus Christ because I am depending on Them and Them alone to save me from all of this.    But I do love you all!     Now - carry on - and thank you for your kind indulgence.











Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44460
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Sexuality amendments
« Reply #22 on: August 21, 2005, 12:36:00 PM »
Quote
traditional, conservative, orthodox "Bible-believing" Christians

Do you believe that it is possible for someone to be a modernist, liberal, orthodox "Bible-believing" Christian?
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Gladfelteri

  • Guest
Re: Sexuality amendments
« Reply #23 on: August 21, 2005, 01:35:39 PM »
Quote

Do you believe that it is possible for someone to be a modernist, liberal, orthodox "Bible-believing" Christian?
You can draw your own conclusion to your question from my previous posts and from other earlier posts.  But God ain't done with y'all yet.  There is still hope !    ;)

Gladfelteri

  • Guest
Re: Sexuality amendments
« Reply #24 on: August 21, 2005, 01:47:10 PM »
Quote
So as a "trained scientist" you believe that dinosaurs and homo sapiens co-existed? Really?
Absolutely!

Quote
I find that astonishing
You shouldn't. There are a lot of creationists with advanced degrees in the hard sciences in the theologically and socially conservative Churches.   Check out any of the excellent creationist / Creation Science websites for more details.

So many people have such an inflated idea of the hard sciences.  They do not have anywhere near all the answers.  Any scientist will tell you that whether he is a "young earth creationist like myself" or a hardened postmodern atheist.  They don't even know what questions to ask; And I know a lot of agnostic theoretical mathematicians,  physicists, and cell biologists who tell me that they are having a hard time keeping from becoming theists and taking another look at conservative Christianity.   There is still hope for those guys . . .  :D 
« Last Edit: August 21, 2005, 01:52:11 PM by Gladfelteri »

Chuck

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 509
    • View Profile
Re: Sexuality amendments
« Reply #25 on: August 21, 2005, 03:25:51 PM »
I notice on your websites, Irl, that you hold a Th.D. on one site and a D.D. on another site. Perhaps you hold both. However, I do not see any degree in science as you claim. What degree in hard science do you hold and from what university?

As to the young earth creationist claims, I would only point out that there are still people who believe in a flat earth and that the moon landing was a hoax.
Chuck Ruthroff

I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it. —George Bernard Shaw

Gladfelteri

  • Guest
Re: Sexuality amendments
« Reply #26 on: August 21, 2005, 04:53:23 PM »
I have both.  I also have a B. S. in Biology, a D. D. S. with honors, completed a one-year  postoctoral fellowship (essentially a clinical internship) and am a graduate of an Advanced Educational Program in General Dentistry - 2-years (which with research, thesis with defense, and comprehensive examination requirements is the equivalent of a Master's Degree but on the clinical side of the house rather than the academic).  I am also an honor graduate of the United States Army Command and General Staff College, Ft. Leavenworth, KS.  I have published in the area of Forensic Odontology and am the author of of Dental Evidence - A Handbook for Police, which is one of the three American texts in this field.  During the last four years of my Dental career, I was a (full-time) Clinical Assistant Professor at the Universitiy of Missouri - Kansas City School of Dentistry.  At various other times I was an Instructor at Rush Medical School (their Dental Internship Program) and was an adjuct Instructor at the Dental School of the University of Kentucky - Louisville.  My primary interest in Dentistry was Forensic Odontology, my primary interest in that field was in the area of bite-mark evidence.  I have published in the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry and in General Dentistry (the Journal of the Academy of General Dentistry.)  I was among the first Forensic Odontologists in this country, and one of my cases set the precedent for the admissibility of bite marks as evidence in the State of Missouri.

Although not illegal, it is considered "borderline unethical" for a dentist to list his professional dental degrees after his name if he is no longer practicing dentistry.  And since they are so basic, most of us do not bother to list our BA/BS and M. Div degrees except on really formal stationary.

I am not the ECCL's only bishop who is degreed in the hard sciences.  My Coadjutor, Archbishop Binh T. P. Nguyen has a B. S. in Theoretical Mathematics (with a special interest in chaos theory,) an M. S. in Biochemistry, an M. S. in Microbiology (cell biology), and a D. D. S. in addition to his theology degree, and he is more theologically, socially, and biblically conservative than I am.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2005, 05:57:43 AM by Gladfelteri »

Gladfelteri

  • Guest
Re: Sexuality amendments
« Reply #27 on: August 21, 2005, 05:17:56 PM »
Quote
As to the young earth creationist claims, I would only point out that there are still people who believe in a flat earth and that the moon landing was a hoax.
(Sigh) I knew that was coming.  I have come to expect that from liberals / postmoderns . . . and I'm used to it by now.  No problem.  And no offense taken.   ;)  

However, I do not "throw rocks" at "old-earth creationists."  Nor do the "old earth" creationists throw rocks at "young earth" creationists.  Both positions can be and are held by theological conservatives.

Frankly, I do not expect to change any of your minds on this track - only God can do that.  Nor will I be changing my own opinions.  A great many theologically conservative Lutherans share my opinions here (LCMS, WELS, ELS, etc., and many laypeople and I suspect, some pastors in the ELCA.)  

This goes to show just how deep the divisions have become not only in Lutheranism but Anglicanism, the Roman Church, and Protestantism at large (and now, even in Eastern Orthodoxy) over the nature and authority of Scripture, the nature of Truth, the supernatural in general (answered prayers, miracles, etc.) and the nature of God (self-aware supreme being vs. a concept of one form or another.)

I agree with Anglican Journalist, David Virtue, that this fault line, which is running broadly across Christianity is probably the most profound development in Christianity since the Reformation.  

I am still convinced that the arguments over sexuality are based on disagreements over these things.  Among people who are of one mind on all of these things, there are no disagreements over policies relating to sexuality.  The positions advocated are based on their understanding of these things.  

I am also concerned that liberal, neo-liberal, and post-modern theologies, if broadly adopted by the Churches, will lead to the effective end of Christianity as a living religion.  

More than a few observers have attributed the decline in Church membership and attendence in Europe, and the decline in the influence of Religion on life in Europe to the broad adoption of these revisionist theologies.  ("If the religion is not really true - and even the clergy themselves say so, why are we lay people even bothering with it when our spiritual and emotional needs can be addressed by various "spiritual but not religious" belief systems (New Age, Buddhism, Transcendental Meditation, New Thought, etc); and we have psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers to go to when we are in trouble.?")
« Last Edit: August 21, 2005, 05:38:45 PM by Gladfelteri »

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44460
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Sexuality amendments
« Reply #28 on: August 21, 2005, 05:52:26 PM »
Quote
You can draw your own conclusion to your question from my previous posts and from other earlier posts.  But God ain't done with y'all yet.  There is still hope !    ;)

Given the ways God has been working with me for the past 40 years I can only see God leading me towards more revisionism and liberalism.

I attended the Lutheran Bible Institute in Seattle -- a fairly conservative Lutheran institution -- even more so then than it is now as Trinity Lutheran College.

I attended and graduated from Concordia Jr College in Portland -- an LCMS school. (Now a four year college.)

Since then, God's leading has been steadily been going from traditional to revisionism/modernism; from conservative to liberal. My old ways of thinking and believing I found just were not honest with scriptures and real life; and were determental to a theology centered on the grace given through Jesus.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2005, 05:59:29 PM by Brian_Stoffregen »
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

ROB_MOSKOWITZ

  • Guest
Re: Sexuality amendments
« Reply #29 on: August 21, 2005, 06:32:38 PM »
Quote

Let me ask you, Rob, did the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve have sex with each other? Is all of humanity the result of incest?

Do you agree with the beliefs of a LCMS minister who stated that there were no such things as dinosaurs?They are not mentioned in the Bible. They do not fit into the 6000 years of biblical history. The fossels we see were created by God to confuse unbelievers.

These are some results of a "direct understanding" of God's Word.


Sorry I missed this one Im just catching up.

As for Adam and Eve's children does it matter?   Really I find no need to try to have science explain creation even unto Adam and Eve's children.

As per no dinosaurs in the Word I think it says everything that walks upon the earth.    It does not specifically say caterpillars but im sure they are included to.   Or we can go the Walt Bouman route and state that because the bible does not state dinosaurs, the Bible is just a bunch of nice stories.   It was that statement 3 years ago at a Ministry to Gay and Lesbians meeting that started me on the path of standing against the agenda.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2005, 06:50:33 PM by ROB_MOSKOWITZ »