thormas

You miss the point about my friend: this was yet another Christian group that did not accept scientific/medical advances or help in lieu of the miraculous. You may pin it on vocation, but it is no different from the anti-gay church not accepting the science/psychology of sexual orientation and identity. What you just wrote about God providing through creation is a belief statement and it is their (my friends group) belief that God provides in and through the miraculous. I have no problem with Christian ethics not being divorced from the secular but this belief is challenged and in conflict when/if a member of the Lutheran community 'judges' a ethical matter in a way that is at odds with Christian/Lutheran ethics and therefore (divorced) from secular ethics. Seemingly, the member is wrong, their conscience not properly formed or informed. You do realize that 'divinization' is only possible thought the self-giving (Grace) of God. It is all about God and does not happen without God. So with divination (properly understood) we are made righteous, made right, justified by the power of God.................however if, as you say, justification shapes your approach to ethics, that divination/justification has a human component in that man lives it (ethics).

I am not familiar but how do they differ on hetero and homosexual related sin? Unless they have changed, Catholicism accept the homosexual individual but thought all homosexual sexual activity was wrong, not acceptable, or sin. So if a Church has such a blanket statement, do they need to delve into particulars or has it been covered? And don't most churches have pretty much a blanket statement against any sex outside of marriage - yet they might feel 'obliged' to delve into some of the particulars? Does Jesus say anything about either orientation or sex only within marriage?

Well, belief in miracles might indeed harm others: I had a great friend from college who, when she got a bit older, got in with a religious group that refused doctors and any medical 'intervention' relying instead on God (i.e. miracles):she died of cancer. I would think in the history of Christianity, in the history of religion, we have many examples of people relying on miraculous interventions - all for naught to their harm, be it greater or lesser in degree. Plus, although I disagree with any ethic that denies basic human respect to any individual or group, your position is a bit convenient as some of these other folks might be just as passionate, in their denial of scientific evidence, when they believe they were dealing with sin - as you are with your belief in miracles. Both are at odds with your appeal to scientific evidence. "As a Lutheran, I don't believe anti-homosexual teachings are essential to my faith, since we separate theology from ethics." Are you serious? How much can we chip away at Lutheran Christian ethics before it impacts theology? I have no idea what you mean when you say, "individuals' consciences can be bound on this issue in different ways according to their understanding of God's Word, and that must be respected." So are you saying the individual understanding trumps Christian ethics? And it sounds, a bit like Orthodoxy: that Lutherans would accept an anti--LGBT conscience? Of course you don't view it as throwing the baby out but you are dismissing an entire expression of Christianity for an anti-gay conscience while you accept the same from individual Lutherans conscience? "Lutherans do have a doctrine of divinization of sorts but it is understood in terms of mystical union through participation in the ordinary sacramental life of the Church gathered around the Word, and it is very much secondary to justification." Well this is wordy, can you explain it?

Again, this is the baby with the bathwater scenario: you have identified a blind spot (that is indeed wrong) but it doesn't mean every last person or every Orthodox church is anti humanistic in all they do. Hopefully, they will catch up, not merely with science but, regardless of science, the love of others for themselves. However, you do realize the whole 'confronted by scientific evidence' could be applied to those who believe men can predict future events, work 'miracles.' resurrect from the dead, and on and on. So, it is possible for a church who is anti LGBTQ to simply 'profess their faith' and disregard scientific evidence. Now I for one would still disagree with such a church on this issue as I would also ask those of other churches to explain what they mean and how they can seemingly disregard science. We have to allow for the goose and the gander.

I agree that all churches (all religions, all people) should accept LGBTQ people but it is also true that many truly believe(d) they were being faithful. I believe they are wrong, or to be more kind, still on their way, but it seems neither fair nor accurate to call all such people or imply that all the activities of such churches are anti-humanistic. So, the reality is you are speaking in generalities and, at the same time, it is (seemingly) true in the specifics for certain churches regarding their acceptance and inclusion of LGBTQ people. There may indeed be instances, too many instances, of principles above people but it is questionable whether this fully defines such churches as you charge. But it still seems to be not "they all" but one according to what you have written.

"....they all have tendencies that put principles and theory ahead of actual people." So we have one? Do you mean a particular church or are you including all the Eastern churches and all their people? How many Orthodox Christians have you heard? You're saying they aren't humanistic and people-centersd? Odd, I taught with an Orthodox Priest (went to school with others) and not only his faith but he was a model for a 'people centered' or humanistic life.

Exactly: not abolished but fulfilled. The Old is fulfilled in Jesus, and thus there is the New - and the New is to be lived by those who follow Jesus: "whoever does them.... will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." To live the law of love is not bondage. Fulfilled - as in realized, as in fully lived in the man Jesus. Now it must be 'realized' by us, i.e. lived. Fulfilled by Jesus does not mean lived by all.

There is Barna and there is personal experience gained over 12 years and hundreds upon hundreds of kids - and also the ongoing decline of Christianity and some Churches looking like old age homes. Bigotry and hypocrisy are one think and might be the straw that breaks the back but the lack of true understanding is the weakness that lays the groundwork. Plus bigotry and hypocrisy are the coin of the realm in secular society, so it is much wider than the church. Moralism, really? How many adults not to mention kids have any idea what that actually means? I wasn't looking for a philosophical approach to Christianity (it's called theology and I have it); I was merely looking for you, who professes and writes about his faith (and, who seemingly 'understands' enough to dismiss some scholars and other expressions of Christianity) to simply give some real, considered explanation and insight about your faith - that goes beyond the quotes and the catch-phrase. I previously was willing to accept that Lutheranism might be 'difficult to explain' for you - but seemingly you don't find it difficult to explain why you dismiss other Christian churches. It would be interesting to have you name a few that wouldn't say the same things (realistic view, values authenticity, values people over theory, humanistic and people centered) about their expressions as you do about yours and also think that's what Jesus was about.

That makes sense. I get this. I didn't always have a 'philosophical' approach and I learned how to 'explain' Christianity for the reason I gave in my last post. Catholicism too was so steeped and seemingly comprehensible for the people - then I met the kids and boredom, questions, skepticism, anger, curiosity, hunger to understand - it was all there and had to be met where they were. I had a philosophical background but the approach was the everyday, ordinary language and examples and sometimes the simple explanation was met by, "why didn't anyone ever tell us this before?" Why indeed.

FD76, I see where you get the quotes and I don't have any major disagreement at first glance (a couple though). I accept that God is Grace, and that man can't save himself, I have said on this site that we cannot be human without God. But, as a former teacher of theology, I can hear kids, high school kids, who will shortly leave the nest, hearing this kind of lovely commercial or preaching in (all) church and tuning out, thinking, "here we go again." Or asking, after studying about man's self determination and monumental achievements in other classes and his reach to other galaxies in science, bristling over the belief that man can't save himself; it sounds absurd given what they are learning every day. And for many so does the idea (and the reality) of God - you must know this in your own experience. So, are the only options, to repeat it or simply say believe? Yet, they are already bored with the former and questioning he latter. And, we have the young adults who get weary of it all, put it away and then, finding themselves pregnant and perhaps with 'pressure' from others, "how are you going to raise them, are you raising them in your faith" go back to the faith they never understood and dismissed but now 'have to do something.' And another generation grows up without getting it and therefore without truly living it. So, how does grace work, how can we say it is God, how can man not be able to save himself, how do we get grace now that Jesus is 'in heaven' and for the truly enterprising, what if we have a Tarzan scenario, no human beings, no grasp of God, no revelation - is there still grace, how does it get to Tarzan? Faith is reasonable (it's not that it has to be, it simply is) which should be obvious because it is a human experience and we can think, reflect and ponder on our experiences and thinking deeply on them, enter into them more deeply than before. Faith is not afraid of reason, it welcomes it and also realizes that much is (and remains) mystery, that language is limited (that's why we have poetry, myth and symbols) but it is open to the exploration and should assist in it. After all if God is Creator, God 'graced' us with reason.

I will try to watch it but I have been asking for your explanation of your beliefs - anything? Also, I was referring to your language and you simply providing a deeper explanation for one who is not a Lutheran. I am not asking for a thoroughly researched, reasoned dissertation - only an explanation that goes beyond the quotes and catch words and addresses certain issue that have been mentioned. There is a time for everything under the sun - this is the time for discussion and explanation, I don't pray or celebrate the sacraments on a website.

So was this a different Jesus? “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

The one problem I see is that so many have fallen away, in part because Christianity makes no sense in their present world view. What was in the language of the 1st C and then was explained against the philosophical background and language of the various councils, has largely remained static down through the ages: it has to be explained anew for contemporary people. Seemingly, the (or the Lutheran) traditional explanation of Christianity speaks to you, it (and much of Christianity) does not for far more. So It is not heard and cannot be good news. For example I believe that incarnation and trinity, say something extremely important about the human experience of God and Jesus but I suspect you couch it in a bygone worldview and philosophy that in literally non-sensical to most of our contemporaries. So mine is not on attack on cherished beliefs, it is because the subject of those beliefs (God, Christ, man) is so cherished that I (and other and not just the Jesus seminar folks) try to explain in our 'language' so, as Gabriel Moran said, decades ago, it is a Present Revelation. If I am misunderstanding you, please feel free to set the record straight but you use words like grace and I question if it communicates anything to anyone other that one who shares your particular Christian/Lutheran expression. Even when asked for explanation of law and gospel, you give a quote (and follow up) that indicates no evidence of an in-depth understanding of these topics. The law says, ‘do this,’ and it is never done. Grace says, ‘believe in this,’ and everything is already done.” What does this mean, what could it possibly mean to a modern person? The law is never done? yet Jesus himself obeys (i.e. does) the law and fulfills it. Grace says believe in this and everything is already done? Did Judas know that? did Jesus' own disciples know that and do that when they walked with him? And what is it that is never done by the law and already done by grace? And how does the law, the commandments, the 2 great commandments threaten or accuse the conscience? What does this statement mean: "the Gospel is whatever promises the forgiveness of sins and eternal life?" What is it that promises, can't be Jesus since you then say, "Jesus' "turn the other cheek" is actually Law." So, Jesus gives grace which is good but he gives the law which is not? Again, I ask, how does this possibly make sense to contemporary people? And there has got to be more than some quotes and calling respected scholars radical. Again, if I am misreading you, please show me how.

And I have the opposite e experience: that once the victim of bullying, one would never stoop to that behavior. It is not merely the experience of being bullied (which is never in a vacuum), it is our prior experiences, the security and love of family and friends (and the resulting sense of self) before, during and after being bullied. Again, my experience is different. It also doesn't just happen because you are bullied. It may or may not - you are the one there but to teach them also to seek help or protect themselves seems right (and self-protection in a continuum from the joking back to the aforementioned lawyer). But why does your kid get a detention if they are actively trying to avoid a bullying situation? I agree on the bigger picture but if the bully doesn't see it........... I disagree: it is preventing harm first - which is also compassionate. I'm just having a discussion and not looking for someone else to justify my action - although, I know, from experience, that many would agree. ok No one said there was no compassion for the bully or the one who began the fight or simply the bigger of the two kids who could have done the most damage, taken all the blame and gotten suspended. But you are right, you weren't there and what you observe from a distance and your imagination is radically different from the lived moment. You see the 'moment' through your lens and give it your interpretation which obviously includes the conclusion that there was no love for the bully. How wrong you are. There was nobody unloved ...... I would hope I would act the same way and because I believe it was 'right' - given those circumstances and those people. And, if others had very similar circumstances and people, I would hope they would act in a similar way for the simple reason that it was a good and necessary thing to do - again in those circumstances.

None taken but it is not egotistical - I think by the very fact that you speak of achievement speaks to the reality that we are more, much more than animals. Not a pat on the back, given the heavy load we have on our backs because we are 'more.' Remember Uncle Ben: "with great power (and being 'more') comes great responsibility." I just had a heart to heart with my dog and he indicated that I was right, then I gave him a bone.........and patted his head.

Sorry possibility but you are simply wrong. Some of us know ourselves and I could play amateur psychologist also and say you are projecting your conscious and unconscious fears. You really don't know me (nor would I expect any of us to know the other on this site) and you don't know the time this took place or the family and educational background I came from. There was no fear as you are suggesting and any behaviors that were internalized were not about a job or fear of losing a job. That was the farthest thing from my unconscious mind :+} I will read more of your post later.

Good lord, you are beating a dead horse. Merely because the Kingdom was not established, it does not follow, given what a prophet is, that he was a failed prophet. Prophets didn't predict the future, we have OT books written well after the lifetime of a prophet when events have come to pass, and some of those now past events are put back on the lips of prophets of an earlier age. Again, Jesus did say he didn't know but also said it would come to pass 'soon.' As for the story of the prophesy of the destruction of the temple, see above about OT prophet 'prophesies.' Of course you didn't mention when the gospels were written, when Jerusalem and the Temple tumbled and how that 'plays' into 'new temple of God for Christians: the body, the person of Jesus. Again, scholars? and now you're calling people names simply because you disagree: now they're radical scholars.

You are making misleading statements or, at least wrong-headed assumptions: I didn't say or suggest what you have written in your first line, rather I spoke of the 'present' and 'not yet' dimension of the kingdom that is present in the gospels and in the saying of Jesus. If you don't know this, there is not much anyone else can do. Further, this tension is not a big concern if you think of the seed or any of the growth parables. However, the point stands that Jesus spoke of the Kingdom (the fullness of the Kingdom) being established in the lifetime of some of his disciples..........and it didn't happen. And, he wasn't only reiterating Jewish expectations but he was in agreement with those expectations. He wasn't a man out of time, he was a Jew of the 1st C CE and he was fully aware of the hopes of his people, including their expectation and longing for the Messiah. That he was also original or unique is obvious, especially in his understanding of who or what the Messiah would be. I have not said or implied anything about his 'creativity' or that he was not a unique figure in history. Furthermore, even in his originality he was a Jew, who came to fulfill the law and announce the Kingdom.

I don't think they do (plus, which specific scholars?): there is a legitimate disagreement among some scholars but I think it is a bit much to say scholars purposely ignore certain elements of the gospels. Actually there is a tension is Jesus's sayings about the Kingdom already present and the Kingdom still coming - but indeed it was seen as a physical Kingdom, established by God. However, we see it differently, of necessity it seems, since the Kingdom was not established in the lifetime of his disciples.

I don't agree that most of us only see ourselves as 'just' more intelligent than animals. In many ways, yes as we are also animals; in many ways, the most important ones, no - because we are not only animals: we are more. And the beat goes on........

Good one. Actually if we could find a picture or cartoon we could add it to your collection: Mary giving Jesus, hopefully baby Jesus, an ugly Christmas sweater - with Santa on it.

I didn't say he failed, just that, if indeed he was, as many serious biblical scholars state, an apocalyptic prophet, he was wrong: the Kingdom was not established in the lifetime of his followers. I actually have no problem with this as I recognize that he was a man and also that he did (seemingly) say "only the Father knows." Not in the heart: Jesus preached the establishment of the Kingdom on earth (as was the Jewish hope/expectation) and that it would be done by God.......not man. It was a Kingdom not of the heart (this seemingly suggests that man had something to do with its establishment); it was the Kingdom of God, here and now. Seemingly we disagree with Jesus' take on the Kingdom given what we are both saying. For Jesus, in the Kingdom, there would be no violence or oppression because the old had passed away and God's reign would be established. However, never said he failed.

So........what is this distinction, in your understanding?

Well, Burl you seemingly accept things more literally(?) and/or accept traditional understanding more than I do. I would question some of what you have written and distinguish between the historical Jesus and the gospel pictures of him and also recognize that Jesus taught more than the disciples. As for the change in the relationship with God for all, I agree in principle but it must be understood in order to be taken up and make a real difference in the individual and then, it must be lived. And, I wouldn't say God experienced these things but that is for another time. You do know the sweater was a joke and that Jesus wouldn't have worn a Christmas sweater, right?

So, one particular church community failed to live its faith - okay I get that. However, I have no idea what cheap law means. I think a real understanding of theosis is on target and it does not deal in mere platitudes, but Love. I get the disappointment and the disgust but it is still the baby and the bathwater scenario. I also speak from experience. Abrupt change but okay, however I think authoritarianism, combined with traditional theism (again, unless properly understood and thereafter expressed in the words and images of real, contemporary people) is a dual problem. If some Christians are seen as bigoted, in part it is because they never really understood what it was about - so never lived it's truth. However, you really have to define your terms, like " imperial, constantinian religious synthesis." This is so loaded, you need to explain it yourself to give others a real feel for what, exactly, you mean.