Lutheran Group Allows Gay Pastors

[Fluffy]

in my view it is a sign of the last days paul talked about. but of course that is just MO.

Why? This is a tiny minority of Christians in a tiny part of the world. Sects of Christianity have been allowing homosexuality throughout Christian history.

I can't even begin to tell you how irrelevant this news article would be to the vast majority of Christians who don't live in America just as the religious peculiarities of the Filipinos or the Polish or the South Africans are probably irrelevant to you. But just because you happen to be aware of this incident you interpret it as Biblically important?

Just imagine what you would have thought if you were a Catholic living in the Reformation!!

 

[rocka21]

It is a sin to be an Amalekite, though, and it must have been a sin to be any kind of Canaanite, since God urged their extermination. Whether it's a sin to be black depends on your interpretation of the scriptures, I guess:

And they shall know that I am the LORD, when I have set a fire in Egypt, and when all her helpers shall be destroyed. In that day shall messengers go forth from me in ships to make the careless Ethiopians afraid, and great pain shall come upon them, as in the day of Egypt: for, lo, it cometh.​

and

The LORD will be terrible unto them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth; and men shall worship him, every one from his place, even all the isles of the heathen. Ye Ethiopians also, ye shall be slain by my sword.​

And of course, Bible-believing white Christians in the antebellum American South (and many since) knew very well that the black people were cursed by God, and that it was God's will that they serve white people.

new testament......... Jew's and gentiles accepted.

 

[rocka21]

Nice way to talk BS without throwing down.

your right~!

let's throw!

LOL

this is about an openly gay pastor thou...........and the luther chruch.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I do not think it a good thing for any pastor, Man woman or Gay to flaunt their sexuality.
They should live their lives in service to others and to God.
The nature of their sexuality is unimportant.
It only take on an undue importance when they place it higher than they do the teachings of Jesus and the love of God.

No one should feel it necessary to draw attention to their own or any one else's sexuality in their Church activities.

 

[faithofabraham]

your sexual preferences matter if you read the bible.
if you want to toss the bible to the side and preach some belief, then go for it, its a free world.
if a man was running around having sex with women and preaching that it was ok would that be wrong?

foa

 

[YmirGF]

To me it is much ado about nothing. Meh... so what, eh! Does anyone REALLY care all that much? I think the thing that most don't appreciate is just how many people in the various clergies are likely gay to begin with and still in the closet. I believe that the "Don't ask/Don't tell" life of denial is more dangerous than the threat of an obvious puffter pontificating from the pulpit. But hey, that's just me.

Did I ever tell you how to separate a priest from a choirboy?

 

[MaddLlama]

I think there's a very good solution for all the people who have an issue with this:

Don't go to that church.

See, problem solved.

 

[Jaymes]

I do not think it a good thing for any pastor, Man woman or Gay to flaunt their sexuality.

I love how any time a gay person mentions their sexuality at all it's "flaunting", whereas straight people can mention their boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, wife, whatever, and it's everyday conversation.

 

[Smoke]

new testament......... Jew's and gentiles accepted.

Funny how it took some Christians more than 1800 years to figure that out, though.

 

[Smoke]

I do not think it a good thing for any pastor, Man woman or Gay to flaunt their sexuality.

I know. You notice how Billy Graham is always talking about his wife Ruth? It's disgusting how he won't shut up about his sexuality.

 

[Smoke]

Did I ever tell you how to separate a priest from a choirboy?

How?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I love how any time a gay person mentions their sexuality at all it's "flaunting", whereas straight people can mention their boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, wife, whatever, and it's everyday conversation.

I would not call mentioning ones partner appropriately... flaunting.
Flaunting is to make an issue of ones sexuality, of what ever nature.

Those Gay priests I have known have rarely made an issue of it. though when they have done so, it has always seemed to become more of a problem for them selves rather than others. Somehow the lesbian ones seem to handle things rather better than the men.

It is an Issue to be a practising gay in the Anglican Church at the moment , as the issue is not fully resolved. As a Result our last Priest, when he "married" his partner, moved to a parish with a sympathetic Bishop.
Interestingly and of no relevance at all....
When he was ordained he was the Youngest Church of England priest ever.

 

[Jeremiah]

your right~!

let's throw!

LOL

this is about an openly gay pastor thou...........and the luther chruch.

I think the churches have a long way yet to go. I also don't believe any self respecting gay pastor would accept the position.

 

[UnityNow101]

It's not so much whether or not it matters to me, but rather whether it matters to Almighty God. To me, it really makes no difference. To the word of God, someone who openly engages in sin does not have God within him. And homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. Now, we are all sinners. But we MUST turn from those sins and not glory in the sins that we are currently engaging in. And we must be able to admit that the act in which we are engaging is indeed a sin before the face of God.

 

[Storm]

I refuse to believe that love is ever a sin.

 

[UnityNow101]

Love is never a sin. Love between two men is not a sin. But sexual acts between them is. You can choose to believe the way that you want, for there is a way that seems right to a man, yet leads to destruction.

There can be many things in the Bible that I can put off to the side simply because I choose not to believe that it could be sin, but of what profit would that be? Am I not engaging in the sin simply because I feel that God should not have designated it so? That is manifest error to believe such a thing. If I enjoy lying and backbiting and believe that it should not be a sin, am I sinning by engaging in it? Of course. Someone believing that something should not be a sin in no way negates the punishment of them commiting the act. God hates sin, as should we.

 

[Jeremiah]

It's not so much whether or not it matters to me, but rather whether it matters to Almighty God. To me, it really makes no difference. To the word of God, someone who openly engages in sin does not have God within him. And homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. Now, we are all sinners. But we MUST turn from those sins and not glory in the sins that we are currently engaging in. And we must be able to admit that the act in which we are engaging is indeed a sin before the face of God.

What does this got to do with a gay pastor?

 

[UnityNow101]

My point is and has been that homosexuality, from a biblical perspective, is indeed a sin. How can one openly engaging in sin claim to be a leader of a Christian denomination? Not only do they not believe that they are living in sin, but many of them glory in it.

{1 John 3:9 shall suffice in this instance: "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."}

 

[Muffled]

Another denomination becoming apostate. This is definitely a sign of the End Times. This is one more denomination that I will not be attending on a regular basis. Pretty soon it will be difficult to find another Christian that I can fellowship with.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My point is and has been that homosexuality, from a biblical perspective, is indeed a sin. How can one openly engaging in sin claim to be a leader of a Christian denomination? Not only do they not believe that they are living in sin, but many of them glory in it.

Maybe the people in question feel that Romans (especially Romans 7) supplants Leviticus. In my reading of it, I certainly see how that interpretation could be made. I'm sure there are other portions of the New Testament that seem to contradict or negate the strict legalistic definition of "sin" in the Old Testament as well.

{1 John 3:9 shall suffice in this instance: "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."}

It seems like you're interpreting that verse to say "if a person sins, you know they're not born of God, despite appearances." Why do you necessarily take that stance and not interpret it to say "if a person is born of God, you know they're not sinning, despite appearances"?