Not Lutheran, but if I were I’d be looking for the nearest Missouri Synod parish.

“Regurgitates” is an apt word for the spewing of such drivel. Once again, the theory is that those ancient Hebrews, members of a nomadic, non-shellfish eating, obscure middle-eastern tribe had not reached the present level of “enlightenment” obtained by this fool. So, they knew nothing about “homo orientation?” Well, they certainly knew about “homo” acts, set forth in Leviticus as “abominations.” Only seven verses condemning homosexual acts? Well, that’s more than none, ain’t it? Please, Mr. Marty, show me the seven verses in Scripture condoning and celebrating such “intrinsically disordered acts” and we’ll talk. Waiting…waiting…waiting

The proof of “communion” with ECUSA/TEC, eh? Watch out Jerusalem, here comes Freddie the Hilz. You have been warned.

*Sigh.* You don’t have to be that much of a Scripture scholar to figure out that Jesus’ public ministry was conducted almost exclusively in Judea, where homosexuality was considered an abomination, period, end of discussion. Paul, on the other hand, evangelized the Gentile world, another situation altogether, and it’s clear that he did have to deal with it (I Cor. 6: 9, 11).

Marty’s speculations about Paul himself strike me as nothing but offensive wishful thinking, eisegesis at its worst.

My meeting is set up tomorrow with a pastor of an Orthodox Presbyterian Church. (There are no LCMS congregations in our area … yet.) The vote last week was the sound of the lock being thrown on the already slammed door. Jesus is nothing more than a cheerleader for our own desires, the Bible is just a dusty old book with a few interesting myths, and who am I to question these things when scholars in seminaries who know far more than I ever will have proven them beyond doubt.

That bit of disingenious heresy was brought to me courtesy of 4 women pastors who wanted us to stop teaching Luther’s Catechism because it was dated and much of what we thought back then was wrong. The homosexuality thing was no surprise, but the problem is their view of God and His Word, not just my intolerant narrow interpretation of Leviticus.

After 36 years, I am leaving without a regret or a backwards look at the ELCA. And now would be a good time to thank you for the MJC. Without it, I might have been far less prepared for this moment. Because of it, I began my journey to a real church over a year ago. Sláinte!

Blessings upon your journey, UinenMaia. I hope you find a true spiritual home.

If I hear the line “Jesus didn’t say anything about __________” (insert topic) one more time, I’m really, really going to lose it. People who seriously think failure to specifically address a very particular sin somehow mystically makes it “un-sinful” should be in the dairy section of the grocery store – after all, their heads are full of cottage cheese.

The same “logic” (I use the term reluctantly) that is used here can be applied to virtually anything. Pick a topic – racism, incest, spouse abuse, heroin addiction, carjacking, blackmail, identity theft, nuclear obliteration – none can be found in Jesus’ teachings, so all must be OK. Right?

I’d like to serve up a helping of this warped thinking to those who espouse it. I’ll paint their house glossy black, including all the windows, with green polka dots on the roof. And what I’ve done will have to be graciously accepted as being just and right, because after all – they didn’t tell me NOT to do it.

Good point, Laura R. Also, I don’t think Jesus wasted any time trying to teach observant Jews (the apostles) what they already knew from the Law and the Prophets.) He only commented on scripture when trying to give a new meaning to it. Therefore, if he is “silent” on same-sex acts, then maybe it’s because the old law and it’s interpretation still stands.

But what do I know? I’m just an unevolved troglodyte.

“Homosexual orientation was an unknown concept in biblical times.”

There is a subtle assumption in this statement that should not be overlooked. God of course doesn’t not know things. So who then is the implicit subject of this statement? It cannot be God by definition. It must be the author of the texts in question. And see how neatly the authority of the text has been separated from the Living God. For if the text can be accused of condemning behavior out of ignorance, then the text by definition does not proceed from God. It proceeds from man, and may be safely discounted.

carl

Comments like yours, UinenMaia, are what keep me doing this. Glad I could help, at least a little.

One of the times they trotted out the “they didn’t know about homosexual orientation”, someone brought out a quote from a Greek philosopher who certainly did think there were some people who were “turned” that way, beyond the Athenian practices. Unfortunately, the reference is lost to a crashed computer, but it’s simply false.

Like most of their stuff. Or… all of their stuff.

These types are Muslims in disguise. The Prophet prohibited alcohol, but he didn’t say anything about tobacco and coffee, so those are fine. These people are treating Jesus the same way. He was some ancient guy and didn’t know as much as we do. There’s no hint they understand that Jesus was/is God Incarnate.

So people living among and dominated for 200 years by Greek and then by Roman occupation armies, living in the 1st century Levant, knew nothing of homosexuality? WTF????

How does this even pass the laugh test? After all, we know that almost 10% of the population is homosexual. They keep telling us so, so it must be true. Where were those 10% back in the 1st century? Or did God not make them gay back then? Did He only start up making people gay recently?

CJ: “If you’re still in ELCA, bail now. For your own good.”

UinenMaia: “After 36 years, I am leaving without a regret or a backwards look at the ELCA. And now would be a good time to thank you for the MJC. Without it, I might have been far less prepared for this moment. Because of it, I began my journey to a real church over a year ago.”

CJ: “Comments like yours, UinenMaia, are what keep me doing this. Glad I could help, at least a little.”

May the same awakening and action that UinenMaia is doing … also happen for the other Institutionalist-Enablers of TEc’s and ELCA’s soul-destroying heresies and apostasies. For their own good and for the good of others.

Otherwise they will continue to be yoked, complicit, and morally culpable. And why not observe that both TEc and ELCA celebrate WO as a matter of course in their deliberate descents into apostasy? And why not observer that both the Continuing Anglican churches and the Lutheran Church of the Missouri Synod churches DON’t celebrate WO at all; and as result, neither one of them slide into the GLBT apostasy and heresy.

TU&D, let me, just this once, try to understand what your thinking is. I am, as you know, an opponent of the ordination of women, on grounds of both Scripture and Tradition. Is it your belief that the elimination of this one error will make all well again? My own view is that is is a symptom of a larger problem in which the words of Jesus, the whole of the Scriptural worldview, and Tradition can be set aside when modern culture finds them an obstacle. If WO is eliminated, for instance, but easy divorce and remarriage continue to be allowed, will all be well with you?

Your continued harping on this one symptom of our disobedience, on every blog post, no matter what its subject, reduces your effectiveness to near zero among those whom you hope to convince.

Two points:

1. “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” which is defined as sex outside marriage. Doesn’t that cover it?

2. We don’t KNOW that Jesus didn’t say anything about it; we only know that the Gospel writers didn’t RECORD it.

Give me strength with these equivocators!

Katherine, if TUaD were a woman I’d call him “Cassandra.” I agree with you that for a body claiming to be a church to renounce WO and retain easy remarriage after divorce (or after almost any divorce) would be pretty pointless, but it would at least be a step in the right direction, and the fact is that a degree of latitude concerning remarriage after divorce was embraced by some, if not most, of the Reformers (the Church of England was the exception, having rejected all remarriage after divorce in 1604, but the situation between 1547 and 1553 and 1559 and 1603 was more ambiguous) puts it into the category of an old and settled, if bad, abuse, and one purportedly founded in Scripture, rather unlike WO, which is relatively recent and arrived at only by evading or relativizing Scripture (not even to speak of Tradition).

Since matters of sexual behavior are universal and so closely related to our identities as God created us, it’s no surprise that these issues have caused so much trouble over so many generations. Even the Western Roman church has had difficulty, with the Vatican attempting (to its credit) to stop the annulment mills in the U.S. We don’t want to do what the Lord calls us to do, but rather to please ourselves. It’s the whole picture which is the problem, not one corner of it.

The Ten Commandments ignore the subject completely. Homosexual orientation was an unknown concept in biblical times.

Yeah, that Sacred Band from Thebes was just a bunch of misunderstood hoplites.

Actually, doesn’t this pretty much undermine the idea that homosexuality is part of human nature? Unless, of course, human nature is something new…

To support these ideas, you’d have to believe that human nature is fundamentally different in modern times from what it was in antiquity, which means messages from those musty old scrolls and books are really not relevant.

“And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man’s nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances.” Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941

Wisdom! Let us attend!

Chris — I love your site. However, if Christian people would just flee Sodom, there would be rather less to write about. These weird people, as noted in your articles, thrive only in the presence of resistance, and the money that resisters continue to give to degenerate organizations. My ultimate move was to Rome. Not perfect, but I can list certain ideas which will not receive serious advocacy.

Yep, got it right on the numbers. Indeed, in Leviticus chapter 18, there is only one mention of homosexuality (“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”) and one about bestiality (“Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.”)

All the rest of it is about heterosexual relations and “Don’t do it.”

So, that means that with our superior understanding of psychology and genetics, it is now okay to have sexual relations with one’s: mother/step-mother/sister, whether full-, half- or step-sibling/niece/aunt, by blood or marriage/daughter-in-law/sister-in-law/neighbour’s wife/both a woman and her daughter, and/or her grand-daughter.

After all, Jesus never said a word about incest or threesomes, and how do we know what Paul got up to when he was on the road all the time?

Fuinseoig, what’s your logo? My bifocals aren’t quite good enough …

Can someone please pass the shellfish.

On the “Jesus never said anything” argument.

I always wonder why no one ever brings up the fact that Jesus, for emphasis, repeatedly used Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of the worst sinners. He’s basically saying, “You are the worst of the worst, you’re even worse than Sodom and Gomorrah.”

“Of 31,173 verses in Scripture, only seven have anything to do with certain homosexual behaviors — behaviors that are condemned along with certain heterosexual ones.”

Would these people please make up their minds. I thought the “issue” in Leviticus was “lack of hospitality” not homesexual behaviours.

TLM –

The “issue” in Genesis was hospitality (aka Sodom and Gomorrah). The issue in Leviticus 18 (I think that is the chapter) is about sexual acts which are abominable to God and forbidden for his people to practice.

Hey, out of 31,173 verses of Scripture, how many have to do with sexual behaviours of all sorts? That would be the proper denominator against the numerator of seven verses regarding homosexuality. I’m thinking that this guy’s innumeracy is on the level of the PB’s.

Of 31,173 verses of Scripture, not once is the word environment mentioned, neither is climate, and -believe it or not – neither is universal health care.

I know, I know, try telling a liberal that the word poverty is only mentioned 15 times and justice a mere 28. See how far the argument gets then.

So, just for the record:
fornication – 32
adultery – 40
sodomite – 1
whore – 15
prostitute – 1
whoredom – 22
conceived – 43

Roughly, I’m getting SEVEN VERSES out of 154 references to sexual behaviours. Hmmmm, that seems disproportionate, doesn’t it. God does NOT seem to like homosexuality rather a lot compared to sexual stuff in general. And He seems way more troubled by that than justice or poverty per se.

I’m just saying, you want that kind of argument, it’s gonna bite your derrier and chew it up and spit it out in tiny little DNA fragments, dude Marty.

Katherine, it’s the County Waterford G.A.A. crest.

Should stick with the one of my local church, hey?

Another point on the “Jesus never said anything about [fill in the blank] argument:

“Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book” (John 20:30). It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me to infer that He probably also said many other things which were not written down.

I still think, though, in agreement with The Little Myrmidon, that He didn’t need to comment on what was clear in the Law and did not need to be changed. The gay advocates really don’t have any kind of a case unless Jesus actually came out and made a radical new teaching on this point. Uh-oh, I can imagine the “lost manuscripts” showing up now. Please, nobody tell Dan Brown …

Let’s be clear about this.

Inhospitable in the ancient world was “Bring out your guests so we can kill them and steal their stuff!”

The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was “Bring them out so that we may have sex with them.” And just to make sure we knew this was the problem in the story, women are offered as a last ditch; and the men of Sodom and Gomorrah refuse to have sex with women. But if even that wasn’t enough, Jude says right out that sexual immorality was the problem, as do other books of the Bible. If you can’t trust the Bible when it explains the Bible, you have better things to do on Sunday morning to pretend to be Christian. (Or Jewish on Friday night and Saturday.)

Not at all, Fuinseoig. My husband has been to Waterford on business and tells me it is a lovely place. Alas for the crystal manufacturing.

Waterford has a nice Anglican cathedral; I never saw the Catholic one. I came to Waterford (in 1994) after spending a day in Wexford, and while I won’t speak against Wexford, I found more to interest me in Waterford.