by Grand Forks Herald
May 23, 2011 at 2:06 pm in Grand Forks Herald
Trinity Lutheran Church in Carrington, N.D., voted to leave the Evangelical Church in America.
Tags: Carrington, elca, North Dakota, Religion, updates 43 Comments »
Why are these “good” Christians still here after Saturday’s rapture?
Oh. wait. Here’s a better headline: Carrington, ND church votes to continue propagating hateful environment & intolerance.
Hot debate. What do you think? 32 41
There is a very big difference between disagreeing with something and being intolerant of it. There are a lot of things that I disagree with that I can easily tolerate, so to say just because people decided that their religious beliefs make them intolerant is wrong.
Like or Dislike: 15 2
I’ve always found it curious which social justice topic congregations choose to take their stand. Sure would be nice to read about congregations getting worked into a frenzy over things like homelessness, poverty, hunger, domestic violence, illiteracy. As I recall, Jesus had some very clear direction as to how to address many of these topics, but didn’t say anything about same gender relationships. Oh, well. I’m sure they’re quite pleased with their piety.
Hot debate. What do you think? 34 34
It is not hateful for a church to stand for the same faith that the professed before the ELCA self-destructed. It is hateful to demand that a religion conform itself to secular values that are opposed to its teaching. Christians do far more to help the homeless then any homosexual organization in the area. But I guess they are quite pleased with their activism and attempts to force others to agree with them.
Hot debate. What do you think? 35 24
Solon, you are correct on so many levels.
However, it is unfortunate that there are so many churches that choose gay committed relationships as the only social justice on which they will take a stand.
Perhaps they might consider creating a home environment for a child who was saved from an abortion mill they closed down.
Oh wait, that might require DFL funding.
Hot debate. What do you think? 28 24
Gay marriage isn’t the only issue that churches are leaving the ELCA over. Roughly 8 years ago a number of churches left the ELCA when they decided that the insurance that members can get through the ELCA would fund abortions. This just happens to be the most recent thing the ELCA has done to stray away from what many Christians believe to be right and moral.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 23 7
Good God, boys…give it a stinkin’ rest! Each Church has the RIGHT TO CHOOSE. There’s plenty of room in the ELCA for all of you boys.
Hot debate. What do you think? 23 10
What I think is unfortunate about this is it sets up an a community standard based on homophobia. Can you even imagine what it must be like for a young person who suspects they are gay living in Carrington and knowing that a vast majority of his or her neighbors think there is something terribly wrong with them? Sure, it’s a free country and we can be homophobic if we choose, which Carrington lutherans have clearly done, but what a shame it is for all of us to realize the extent and depth of the homophobia existing in North Dakota. The Minnesota legislator who recently asked how many gay people would God have to create before society could allow them the same rights as anybody else was spot on in his comments.
Hot debate. What do you think? 23 25
Mac, how about this: if homosexuals want a church they can start one and profess any doctrines they want. If they are correct then people will flock to join. All churches should have the right to profess their faith. In fact this is not the only social justice issue, but homosexuals often think it is and show it. The St. Giana’s home is for women who are pregnant and have no place to go, you can send them a donation.
realist, It is not homophobia to believe that homosexuality is wrong for religious reasons. By portraying it so you set up the idea that churches that believe that should be persecuted. Basically it is like playing the race card. You try to label the other guy so that the debate is ended before being started. This shows the weakness of your position. You know you can’t win the argument so you close it down. To me it is anti-Christian bigotry to say that we are homophobic.
Hot debate. What do you think? 23 20
I didn’t say churches should be persecuted. I simply said they have the freedom to do what they did. That doesn’t mean it’s right or that I agree with it. Also homophobia is homophobia. There is no exemption for “religious reason”. Historically, religion has been used as a reason for lots of hateful things that we recognize now as not being particularly christian like burning witches, the inquisition etc, etc. Please reread my post: I did not say this church can’t do what it did, but what it did is homophobic and they need to “own” that. “Religious reasons” is not a defense against logical thinking.
Hot debate. What do you think? 19 18
realist, I will put it this way. I don’t agree that homophobia exists. To homosexuals it means anyone who for any reason disagrees with their agenda or with homosexuality. I refuse to concede that. It isn’t logic, it is propaganda.
Hot debate. What do you think? 15 18
Well, in that case, you must also believe that racism doesn’t exist nor does misogyny. The problem with that argument is that those things actually do exist as does homophobia and your not agreeing to it doesn’t make it less true. I wish I could believe that ignorance doesn’t exist but every day brings new examples.
Hot debate. What do you think? 18 14
realist, there is a phobia mania. Basically it comes down to: if you don’t like my thing then you are blankophobic. So realist you must be solonophobic. justsec is zardozophobic. If you disagree with the Democrats you are Obamaphobic. It is insane. All you are doing is making disagreement with homosexuality into a mental illness or a crime, which can be punished. Homosexuality is not a race btw and African Americans don’t like you equating the two. What I am saying is true and will be so even if you don’t agree, so don’t be truthophobic.
Like or Dislike: 13 15
Like or Dislike: 14 12
What zardoz (now speaking out of his solon) is saying, is a classic illustration of how blind faith in a dogma retards learning, and undermines humanistic morality.
Never mind reason or evidence, in zardoz’ mind maintaining the belief is all that counts — whether the belief is is demonstrably wrong (and thus intrinsically dishonest), or whether people get hurt as a result is irrelevant — what counts is that the ideology is unquestionably supported!
Cue diatribe on persecution of Christians….
Like or Dislike: 11 11
I just love the shredding and manipulation of vernacular by certain groups. There is no “phobia” in disagreeing with the lifestyle propounded by homosexuals. “Homophobia” means — or meant prior to the so-called “activists’” redefinition — that one is afraid of oneself becoming a homosexual. Perhaps homosexual activists are “phobic” about anyone who disagrees with their nouveau weltanschauung. One can equivocate and cynically eisegete Scripture to justify it all one wants but the promotion of the lifestyle is simply wrong from a religious standpoint. The mere fact that some corrupt factions have given their imprimatur does not change this. The memberships of the ELCA, the Presbyterians and the Episcopalians are all suffering, and will continue to suffer, because those denominations are not being true to the charism.
Like or Dislike: 13 9
Well, as a scrabble-playing grandmother, I like to use the dictionary and according to Webster, “homophobia” is an “unreasonable hatred of homosexuals” NOT a fear of becoming one oneself, but then only you know if your fear is justified.
Like or Dislike: 17 11
Disagreeing with homosexuality is not unreasonable hatred of homosexuals. Wanting your church to keep its traditional morality is not unreasonable either. Don’t be Christianophobic.
Disagreeing with homosexuality is like disagreeing with rain or carrots or trees. Homosexuality just is. Excluding homosexuals from churches is based on homophobia regardless of how you dress it up. Face up to it.
Like or Dislike: 13 12
No, it isn’t. Bestiality exists, it just is. So if you exclude those who love animals is that bestialityophobia no matter how you dress it up? You are not infallible and churches should not have to change their teaching to agree with you. If you don’t like what a church teaches then leave it and join another that will tell you what you want to hear. You are imposing your opinion on millions of others who disagree with you in good faith. Carrots are not a moral issue or a behavior. A church has every right to decide who it will ordain or not ordain. You are doing exactly what I said, trying to shut down opposition by labeling it a phobia. Don’t be so anti-phobiaphobic.
Like or Dislike: 9 11
I’m not trying to shut down anything. All “phobia” means is “fear”. It is the fear of having homosexuals in church that some people find frightening enough to try to exclude them entirely. You clearly are able to justify anything you believe to be true so I’m not going to expect that you will understand that.
Like or Dislike: 8 7
Comparing bestiality with homosexuality is one of the greatest farces put forth by conservatives and Christians in this debate. I’m not afraid of two people who happen to be of the same sex that love one another. Instead, I’m more worried about people like Solon, who seem to have bestiality hard-wired into their brains when the topic of gay marriage comes up. What are you and your closed minded cronies spending your time thinking/fantasizing about Solon?
I’d also like to extend my prior offer made to Steve, to you, Solon the Great. Since it’s very likely you believe that being homosexual is a choice, I’d like you to prove that to the city of Grand Forks, state of North Dakota, and nation once and for all by performing fellatio on me, another straight male, who will “choose” to go gay for the sake of you proving your argument. I eagerly await your response so we can go about getting the proper media authorities onboard for your demonstration.
Like or Dislike: 10 8
realist, you fear people who want their church to espouse traditional morality. So you are moralophobic. Why do you need to force churches to change their beliefs to mirror yours? Why do you want to exclude people who believe in traditional morals? Let gays start their own churches.
Kobold, it isn’t a farce. It shows how the “logic” of homosexual activists is a farce. It exposes the hypocrisy. Given that you proposition me for sex I would say that you have sexual deviancy hardwired in YOUR brain. If you are straight I have a bridge in Brooklyn to see you.
Like or Dislike: 6 6
Leave it to Christians and the religious right to make sex a bad thing…when they aren’t propositioning hookers for meth or hooking up in airport bathrooms, that is.
On the contrary, Solon, I lead a very healthy sex life. This is thanks, in large part, to growing up in an environment that didn’t make sex a demon. I’m sure your skills at providing “choice” fellatio aren’t that good anyways…or maybe they are!
Like or Dislike: 1 3
I’m guessing you fall under what columnist Dan Savage recently coined a “Choicer,” who believes that homosexuality is simply a choice. If that’s the case, Steve, I’d like to invite you over to my place for a drink, and then you can “choose” to provide me with oral sex. I’ll invite the Grand Forks Herald and WDAZ over to take photos and video, so you and your closed minded Christian cronies can once and for all proclaim and prove that homosexuality is a choice, and that, after experiencing it for everyone to witness, a choice you don’t want to make.
Go ahead. I’ll wait.
Like or Dislike: 15 13
Orthodox Christianity as formulated by Saul of Tarsus eliminated the 613 Jewish mitzvot. Jesus was all you needed. So, not only were the Ten Commandments labeled null and void, but also stoning a rebellious son, the dietary laws, and a man lying with another man.
Like or Dislike: 5 7
In that case Gene, I’d love for someone to show me a place in the New Testament where Jesus himself said that homosexuality was wrong.
I don’t believe he ever did. Coincidentally, Saul of Tarsus changed his name because in Demotic Greek it was a slang term for effeminate or homosexual.
Like or Dislike: 8 6
The Church did not void the 10 commandments. One of them is you shall not commit murder, so is murder now okay? St. Paul’s letters are in the Bible, so deal with it. Jesus didn’t condemn nuclear war, so is nuclear war a good thing now? The fact is that homosexuality is wrong according to Christianity.
Like or Dislike: 2 1
It’s not that murder is ok, it’s that if you accept Jesus you are forgiven for it. Look at the Karla Faye Tucker case. She put a pick axe through the chest of another woman. Then from her prison cell declared she was born again. Falwell and Robertson both pleaded to then Texas governor Bush for clemency, after all she was now a Christian. In other words, belief in Jesus should cancel your execution.
Your knowledge of Pauline theology is zilch.
Like or Dislike: 0 5
Gene, your logic is incomprehensible. Forgiveness of sin does not mean that you are no longer subject to temporal justice. Have you read Romans 13? You create a straw man and nothing more.
Like or Dislike: 3 1
So why then did both Falwell and Robertson pursue executive clemency to have her execution commuted?
Like or Dislike: 1 4
Gene, maybe they don’t agree with the death penalty? You will have to ask them. People ask for clemency for many reasons all the time. Every citizen has the right to appeal. Do you believe that no Christian should have a fair trial or any appeals? She didn’t get it anyway. Btw, they didn’t want her released from prison right away either. Commuting the death penalty would still have meant life. And life in Texas is life. So she still would have been punished. Refuting you is ridiculously easy.
I’d thought that the proponents of homosexuality had evolved past the hackneyed position expressed in Kobold’s invitation. Regardless of whether it’s a choice or inborn, it is aberrant and unhealthy conduct out of which no natural, biological consequence is derived. It is not something that aught to be extolled in a secular context let alone ordained as holy or sanctified by any religious body. There is no example in either the New Testament or the Old Testament approving of it. Christ has His bride, the Church, and had a father and a mother; it’s as simple as that. Jesus, Mary and Joseph is the example of a family. Where are the examples for the union of two men or two women in any part of Scripture? In terms of a religious context, there is no support for it. The only support comes from human beings just inserting it there and ordaining it with their own approval (See ELCA, Episcopalians, Presbyterians).
Like or Dislike: 4 3
Steve, Steve, Steve…they don’t mention chocolate-covered oreos in the bible either, but they are wonderful you should try them.
Like or Dislike: 2 4
Santorum is a very real biological consequence derived from anal sex (be it with two males or a male and a female). If you don’t know what it is, I’d encourage you to Google it.
Mary and Joseph are a perfect family? If you take the bible at its word, JC’s father wasn’t around and was left to be raised by a single mother. That’s not a traditional family.
As for human beings inserting things into biblical support, I’d really like for you to show me a place in the bible that HASN’T been ordained and tainted by some form of humans.
The offer still stands. Prove to the world that being gay is a choice. We can choose to be gay together, while you perform fellatio on me.
Soliciting people for sex is probably against the terms and conditions. You seem very…determined to… “prove” your claim. I do notice though that you want to be the receiver rather then the giver. You aren’t fooling anyone about being straight.
Like or Dislike: 2 2
This isn’t about sex, Solon. It’s about proving a point. Funny how your mind went there though…amazing how those who live in sex-negative worlds obsess over every little thing. Thus far you’ve shared with the group your inane desire for bestiality AND giving. I’d suggest you go out and explore your newfound sexuality as it sounds like the closet is getting a bit too stuffy for you.
Kobold, did you consider that I might be under age 18? In which case you have solicited a minor for sex over the internet. That is a federal crime, a felony. You would also get to register as a sex offender. Maybe you should be careful about inviting others to engage in homosexual sex acts with you? You might find that you will not be popular with the other prisoners. Take a moment to think about that.
Like or Dislike: 3 2
Sudden silence from ND Kobold lol.
” There is no example in either the New Testament or the Old Testament approving of it. Christ has His bride, the Church, and had a father and a mother; itâ€™s as simple as that. Jesus, Mary and Joseph is the example of a family.”
You are, of course, aware of the Pandora’s Box you open with your post. Homosexuality exists and, while it doesn’t necessarily require approval from religious texts, I imagine it will eventually be recognized as a congenital condition. You are still welcome to believe epilepsy, leprosy, and mental illness are the result of demon possession in coordination with Biblical teaching too.
As for Mary, Joseph, and Jesus being an example of “a family,” they are also an example of birth control, since in order to assure her perpetual virginity, Joseph would not engage in intimacy with her. Not exactly a reflection of “be fruitful and multiply.” Any other spouses willing to do that?
Like or Dislike: 4 6
Besides, Gene, how are we supposed to be fruitful without help from the gays?
Click here to cancel reply.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To start connecting please log in first.
Topics is proudly provided by the Forum Communications Company