If by willfull you are saying, I know this is wrong and I'm going to do it anyway, then yes, that should be avoided. Paul in Romans is fairly adamant about not going forward in sin just because you know forgiveness is available. I did not understand you in that vien. If that is what you meant then you have my apology for misunderstanding you. As to the "liberal" label, I accept your statement that no offense was intended and am happy to let that go. At the risk of highjacking a thread which has already been highjacked a couple of times I will give you a thumbnail view of contemporary Lutheranism in America. For those uninterested, skip this next couple of paragraphs. There are two Lutheran bodies in America which have over 95% of the Lutherans in this country, the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod with about 2.2 million members and 5,000 + congregations and the Evangelical Lutheran Chuch in America (ELCA) with 4.8 million members and just shy of 11,000 congregations (the body of which I am a pastor). There are 22 or so other bodies which have the last 5%, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod being by far the largest of those with nearly 1,000 congregations and about 350,000 folks. The ELCA is the product of a series of mergers of various ethnic and language groups over the past nearly 50 years. Within the ELCA there has been debate over the past ten years or so as to whether or not to allow same sex marriages within the church and whether or not to have ordained clergy who are living in same sex relationships. Currently gltb folk are welcomed in all areas of congregational life (obviously some congregations do that better or worse than others) but not ordination and we do not perform ceremonies (though in the few states where such weddings are allowed, some of our clergy do perform such rites). As you would expect, people have been passionate on both sides of the questions but as of now, no out right schism has occured. Now to anticipate the next question, "where are you in this debate?", I am with the majority which opposes changing our visions and expectations of clergy. I do not believe gential sexual relations is a human right. And while I am unhappy about it, my reading of scripture, especially Romans 1, informs me that homosexual sexual activity is an example of the brokeness of creation and is not to be undertaken. It wouild certainly be easier if those words weren't there but they are. While I would support full civil rights for glbt folk and as a citizen have voted that way, I will not perform a wedding for a couple if they asked nor do I favor rostering as clergy glbt's who are in relationship. As an aside our denomination has a "Church Council" which is the board of directors. It includes the presiding Bishop, three lay officers, at 33 at large members, 12 of which are pastors. I am one of those pastors. We are currently examining a social statement on human seuality in general and will debate implementing resolutions regarding standards at our November Council meeting and our biennial assembly in 2009. I will be on record at each of thse gatherings.
Thanks man! I was reading about the Social Statement on Sexuality on the Elca website. I haven't finished it but sounds interesting. My church welcomes any and everyone no matter who they are or what they are involved in. We do follow biblical standards when it comes to our pastors and staff and we don't perform marriages for unbelievers even if one is a believer. The bible is clear that we should be equally yoked and warns about marriage to an unbeliever - even if the hope is that one day they will become a believer. The statistcs say otherwise. My take is that if the government wants to legalize sinful behavior, then that is their prerogative, as long as I am not forced to do anyhting against God. But I also vote my conscience in the booth, and that is heavily influenced by my faith. Like I have said before, I sleep well knowing I have the freedom to do both. Thanks!
Let me ask you a question: Do you think that it's the right of every individual who doesn't share your religious beliefs to do as he pleases as long as he doesn't violate an actual law? Because if you do, then I'm a bit at a loss as to why you would vote someone who, for instance, is against homosexual marriage because you'd essentially force your own religious beliefs on people who don't happen to share them. If you think of homosexuality as a sin, that's your prerogative of course. I will not hold it against you. But if you, by casting your vote, force someone into a life he doesn't want to live, then you are misusing your religious freedom. That I would hold against you.
biting. biting. ok. can't do it. legalizing sinful behavior is kinda vague isn't it? i mean, i think murder is kinda sinful and yet this government subsidizes murder daily by continuing this ridiculous search for Binladen. how many on both sides gotta die because you vote your conscience? McCain has has already stated " as long as it takes...". you gotta figure which is worse. personally, what someone does behind closed doors is their business. i have a problem with unneeded war zones killing on both sides in an area that clearly does not want us there. i can live with the personal choice of someone vs. the unnecessary killing of our soldiers.
Well now the discussion turns to the moral implications of war by a country. I think it should be noted here that murder is different than killing. And the bible also makes that same distinction. Countries have every right to go to war and "kill" the enemy in defense of themselves and innocents and to kill the bad guys. Think WWI, WWII and Gulf War I. That isn't murder, and that is biblical if you are a believer and that matters to you. That does not excuse mis use of power in questionable wars like Iran Contra , and some would say Gulf War II. I have no faith in our government to do the right thing all the time.
so you agree then that we, as a nation are "murdering" members of several Arab nations in this Democrization of a country that really does not want us there. as for the Bible stating it is ok to kill in self defense, i would agree with that only because if a situation arises that violence is imminent, let me tell you it will be you before me. as for the examples that you gave as Biblically OK to kill, only one of those is actually a self defense circumstance. WWI we were clearly duped into and the Gulf War we came to the defense of another country. WWII, by the examples given, is the only one that fits your definition. i also see you omitted the "Police Actions"; Korea and Vietnam and i find that interesting. in general, regardless of what the Bible says, i find the notion of killing just wrong.
I want to kick in here because this is among the most difficult questions to answer satisfactorily. People of faith hold certain positions vis a vie moral issues. If we vote accordingly then "we are trying to force our beliefs on others". If we don't we are "hypocrites who don't know what they believe." Talk about a rock and a hard place. I believe God is the God of all creation so my faith goes with me into the polling place and my votes go through that filter. ALL of that filter not just gay rights and abortion but also care for the poor, just war, justice, etc. Sometimes I have to hold my nose regarding a particular issue because neither of my choices give me what I fully want, but then isn't that true for all of us?
I truly hope I do not offend any Catholics by saying this, but from my view of the Roman Catholic Church, if the Vatican is suggesting the existence of alien beings, that pretty much tells me they've figured out a way or have a plan to ultimately profit from it in the long term future.
