Lutheran Ping!
Here some the sodomites and their symps, attacking our church once again!
Posted on 05/07/2004 1:07:36 PM PDT by TonyRo76
Are people born as homosexuals? What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
These are just two of the questions debated by three local clergy members Tuesday morning on Open Line, a program of KXRA-Radio.
"As a pastor, I am convinced that the church should not make a decision based on science," stated John Beem, a retired Evangelical Lutheran Church of America bishop, who now belongs to Calvary Lutheran Church in Alexandria.
Beem noted that in a study done in 1991, it was discovered that there is an extra part of the brain that is larger than other parts, which helps determine sexual tendencies. However, he added that the study couldn’t clearly state whether or not a person was born gay.
Beem added that the study revealed a certain gene that more than likely contributes to homosexuality.
Tracy Weaver, a pastor at Lake Community Church in Alexandria (Evangelical Free), addressed comments from a caller, who raised the question of causation. Weaver asked whether or not homosexuality is a behavior or condition, or if it’s genetic.
He also stated that there isn’t any clear evidence that states homosexuality is genetic. He added that if it’s genetic, then wouldn’t there be a correlation with twins, where if one is born gay, wouldn’t the other also be born gay?
Another Open Line caller asked the clergy about whether or not homosexuality would be considered an abomination.
Weaver indicated that the Book of Revelations refers to more abominations than just homosexual tendencies.
Beem stated that there is no distinction between sins and that homo-erotic behavior is a cardinal issue and a classic example of abomination.
Father Jeff Ethen, who preaches at several area Catholic churches, noted that it was unfair to single out homosexuality as an abomination. War, he said, could even be called an abomination.
"To be homosexual is not a sin," stated Ethen, who disagreed with Weaver and Beem on the issue of whether or not a person is born gay.
"Social conditions do not make you homosexual…," he said. "God created you that way. Any sex outside of marriage is a sin."
Ethen also noted that although the Catholic religion will not marry a homosexual couple, it recognizes the fact that they are. He also noted that there are a lot of heterosexual couples that shouldn’t be married.
"We need them as they are," he said. "But, maybe they were called here [on Earth] for a particular reason."
Weaver, who considers himself a Biblicist or expert on the Bible, stated that the Book of Romans in the New Testament clearly states that homosexuality is a violation of God’s plan.
"It is simply unbiblical," he said. "It [homosexuality] is a perversion."
He added that a message in the Book of Romans states that "this is how you were, but you can change," which includes homosexuality.
A female caller stated, "You don’t have to be one — it’s a choice," to which Ethen replied, "If so, then what’s the cure for it?"
"What’s the cure for anything we do?" the caller told Ethen. "It’s accepting God in your life."
Ethen then replied, "You are born what you are."
"No you’re not," retorted the caller.
"Adam and Eve had two boys," countered Ethen. "Who did they marry?"
The caller told Ethen he couldn’t say that for sure and not to be facetious.
Weaver interjected and said one shouldn’t speculate about what is stated in the Bible. He said that homosexuality is a genuine desire that is to be denied.
A caller echoed his sentiments by stating, "It may be a temptation, but you can resist. It’s a desire that can be controlled."
After several more calls came into the Open Line program, Beem stated the issue of homosexuality is critical and that it can lead to a change in culture.
He noted that those who engage in homosexual activities live 30 years less than those who do not engage in such activity. He added that persons with AIDS live 37 years less.
A caller asked if the interpretations of homosexuality in the Bible are right.
Ethen answered by saying that the Catholic faith does not fundamentally take the scriptures literally. Although scriptures are an important part of faith, there are other parts that are just as important, he said.
"We have scriptures that we follow, but we also have traditions, which can lead society," Ethen said.
At the end of the program, it was determined that the issue of homosexuality, and its role in religion, will never be agreed upon.
However, Weaver stated that he does not want anyone confused about what the Bible says.
"It is clear that it is a sin. It is an abomination," stated Weaver.
In an e-mail to Open Line, a man told the clergy that it’s the acceptance of homosexuals that needs to change.
Ethen replied, "That’s baloney. They are welcome in the church and we are not going to try and change them."
Beem disagreed with the e-mailer, but stated that he hopes when people have conversations about the issue they should be careful and respectful of one another’s views.
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
who put darkness for light and light for darkness...
Here some the sodomites and their symps, attacking our church once again!
People are born sinners. The exact nature of the sin that will suck them in varies, but in an Edwards analogy we are drawn to sin like a moth to a candle. All who are not in Christ will one day fly a little to close and be destroyed.
GRPL PING
Mechanics 101. Good point!
Just another symptom of what happens when you set aside the authority of Scripture!
NO studies that seemed to show that there is a "gay gene" in humans, or that there are differences in gay and straight brains, have been replicated by other reputable researchers. Moreover, many ideas about "gay genes" that were around in the 1970s (i.e., the era from which most revisionists' ideas and beliefs come, even in 2004) do not even make sense in terms of genetic knowledge in 2004!
In 2004, there is NOT ONE serious, working human geneticist who would say that there is ANY evidence whatsoever for genetic determination of homosexuality!!!! (That does not mean that there may not be some complex genetic determination that contributes to a homosexual orientation, but there is no scientific evidence for it at all at the present time.)
The revisionists still keep coming out with this 1970s pseudo-science as an EXCUSE to push the gay/feminazi agenda, and to paint orthodox Christians as espousing "outdated, outmoded, biblicist views". However, it is THEY who are pushing outmoded and discredited "science" to avoid the truth of God's law and his Gospel!!!!
However, "Survivor" is great entertainment. 8~)
Here come the "human rigthsers", who believe that they are annointed to tell others how to live and believe, and to back it up by force, attacking their favorite target, the world's orthodox Christians!!!!
Once there is gay "marriage" in any state (it is coming to Massachusetts on May 17th), the "human rightsers" will attept to force other states to recognize "marriages" performed in that state in all 50 states. Then, especially if there are church bodes that recognize and perform gay "unions" or "marriages", they will attempt to force othodox Christian priests/pastors to perform them, or face lawsuits or even criminal penalties for "discrimination". Then they will atempt to pass "hate crime" laws to criminalize Christians for saying that homosexuality is wrong. (There are already such laws in Sweden and in Canada.)
Take a good look at what the "human rightsers" have been doing to our Serbian Christian brothers and sisters. This vile, fascist "human rightser" agenda is coming soon, to a neighborhood near you!!!! And the "gay issue" is being used as a wedge to make this happen!!!!
And even if there *were* some genetic predisposition to same-sex attraction, so what? It's a chosen behavior. You elect to either indulge your desires or not. Same as heterosexuals.
This is true. Sometimes I wonder why we even bother to discuss this anymore.
Gotta disagree with you there. God gives us free choice, we can choose to give Him control of our lives or try to run things ourselves. Therein lies the problem. If God were in control of everybody we wouldn't have this mess.
Same here.
Because the first principle of ongoing life is the creatuional mechanism for it to be ongoing life. One need not get into very deep theological considerations to recognize this. It is only lost to those who allow themselves to get bogged down in verbalized arguments, and ignore the sweeping panorama of the human experience, as well as common sense.
Are some people born, sexually inadequate? Yes, of that I have no doubt. Certainly everyone is not hormonally adequate, balanced or functional. Not every part of every person's body is normal or adequate or equivalent. But nothing in that argues for the acceptance of a claimed "lifestyle" which mocks the normal procreational mating function of a species. Nor should substitute activities that some people engage in, and which feel pleasurable to them, for whatever reason, be equated with the physical mating of the sexes, which leads to the progression of generations, that is the continuum of the life of a species.
I do not want to see the stoning pits revived. But a healthy American society will continue to stigmatize certain forms of conduct; not to be cruel, but to preserve the social pressure for more desirable conduct. This too is basic to any ongoing social order. Those who have problems with their sexuality would be well advised to stop drawing attention to their personal problems in a way which undermines the ways a healthy society protects itself. That is hardly the way to obtain a greater degree of toleration.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
"The fact that they are" ... are ... what? This ... individual's grammar is as bad as his theology.
Too bad nobody was there to challenge him to produce any sort of official teaching document of the Catholic faith that "recognizes" a "homosexual couple" as anything other than two people enmeshed in sin.
He also noted that there are a lot of heterosexual couples that shouldn’t be married.
Natural law, father, natural law. The number of heterosexual couples with two penises or two vaginas is exactly zero. By design.
I'd like to note that there are a lot of Catholic priests who shouldn't have been ordained. [cough]
Why aren't these "scientists" wanting funding to solve the "homosexual crisis"?
It's not. It's learned behavior. And it's destroying our country, our children and our society.
Note to Graybeard -- none of this conflicts with the fact that God is in control of His creation and everything in existence serves His will. Our salvation by the empty cross on Calvary necessitated Judas' kiss.
All things work for the glory of God, whether they know it or not.
Really? I mean, is it that hard for you to tell when some goofy priest or bishop is spouting off his own nutty opinion, versus the official teaching of the Church? I mean, I don't find it especially difficult.
Beem added that the study revealed a certain gene that more than likely contributes to homosexuality.
That was Simon LeVay's study. Here's what LeVay said of his own work:
"[His 1991 research] made the unassuming LeVay one of the most misunderstood men in America. "It's important to stress what I didn't find," he points out with the courtly patience of someone who long ago got used to waiting for the rest of the world to catch up. "I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are 'born that way,' the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain--INAH3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior. My work is just a hint in that direction--a spur, I hope, to future work."Source: Interview with David Nimmons (March, 1994) "Sex and the Brain", Discover, Vol. 15, No. 3, p. 64-71.
It's not me I would be so concerned about. It's all the lost listeners of this radio station which is hearing the Catholic "representative" present what they think are the church's views. Perhaps you should be more concerned about them.
I wonder how many fruit loops were raised by two well adjusted parents who showed unconditional love to each other and the children?
This is most certainly true! Soli Deo Gloria!!
LOL! Duly noted. I couldn't help but notice the fact that on this broadcast panel, the "theologian" who staked out the most liberal position was the Catholic. Could they not find any conservative priests, who could actually represent traditional church teaching??
Of course that's not meant as Catholic-bashing on my part; it was our good ELCA buddy here who represented the mooshy moderate position—which is what brought this to my attention in the first place.
That is such an excellent point, I referenced it in the "keywords" ;-)
Sinatra? Dunno about that. "TonyRo" is just my first name + first two letters of my last...
Have a blessed weekend!
Mr. Ethen is probably one of those modernist dipwads who think the first 11 chapters of Genesis are all fairy tales. Just a guess ;-)
Yes! That's right out of Romans 1. Bttt!!
So WHO was Cain's wife?
Here's an interesting link I found about the subject.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp
Basically, it appears that this is the timeline.
- Eve gives birth to Cain.
- Eve gives birth to Abel.
- Eve gives birth to a whole slew of other children.
- Cain murders Abel.
- Eve gives birth to Seth.
- Eve possibly has a couple more children.
This part interests me a lot.
During their lives, Adam and Eve had a number of male and female children. The Jewish historian Josephus wrote that, ‘The number of Adam’s children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.
Ok, so let's say that that number is accurate. Now let's say that half of those daughters were born before Seth (Let's say 12). Let's also say that Seth's birth occured within a year of Abel's murder. It's apparent that Abel's murder was fresh in Eve's mind when Seth was born, so that's not a huge assumption.
Now let's assume that Eve had her first daughter when she was 18, and had the rest of her daughters at the pace of 1 per every 10 years afterward, with the 12th being born when she was 128, two years before Seths' birth. Let's also say that her daughters began having daughters of their own when they turned 18, and had additional daughters every 10 years. So by the time year 130 rolls around, here's how it breaks down.
The chart below has how I figured it out. It's listed as follows. It says the year and how many women of each generation lived at the time. So for Year 58, it says 1/5/4/1. That means that at the time, one 1st Generation woman (Eve) lived, as did five 2nd Generation women (Eve's daughters), four 3rd Generation women (Eve's granddaughters), and one 4th Generation woman (Eve's great-granddaughter).
Year 1: 1 (Eve)
Year 18: 1/1
Year 28: 1/2
Year 36: 1/2/1
Year 38: 1/3/1
Year 46: 1/3/2
Year 48: 1/4/2
Year 54: 1/4/3/1
Year 56: 1/4/4/1
Year 58: 1/5/4/1
Year 64: 1/5/5/2
Year 66: 1/5/6/2
Year 68: 1/6/6/2
Year 72: 1/6/7/4/1
Year 74: 1/6/8/5/1
Year 76: 1/6/9/5/1
Year 78: 1/7/9/5/1
Year 82: 1/7/10/7/2
Year 84: 1/7/11/8/2
Year 86: 1/7/12/8/2
Year 88: 1/8/12/8/2
Year 90: 1/8/13/11/5/1
Year 92: 1/8/14/13/6/1
Year 94: 1/8/15/14/6/1
Year 96: 1/8/16/14/6/1
Year 98: 1/9/16/14/6/1
Year 100: 1/9/17/17/9/2
Year 102: 1/9/18/19/10/2
Year 104: 1/9/19/20/10/2
Year 106: 1/9/20/20/10/2
Year 108: 1/10/21/24/16/6/1
Year 110: 1/10/22/27/19/7/1
Year 112: 1/10/23/29/20/7/1
Year 114: 1/10/24/30/20/7/1
Year 116: 1/10/25/30/20/7/1
Year 118: 1/11/26/34/25/11/2
Year 120: 1/11/27/37/28/12/2
Year 122: 1/11/28/39/30/12/2
Year 124: 1/11/29/40/30/12/2
Year 126: 1/11/31/44/40/22/7/1
Year 128: 1/12/31/48/44/26/8/1
Came up with these numbers on the fly, so they may be off. But anyway, 2 years before Seth's birth you have approximately 171 women. A lot of those are babies, so let's say that the woman Cain was married to was at least 18 by the time of Abel's murder. That leaves 90 potential single women, any one of whom Cain could've married. So Cain definitely had plenty of choices as far as women were concerned.
And as it says, Cain knew his wife in the land of Nod. All that means is that he knocked her up, there. It doesn't mean he met her there. So chances are, he was married before he murdered Abel. He was banished, took his wife with him to the east, and it was then that she began to churn out babies (Which leads me to believe that Cain married one of his grandnieces or great-grandnieces, rather than a sister). Also, he was worried about someone hurting him for his murder of Abel. As pointed out at that site, if there were other people around not related to Adam, then how would they know about Abel, or care that he was murdered?
Blessed weekend dittos to you, too, TR. 8~)
Nice Bumper Sticker!
And let's not forget, the genetic imperfections and flaws that make incest such a dangerous idea today were not present in the time of Adam & Eve.
When God created them, he made two physically perfect human beings who were free from illness or defect. Only with the passage of time and the accumulation of sin did abnormalities start to replicate in the human gene pool. But for those first few generations of humanity, no such risk existed, so there's no reason to believe Cain and Seth couldn't have chosen wives from among their siblings!
Also, it wasn't until the Mosaic covenant that incest was forbidden by God.
Anyway, thanks for the clarification, my FRiend!
All the best,
T-Ro
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.