ELCA allows practicing gay people ordination

How do you feel about that Cindy? I was raised an ELCA Lutheran.

I'm so glad to see that. I'm even more glad to see that you were able to construct it in a way that the church didn't have to concede any of it's tenants or grant special favors to do it. That is indeed wonderful news.

Sorry but the Bible CLEARLY defines what is God's word, what is God's commands and what God condems.

Another church has "died" because they will not teach what is Bible based - only what THEY want to teach. The truth of God's word is right there and they are blind to it. Another "false teachers" starting.

Gays are welcome in church to learn about God's word and truth. To put them in a position to teach the Bible is wrong if they are not following it.

If a church is not "Bible based" its not one I will attend. God's wrath on churches that stray from His word will be seen.

I'm not a christian but it seems hypocritical to me for the church to allow gays to be preachers.
I agree with GoldenKitty45. It's not that I have any beliefs on my own besides the fact that I am not religious, I believe in gay marriage and I am not prejudiced against gays. I can just see a flaw in this church's logic. They are denying what the bible teaches, and I know because I was raised Eastern Orthodox and have some, not a lot, of knowledge on the bible..
The bible clearly states that having sex for pleasure as opposed to for reproduction is a sin. It is called the sin of lust. Gays cannot possibly reproduce therefore according to the church they are sinners if they are sexually active. There is nothing wrong with them if they are abstinent, according to the bible...

Like I've said before, "truth" and "fact" are quite often not the same thing.

I'm not a christian, but I have to say that these words here should be what Christianity is all about There are so many things in the Bible that are sinful, but people do everyday, including Lutheran pastors. Ut0pia, do you really think that hetero married pastors never have sex for pleasure? should they be made to step down? What about those couples that cannot have children? or women that have been thru menopause? does that mean that they have to stop having sex with their spouse because they cannot reproduce anymore? The Bible was written 2,000 years ago and to take everything that the Bible says as set in stone is, IMO, ridiculous. If the Bible is to stay relevant than it must be a living document, that is, one that is constantly changing and evolving to be pertinent in current society

Bravo to the Lutheran Church for this decision. I used to attend services at a Lutheran church back in high school with my boyfriend of the time who was trying to convert me, and I always liked the atmosphere of acceptance

I'm not the one who makes the rules I was just pointing out what's there. I think it's ridiculous...But, it's there because I've read and studied some of it. I am not a christian because of the things that are in there. Because it's not human nature not to have sex for pleasure..
i think people don't want to give up on their beliefs and try to put different interpretations on them so that they can become relevant and to reform them...but what's the sense of making it different, if you are going to do that might as well just let go of all of it and make beliefs that suit you and follow them instead...

That's what has been going on for over 1000 years. That is where "denominations" come from.

Yes we are all sinners - I'm not denying that, nor am I saying that gays or other sinners should not be in church - in fact, they are the ones that SHOULD be there - to learn God's words and truth and to turn away from the sin.

Jesus said "I did not come to save the righteous but to save the sinner". But the Bible clearly states who should be teaching in the church. Someone that is denying God's word and direction and those that are blatently going against scripture teaching has NO business teaching the word of God.

Hmm yea you're right..I was thinking of the sin of lust but I didn't word it properly. Lust means putting the pleasure of sex or something else above the love of god ..
Well when the bible was written, homosexuality didn't exist. Homosexual relationships did exist of course but no one described him/herself as homosexual vs. heterosexual. Everyone was expected to have a "mate" of the opposite sex at some point in life for the purpose of reproduction. The term homosexual is very recent.
I definitely don't think that the authors of the bible would say people of the opposite sex can marry. From all the evidence there is about marriage, the relationship between a man and a woman, adultery, it is easy to point it out that they didn't mean homosexual relationships were legit. To me, if anyone decides to reform what is in the bible should no longer be called a christian. I meam changing what's in the bible is a huge deviation..changing what the church believes is one thing but what is explicitly stated in the bible should be a basic premise for any christian to believe in without any doubts.. And I don't understand why people who disagree with what is in the bible still insist to either create a new religion or be accepted into the christian religion and reform it. I think they should just give up. It would save the world a lot of trouble...
This is just like the reformed jews who allow women to be rabbis..What?? The jewish religion is all about traditionalism, which means women stay below men in all levels of social institutions... If they do that how do they even get away with calling themselves jewish..What kind of authority can someone have when the only things they can say as their job description is "I teach and preach judeism, but by becoming a female rabbi I broke one of its rules"..

I'm sorry, but can I just ask what the heck you are talking about here? You've jumped all over the place.

*sigh*
It really doesn't matter because I know that as usual most people won't agree with me...you can tell i'm really giving up on making myself clear because it's pointless, very few people on here share my opinions and whoever does will know what i'm talking about even if I ramble..but I'll sum it up anyway:


i think it's clear from what the bible says that they didn't mean same sex when they talked about marriage.
So, therefore I think anyone who claims they are christians and believe that gays can be preachers are creating this paradox- you can't call yourself a christian when you openly break the basic laws of christianity (from the bible) and even less so call yourself a christian preacher...This is just my objective logic talking, not any faith or feelings or anything like that.

To the one the says about women preachers not being allowed - its in there.

1 Timothy has instructions for the church regarding who can teach who. Chapters 2 and 3 outling instructions on worship and the Overseers (elders) and Deacons.

1Tim 2:11-12 - A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man.

Women can teach other women in small groups, but to be a preacher/teacher over the congregation - that is not permitted. Therefore, the churches that allow women preachers are in defience of Scripture.

What about churches that do not forbid divorce? Are they in defiance of the scripture as well?

Ok, now I understand, and actually I DO agree with you to a point (surprise!). If someone is openly practicing (as in gay marriage) they have no business preaching if their religion is against it because they are breaking the rules they are teaching. But, if someone knows they are homosexual but NOT acting on it then that, to me, is fine. I mean, celibacy is a way of life for Catholic priests so they also have to deny thier own urges...to me that's the same thing.

This was also written in AD 62-66 when women were considered property and stood just a little higher in rank over animals.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Book-of-1-Timothy.html

While I could understand that view 2000 years ago since women weren't very educated, are you saying that a woman now, in 2009, who went to college, got a degree and became a teacher shouldn't teach males? Well, in that case I guess a lot of female teaches (and college professors) are going to hell for breaking the rules.

You guys are taking so much out of context. We are talking about teaching God's word in the CHURCH - not in school or any where else.

God wants you to take responsibility for your actions. There are consequences for your sin. And we all are sinners. Birth control has nothing to do with the topic, nor does it have any bearing on what happens when you stand before God on judgment day. Its what is in your heart and what you believe, and whether or not you reject Jesus as the son of God.

So, If I have done nothing but good all my life, helped others, did my best in all I do, made a positive difference in this world, If I don't believe in Jesus as my savior I am going to hell?
Hmm.

I go by what the word of God is on that question

I realize that what I'm about to say will have plenty of potential to go haywire with out-of-context prooftexts, but could people please cite their sources when they say something is or isn't "scriptural"? I know the Bible passbly well and can't think of any passage that unambiguously forbids lots of things that people say are "bad."

Obviously I'm not a mod or anything, I just think that we'll have a more interesting and intelligent discussion if we go to the roots of what we're discussing.

If you really want serious Scripture passages for your questions, I'll give them to you privately. But if you don't want to know the truth/answer, then don't ask me.

I'll help you find the answers.