Lutherans to allow sexually active gays as clergy

[adrift]

I’ll give the customary answers to these quotes. Not to argue with those who disagree but for the benefit of those who are curious as to how liberals typically respond.

It is interesting how they might respond but that does not mean that there isn’t an answer to it.

L

Leviticus is a poor foundation to build a morality doctrine upon. It is also considered an abomination to sow a field with two different types of seed and to wear a garment sewn with two fabrics.

Somehow I think you see this as a refutation??? Leviticus built on the idea that the Jews were set apart and needed to be pure. The laws set forth in Leviticus was for this legal type of purity. It does not invalidate Leviticus. Unlike the sowing of fields, it carried a death sentence.

Neither TEC or the ELCA approve of the patronization of effeminate boy prostitutes so this passage doesn’t seem relevant.

Did you bother to read the footnote?

Th

is passage is in the context of idolatrous pagan worship that often involved gay and lesbian orgies. It was a common practice for gentiles in Greece and Rome in Paul’s time. Gays living in committed lifelong relationships is a concept unknown in the ancient world because of sociological norms and the economic need of children.

This is irrelevant. The very act was considered an abomination. It also goes against what I know of the history of Rome.

It is insulting to associate the actions of the Sodomites with monogamous gay Christian couples. The actions in Sodom are more characteristic of a prison (violent homosexual gang rape) than what goes on in the home of a gay couple.

Then the LORD said: "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin so grave,

It is easy to say something is insulting. The question was was there any scripture. You are the one making the connection with modern times. You may see a difference but there is none. They are homosexual non practicing Christian couple who wish like their heterosexual counter parts to pretend what they are doing is acceptable when it is the farthest thing from it. It is a deadly sin.

 

[Newbie2]

My position is much like the Archbishop of Canterbury. I don’t think that homosexuals who live in committed relationships are automatically perverted sinners. I think much good fruit can and has come from such unions. But I would would be hesitant to push this down the church’s throat. I don’t see any pressing need to push the envelope by blessing gays unions. Such actions wouldn’t improve the lives of gay people. They are already accepted members of TEC. Formally blessing their unions doesn’t help them in any way except to make them the objects of scorn and ridicule by those disagree with the way they are living. The only meaningful result of such an action will be alienating conservatives.

I don’t quite understand this position. You would agree, I’d guess like most of us, that fornication is almost universally condemned throughtout Christianity. If homosexual relationships, committed or not, are not “blessed”, then any sex that happens is such a relationship is fornication, no?

The ELCA has by default endorsed homosexual fornication by their clergy in this recent decision to allow committed practicing gay clergy. Theologically speaking, fornication is still a sin whether it is “straight” or “gay” fornication, no?

 

[Elric]

Gotta say, love the name. He is one of my favorite characters from that series, behind Stilgar.

For clarification, VARC, are you yourself ok with sodomy and homosexual relationships?

No Im not ok with either, because I am not homosexual (I dont agree that “sodomy” is the right term for what you are after, perhaps “gay sex” would be a better term).

Am I ok with homosexuals doing those things?

Yes, as long as they act responsibly (ie: no visits to “gay bathhouses”) and treat each other with respect.

Are you of the belief that God made these folks inherently, biologically programmed to have gay sex?

I believe that God did make people attracted to the same sex, I suppose that could include the desire for physical intimacy.

And do you seriously believe that St. Paul and his contemporaries would’ve been ok with this lifestyle as long as it was “committed and monogomous?”

I believe that there is that possibility, but I cant say for sure.