"Anglican archbishop declares 'Our Father' to be 'problematic:'"

Started by Donald_Kirchner, July 07, 2023, 11:56:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Donald_Kirchner

#90
Quote from: John_Hannah on July 11, 2023, 09:37:38 AM
Quote from: Donald_Kirchner on July 10, 2023, 11:00:38 PM
Quote from: John_Hannah on July 10, 2023, 08:47:47 PM
Quote from: RogerMartim on July 10, 2023, 08:25:33 PM
I find it so funny that many of you think I must spend at least half of my life in a Gay bath house. I've never been to a Gay bath house in my life. I am indeed a Gay man and I am a happy one at that. I don't think that I have ever had any desire to be anything but who I am. That is basically all you know about me. A good reminder is that the eighth commandment is a pretty important one.

Thank you, Roger.

For what?

Honesty and courage.

Hmm...

I saw straw men, Godwin's law being trotted out, and rude, dishonest attacks toward Peter in particular. YMMV
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it's not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

peter_speckhard

What does God demand of the person who does not have the gift of celibacy but who cannot find anyone to marry him?

MaddogLutheran

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 11, 2023, 01:58:43 AM
Not a single pro-gay person I know says that about Scriptures.

I don't understand how Nixon won.  No one I know voted for him for president.
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

John Mundinger

Quote from: Tom Eckstein on July 10, 2023, 09:57:26 AMJohn, Paul is NOT arguing that same-sex behavior is sinful only when it takes place within the context of idolatry anymore than he is arguing that any of the other sins he lists are sinful only when they take place in the context of idolatry.  The fact is that Paul is arguing with the rest of Scripture that ALL forms of same-sex behavior are ALWAYS sinful regardless of the context just as heterosexual fornication and adultery and incest and bestiality are ALWAYS sinful regardless of the context.

You are arguing with your own misinterpretation of what I said, not with what I actually said. 

I did not suggest that Paul said that.  It was a specific reference to how homosexual behavior is referenced in the OT.  I also did not suggest that homosexual behavior is not sinful.  Rather, I suggested that, in the context of Romans 1 - 3, the sinfulness of homosexual behavior is not all that different from your own sinful behavior.  Thus, when you proof text on 1:26-27, you also condemn yourself when you read the passage that immediately follows.
Lifelong Evangelical Lutheran layman

Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbour, does not yet understand them as he ought.  St. Augustine

John Mundinger

Quote from: David Garner on July 10, 2023, 10:01:14 AM

Gee, I wonder why people accuse of of Gospel reductionism?

It has been my observation that folks who accuse others of Gospel reductionism are, themselves, guilty of Law reductionism.
Lifelong Evangelical Lutheran layman

Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbour, does not yet understand them as he ought.  St. Augustine

DCharlton

In the last 20 years or so, the ELCA, TEC, PCUSA and others have embarked on a vast experiment.  That is to see whether a theology of same-sex marriage can be developed and lived out with integrity in the context of Biblical and Creedal Christianity.  That attempt must withstand challenges from the left as well as the right.  From the right, the challenge is to prove that same-sex marriage does not violate the clear words of Scripture and the structure of God's Creation.  From the left, the challenge is to resist attempts to use same-sex marriage as a wedge in a larger campaign displace marriage as the normative context for sexual relations. 

My wish would be that those denominations that want to experiment with same-sex marriage would be left alone to do so. (Acts 5:38-39) At the same time, I wish that those who don't want to participate in the experiment would not be forced to take part.  I fear, however, that the time for that is already past.  The post-Christian left will not let such an arrangement stand.  For one thing, they consider same-sex marriage to be too heteronormative.  For another, such an arrangement would delay the total transformation of every institution in society.  The same would be true of the Christian right, to the degree that such a movement has any more political and institutional power.
David Charlton  

Was Algul Siento a divinity school?

Donald_Kirchner

It has been my observation that the use of the Tu quoque logical fallacy is not helpful.
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it's not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

Dan Fienen

Quote from: Donald_Kirchner on July 11, 2023, 11:07:17 AM
It has been my observation that the use of the Tu quoque logical fallacy is not helpful.
When making observations in a forum such as this, it is helpful for the readers to indicate in your observation whom you are observing. A post in response to another post does not always (often?) end up directly following the post it references.


Simply, Don, who are you responding to?
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Charles Austin

Peter:
Even the LCMS marriage rite identifies multiple purposes for marriage and sexuality. What they do say, though, is that procreation is an inherent part of what we mean by "sexuality."
Me:
"Inherent" meaning what? That it (procreation) has to be there? That would mean no contraception is permitted.
There is sexual activity as an expression of love, commitment, and for pleasure that has nothing to do with procreation. Is that sexual activity wrong?
Heterosexual couples who decide not to have children still engage in sexual relations. Is that OK with you?


ELCA PASTOR. Iowa born and raised. And look at this. Here's the old 1960s protestor and critic of our government as virtually the only "love this country" patriot in this forum.

Rev. Edward Engelbrecht

John Mundinger and Roger Martin, I noticed that you weren't so active on ALPB until about late June, early July. Has something changed for one or both of you that has moved you to post?

Donald_Kirchner

#100
Quote from: Dan Fienen on July 11, 2023, 11:18:13 AM
Quote from: Donald_Kirchner on July 11, 2023, 11:07:17 AM
It has been my observation that the use of the Tu quoque logical fallacy is not helpful.
When making observations in a forum such as this, it is helpful for the readers to indicate in your observation whom you are observing. A post in response to another post does not always (often?) end up directly following the post it references.


Simply, Don, who are you responding to?

My observation is regarding the poster making the "You too!" fallacious argument, Dan. 🙄
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it's not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

D. Engebretson

Quote from: DCharlton on July 11, 2023, 11:04:45 AM
In the last 20 years or so, the ELCA, TEC, PCUSA and others have embarked on a vast experiment.  That is to see whether a theology of same-sex marriage can be developed and lived out with integrity in the context of Biblical and Creedal Christianity.  That attempt must withstand challenges from the left as well as the right.  From the right, the challenge is to prove that same-sex marriage does not violate the clear words of Scripture and the structure of God's Creation.  From the left, the challenge is to resist attempts to use same-sex marriage as a wedge in a larger campaign displace marriage as the normative context for sexual relations. 

My wish would be that those denominations that want to experiment with same-sex marriage would be left alone to do so. (Acts 5:38-39) At the same time, I wish that those who don't want to participate in the experiment would not be forced to take part.  I fear, however, that the time for that is already past.  The post-Christian left will not let such an arrangement stand.  For one thing, they consider same-sex marriage to be too heteronormative.  For another, such an arrangement would delay the total transformation of every institution in society.  The same would be true of the Christian right, to the degree that such a movement has any more political and institutional power.

My observation:
-Conservative churches are now largely marginalized by mainstream media and certain parts of society, not to mention demonized as extreme.  They are characterized as uncaring and unloving for their lack of acceptance.
-The 'experimentation' is now simply pushing the envelope.  No extreme is too extreme. Shock and awe is a virtue.  And all expressions are to be protected as personal choices regardless of their impact on others. 
-The foundational family unit is under attack.  Parental rights challenged down to the local level.  Marriage remade in many images until it is unrecognizable, with the seeming purpose of eliminating it as an outmoded institution. 
-Ultimately, this experimentation will result in a further breakdown of societal order, with widespread confusion and chaos the rule of the day.  The rise of crime and violent push-back from various quarters that are angry about their lifestyles and practices not having full acceptance already demonstrates that we stand on the edge of implosion in some sectors. Race is pitted against race. Portland was a bellwether.  Our large metro areas demonstrate that law and order is straining to breaking points.

Perhaps I sound like 'the sky is falling', but I wonder if the sign in the window of one bookstore was not foretelling:
"Please note: the post-apocalyptic fiction section has been moved to Current Affairs."

Personally I'm glad to sit out here in the middle of a rural landscape that still moves more slowly in change.  But even that is not protected from the forces pushing from without....
Pastor Don Engebretson
St. Peter Lutheran Church of Polar (Antigo) WI

MaddogLutheran

#102
Quote from: DCharlton on July 11, 2023, 11:04:45 AM
My wish would be that those denominations that want to experiment with same-sex marriage would be left alone to do so. (Acts 5:38-39) At the same time, I wish that those who don't want to participate in the experiment would not be forced to take part.  I fear, however, that the time for that is already past.  The post-Christian left will not let such an arrangement stand.  For one thing, they consider same-sex marriage to be too heteronormative.  For another, such an arrangement would delay the total transformation of every institution in society.  The same would be true of the Christian right, to the degree that such a movement has any more political and institutional power.
This is why I keep harping on people who want to separate procreation from marriage, which is foundational for both secular/civil law and religion(s) (not just Christianity).  It's essential for the left to do just that, because what they are advocating for is all about that.  It's the first lie in this chain that marriage was and is about love.  No, not really.  That's not what history tells us.  The reason the state got involved was because human societies that developed "the state" were founded on it, and the need to protect women/children (when they could not support themselves) by either forcing men to live up to their responsibilities or free a woman to find one who would.  For those with wealth, it provided an orderly way to pass down property to progeny who were expected--why arranged marriages and dowries existed.  The Christian reasons are obvious and should need no explanation, but need to be obfuscated to get to the new desired destination.

If you separate procreation from either understanding, none of it makes sense.  Why can't someone in a "loveless" marriage (with children) just pick up and leave, if s/he finds love elsewhere?  If personal satisfaction love is the most important thing?  Why do equal partner DINK's (no need to "protect" the weaker sex, who isn't weak at all) with no offspring even need something like marriage?  None of those things make any sense if there isn't an a living/breathing union from their union.  Serial monogamy is good enough, stay as long as you're happy.  Move on when you're not.

Pointing all this out is not belittling others who choose these alternate paths.  My point is only that these things are not marriage, because they have never been marriage.  The essentials of these never were the essentials of marriage.  (Spare me the certificate nonsense, never was an essential.)  Another thing that was never an essential of marriage was a husband abusing his wife.  Just because that occurred (before women had legal rights to obtain the protection of the state) doesn't make it an essential.

If society as a whole chooses to abandon what was the essentials of marriage, that's fine, even as it's lamentable.  I certainly accept that sexuality is a spectrum, love is love etc, that not everyone fits nicely into the "old" ways.  Just don't tell those of us who have no interest in living according to this new world order that the history that has occurred actually never happened.  That's the gaslighting I found obscene in all of this--which the "Our Father" kerfuffle is yet another front of the same war.  We're moving on to the next phase where traditional people need to be punished and ostracized because the formerly marginalized feel "unsafe", when it's merely retribution they're after.  Retribution and supremacy.
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

George Rahn

Quote from: MaddogLutheran on July 11, 2023, 12:24:39 PM
Quote from: DCharlton on July 11, 2023, 11:04:45 AM
My wish would be that those denominations that want to experiment with same-sex marriage would be left alone to do so. (Acts 5:38-39) At the same time, I wish that those who don't want to participate in the experiment would not be forced to take part.  I fear, however, that the time for that is already past.  The post-Christian left will not let such an arrangement stand.  For one thing, they consider same-sex marriage to be too heteronormative.  For another, such an arrangement would delay the total transformation of every institution in society.  The same would be true of the Christian right, to the degree that such a movement has any more political and institutional power.
This is why I keep harping on people who want to separate procreation from marriage, which is foundational for both secular/civil law and religion(s) (not just Christianity).  It's essential for the left to do just that, because what they are advocating for is all about that.  It's the first lie in this chain that marriage was and is about love.  No, not really.  That's not what history tells us.  The reason the state got involved was because human societies that developed "the state" were founded on it, and the need to protect women/children (when they could not support themselves) by either forcing men to live up to their responsibilities or free a woman to find one who would.  For those with wealth, it provided an orderly way to pass down property to progeny who were expected--why arranged marriages and dowries existed.  The Christian reasons are obvious and should need no explanation, but need to be obfuscated to get to the new desired destination.

If you separate procreation from either understanding, none of it makes sense.  Why can't someone in a "loveless" marriage (with children) just pick up and leave, if s/he finds love elsewhere?  If personal satisfaction love is the most important thing?  Why do equal partner DINK's (no need to "protect" the weaker sex, who isn't weak at all) with no offspring even need something like marriage?  None of those things make any sense if there isn't an a living/breathing union from their union.  Serial monogamy is good enough, stay as long as you're happy.  Move on when you're not.

Pointing all this out is not belittling others who choose these alternate paths.  My point is only that these things are not marriage, because they have never been marriage.  The essentials of these never were the essentials of marriage.  (Spare me the certificate nonsense, never was an essential.)  Another thing that was never an essential of marriage was a husband abusing his wife.  Just because that occurred (before women had legal rights to obtain the protection of the state) doesn't make it an essential.

If society as a whole chooses to abandon what was the essentials of marriage, that's fine, even as it's lamentable.  I certainly accept that sexuality is a spectrum, love is love etc, that not everyone fits nicely into the "old" ways.  Just don't tell those of us who have no interest in living according to this new world order that the history that has occurred actually never happened.  That's the gaslighting I found obscene in all of this--which the "Our Father" kerfuffle is yet another front of the same war.  We're moving on to the next phase where traditional people need to be punished and ostracized because the formerly marginalized feel "unsafe", when it's merely retribution they're after.  Retribution and supremacy.

A child-less marriage (one between one man and one woman) is valid because in the estate of marriage those two people entered into an arena, called an estate, which is established by God.  It is not about the persons, per se.  It is about the estate into which these two persons choose to enter.  It is an order of creation which makes this into an issue about estate, first and less about personal contract.

Richard Johnson

Rehashing old arguments, nothing new here, and nothing to do with the stated theme of the thread. So it is now closed.
The Rev. Richard O. Johnson, STS

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk