Lutherans and Sodomites

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxply
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Maxply

Guest
So what’s going on with the Lutherans and the homosexual agenda?

Is the denomination getting split up? Is the Bible being “re-read” to scotch out some pretty clear teachings?
 
WHy is it that this teaching must remain completely intact. But other teachings, like dietary laws can be ignored?
 
Yes, Valke2 brings up a good point.

Why is it they dont fast?
A good dietary law I would think.🙂
 
First, as a Lutheran, I am somewhat dismayed by the title of this thread. It smacks of guilt by association. There are many good Lutherans who want nothing to do with the sexual practices implied by the title.
Maxply said:
So what’s going on with the Lutherans and the homosexual agenda?
Click to expand...
It depends on what Lutherans you are talking about. However, probably the only Lutheran group that would even listen to the “homosexual agenda” is the ELCA where there is an on-going debate on how the church should respond. There is certainly a large group who maintain that the traditional teachings on sexuality must be maintained, but there is also a very vocal group that is seeking to redefine what is acceptable sexual activity.
Is the denomination getting split up? Is the Bible being “re-read” to scotch out some pretty clear teachings?
Click to expand...
I suspect that the some of the more traditional folk may split if there is any change in the official teachings of the church on the subject. On the other hand, those who are advocating for change to acceptance of homosexual (and lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgendered) relationships will probably just keep hammering away trying to get their beliefs accepted.

Peace,
Gary
 
While the ELCA is the synod having the open debate about homosexuals, ordination, etc., it’s not the only church body where this issue is coming up. It’s even happening in RCC parishes. There has been a very out front, out of the closet group pushing the issue at the Cathedral in Saint Paul, MN. Showing up at mass, and presenting themselves for the Eucharist, proudly wearing their rainbow sashes. We all know where the US Episcopal church stands on the issue (at least officially). To suggest that this is a Lutheran issue is a little too clever.

Our congregations (and I mean all of them; Lutheran, RCC, Episcopal, Baptist…) are cross sections of society. There are gays in every denomination. There are straights in every denomination that believe there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality. Just like in society as a whole.

Some denominations have made very firm statements holding to the belief that homosexuality is wrong and a sin (RCC, LCMS, WELS come to mind). ELCA is openly struggling with the issue. Some have openly embraced it (Episcopal, some non-denoms, etc.). Scripture is pretty clear on the teaching, I’m not sure where some are getting confused. I do believe it’s an issue that will divide church bodies. The ELCA in particular? Hard to say for certain, but I think if the official body OKs homosexual behavior, you will see the conservative side look to distance itself, if not break off completely.
 
BTW, perhaps the real sin of the Sodomites was their mistreatment of guests/strangers.
 
I have nothing to add to what the other Lutherans here have said. They’ve said what I would have said only better.

Valke, the reason Homosexuality is still understood to be sinful while the Mosaic dietary laws are abrogated is for a very simple reason.

Christians take it as a basic hermeneutical principle that the OT is to be read through the lens of the NT and not v.v. therefore if something is commanded in the OT and is not specifically abrogated in the NT it is understood to remain binding. On the other hand, if something is commanded in the OT and it is specifically abrogated in the NT, it is understood to have been a covenantal requirement for national Israel no longer binding upon the new covenant people of God.

In the NT, the prohibition against homosexuality is not only repeated, it is underlined and reinforced; ergo, it retains its status as sinful and abominable for the Church just as it was for national Israel.

Conversely, the OT dietary laws were specifically abrogated in the NT and therefore are no longer binding upon Christians.

If the episode from the account of Lot in Sodom were the only instance in the OT dealing with homosexuality, we would have to be more careful about tying together a general condemnation of it with what might be an hamartiological innovation in the NT.

Fortunately then, this is not the only place in the OT where God specifically condemns homosexuality, so the message of Scripture remains clear (throughout, old and new testaments included) even if we reinterpret the account in Genesis of Lot among the sodomites.
 
To me, the political manuverings and manipulations by the homosexual activists are fascinating to see.

Pressure politics, coercion, propaganda, etc. are the stock in trade. A very calculated set of strategies are prepared. It all would really feel very familiar to Josef Goebbels, Mao and fascists. (“Sodomite” evinces a reaction of a sort, just as “gay” does).

The great touchstone of this is the revision of homosexualty from a complex psychological disorder involved many factors (including genetic disposition), into just “born that way, can’t help it.”

It really doesn’t do justice to our use of reason, in science and in politics.

I don’t feel any visceral animosity toward homosexuals. I am very concern about the use of these political methods in a democracy.
 
Maxply said:
To me, the political manuverings and manipulations by the homosexual activists are fascinating to see.

Pressure politics, coercion, propaganda, etc. are the stock in trade. A very calculated set of strategies are prepared. It all would really feel very familiar to Josef Goebbels, Mao and fascists. (“Sodomite” evinces a reaction of a sort, just as “gay” does).

The great touchstone of this is the revision of homosexualty from a complex psychological disorder involved many factors (including genetic disposition), into just “born that way, can’t help it.”

It really doesn’t do justice to our use of reason, in science and in politics.

I don’t feel any visceral animosity toward homosexuals. I am very concern about the use of these political methods in a democracy.
Click to expand...
Science is indicating that some people are born with a predisposition to alcoholism, while others may be genetically preconditioned to react more violently than others to certain stimuli.

Should we then not prosecute drunk drivers, or even permit people to drink themselves to death or on the other hand allow people to commit rape and murder on the grounds that they were “born that way”?

We are all born sinful with what Lewis called our “besetting evils”.

We aren’t free to ignore or justify wickedness for any reason.
 
Thank you steadfast,
That is typically my reply to the “born with it argument”

Except I usually use psychopaths, because they typically exhibit symptoms from very early childhood.

A lone Raven
 
Valke2 said:
WHy is it that this teaching must remain completely intact. But other teachings, like dietary laws can be ignored?
Click to expand...
Sadly, the OP’s title was uncharitable, to say the least.

Valke2, if you are truly interested, there are dogma (foundational teachings that cannot change), disciplines (things that are not foundational to our faith and can change, such as fasting before communion or married clergy), and private revelation that is determined by the Church not to be contrary to the faith (in which no Catholic is required to believe - such as Marian apparitions - i.e. Fatima).

Sex outside a sacramental marriage between a man and woman is a serious sin. That is a dogma that will never change. What many people who are critical of homosexuals don’t seem to recognize is that premarital or extramarital heterosexual sex is no less serious a sin. Someone involved in a homosexual relationship is no more a sinner than any of us who have committed mortal sin, myself included.

The Church cannot change its teaching on homosexuality any more than it can change its teaching on adultry, masturbation, or any other sexual sins. To do so would be to relinquish its claim to infallability and the Catholic Church would then crumble.
 
JimO said:
Sadly, the OP’s title was uncharitable, to say the least.

Valke2, if you are truly interested, there are dogma (foundational teachings that cannot change), disciplines (things that are not foundational to our faith and can change, such as fasting before communion or married clergy), and private revelation that is determined by the Church not to be contrary to the faith (in which no Catholic is required to believe - such as Marian apparitions - i.e. Fatima).

Sex outside a sacramental marriage between a man and woman is a serious sin. That is a dogma that will never change. What many people who are critical of homosexuals don’t seem to recognize is that premarital or extramarital heterosexual sex is no less serious a sin. Someone involved in a homosexual relationship is no more a sinner than any of us who have committed mortal sin, myself included.

The Church cannot change its teaching on homosexuality any more than it can change its teaching on adultry, masturbation, or any other sexual sins. To do so would be to relinquish its claim to infallability and the Catholic Church would then crumble.
Click to expand...
Good points. As were those raised by the prior poster to this question. Although I’m not up to speed on infallability, except to know that my understanding of it is incorrect.

Shabbat Shalom all.
 
Valke2 said:
WHy is it that this teaching must remain completely intact. But other teachings, like dietary laws can be ignored?
Click to expand...

That’s why so many homosexual people are - shall we say ? - unconvinced by the endless reiteration of a few texts: because the use made of the Bible is unprincipled.​

Homosexuals are far from being the only “Sodomites”; in fact, Isaiah is completely silent about them; his condemnation of injustice is severe:

Isa 1:1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.
Isa 1:2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth; for the LORD has spoken: “Sons have I reared and brought up, but they have rebelled against me.
Isa 1:3 The ox knows its owner, and the *** its master’s crib; but Israel does not know, my people does not understand.”
Isa 1:4 Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, sons who deal corruptly! They have forsaken the LORD, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are utterly estranged.
Isa 1:5 Why will you still be smitten, that you continue to rebel? The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint.
Isa 1:6 From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but bruises and sores and bleeding wounds; they are not pressed out, or bound up, or softened with oil.
Isa 1:7 Your country lies desolate, your cities are burned with fire; in your very presence aliens devour your land; it is desolate, as overthrown by aliens.
Isa 1:8 And the daughter of Zion is left like a booth in a vineyard, like a lodge in a cucumber field, like a besieged city.
Isa 1:9 If the LORD of hosts had not left us a few survivors, we should have been like Sodom, and become like Gomor’rah.
Isa 1:10 Hear the word of the LORD, you rulers of Sodom! Give ear to the teaching of our God, you people of Gomor’rah!
Isa 1:11 "What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of he-goats.
Isa 1:12 "When you come to appear before me, who requires of you this trampling of my courts?
Isa 1:13 *Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. *

God abominates the liturgy if it is not joined with holy living. IOW, that kind of unrighteous worship is morally equal to “sodomy”: both are an “abomination”.​

Back to Isaiah -
New moon and sabbath and the calling of assemblies–*I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. *
Isa 1:14 *Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them. *
Isa 1:15 *When you spread forth your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. *
Isa 1:16 *Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, *
Isa 1:17 learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow.
Isa 1:18 “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.
Isa 1:19 If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land;
Isa 1:20 But if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword; for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.”
Isa 1:21 How the faithful city has become a harlot, she that was full of justice! Righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers.

blueletterbible.org/rsv/Isa/Isa001.html#10

A great deal said about Sodom in the Tanakh, and in the Christian NT: very little of of it has anything to do with sexual activity, & less still with homosexuality as found in modern Western society. To say the passages are applicable to modern homosexuality, is one thing; to say that they are meant as direct references to morally similar practices, is not quite the same thing. Especially as homosexuality is partly a socially constructed activity - IOW, the same word can have several related but not identical meanings. “Sodomy” is an example of this - today, it means same-sex activity; it did not mean only this 300 years ago; it could also include certain sexual practices within marriage.
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

That’s why so many homosexual people are - shall we say ? - unconvinced by the endless reiteration of a few texts: because the use made of the Bible is unprincipled.​

Homosexuals are far from being the only “Sodomites”; in fact, Isaiah is completely silent about them; his condemnation of injustice is severe:

Isa 1:1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.
Isa 1:2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth; for the LORD has spoken: “Sons have I reared and brought up, but they have rebelled against me.
Isa 1:3 The ox knows its owner, and the *** its master’s crib; but Israel does not know, my people does not understand.”
Isa 1:4 Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, sons who deal corruptly! They have forsaken the LORD, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are utterly estranged.
Isa 1:5 Why will you still be smitten, that you continue to rebel? The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint.
Isa 1:6 From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but bruises and sores and bleeding wounds; they are not pressed out, or bound up, or softened with oil.
Isa 1:7 Your country lies desolate, your cities are burned with fire; in your very presence aliens devour your land; it is desolate, as overthrown by aliens.
Isa 1:8 And the daughter of Zion is left like a booth in a vineyard, like a lodge in a cucumber field, like a besieged city.
Isa 1:9 If the LORD of hosts had not left us a few survivors, we should have been like Sodom, and become like Gomor’rah.
Isa 1:10 Hear the word of the LORD, you rulers of Sodom! Give ear to the teaching of our God, you people of Gomor’rah!
Isa 1:11 "What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of he-goats.
Isa 1:12 "When you come to appear before me, who requires of you this trampling of my courts?
Isa 1:13 *Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. *

God abominates the liturgy if it is not joined with holy living. IOW, that kind of unrighteous worship is morally equal to “sodomy”: both are an “abomination”.​

Back to Isaiah -
New moon and sabbath and the calling of assemblies–*I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. *
Isa 1:14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them.
Isa 1:15 *When you spread forth your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. *
Isa 1:16 *Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, *
Isa 1:17 learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow.
Isa 1:18 “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.
Isa 1:19 If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land;
Isa 1:20 But if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword; for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.”
Isa 1:21 How the faithful city has become a harlot, she that was full of justice! Righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers.

blueletterbible.org/rsv/Isa/Isa001.html#10

A great deal said about Sodom in the Tanakh, and in the Christian NT: very little of of it has anything to do with sexual activity, & less still with homosexuality as found in modern Western society. To say the passages are applicable to modern homosexuality, is one thing; to say that they are meant as direct references to morally similar practices, is not quite the same thing. Especially as homosexuality is partly a socially constructed activity - IOW, the same word can have several related but not identical meanings. “Sodomy” is an example of this - today, it means same-sex activity; it did not mean only this 300 years ago; it could also include certain sexual practices within marriage.
Click to expand...
So incense is not good to use anymore?
 
Valke2 said:
Good points. As were those raised by the prior poster to this question. Although I’m not up to speed on infallability, except to know that my understanding of it is incorrect.

Shabbat Shalom all.
Click to expand...
Dont worry! A lot of Catholics dont understand it either.🙂
 
Although the issue of accepting homosexual pastors was brought up at the last big meeting (or whatever they call it) the motion was defeated. Lutheran Pastors are not allowed to be homosexual and still have a church. If you become ordained without this being known you will not be able to serve. As for the average Lutheran homosexual they are and have always been welcome just as any other sinner is in a Lutheran Church.
 
Rico, yes you are right.
happening in RCC parishes. There has been a very out front, out of the closet group pushing the issue at the Cathedral in Saint Paul, MN. Showing up at mass, and presenting themselves for the Eucharist, proudly wearing their rainbow sashes
Click to expand...
What I find offensive is not that they are gay, we all have our weaknesses of the flesh by one definition or another, but the fact that non-Catholic protesters have desecrated the Mass by receiving the Sacred Body of the Lord when a lot of them are not even Catholics:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top