Wow. There is a breathtaking discussion going on over at Shellfish. Cick on the title for the post and make sure you go to the comments section after the actual post. Here are a couple of excerpts from the comments:
The Beloved Disciple: I understand that it may be hard for you to believe that the beloved disciple relationship is sexual. Factually there is no way to prove it either way. If not sexual, it was definitely physical and deeply intimate. Think of the last supper scene in John where the beloved disciple is laying on Jesus’ chest and Jesus shares information with him that he won’t share with the rest of the disciples. Since individuals ate while reclined during that time it would at the very least say that Jesus’ action was of a “man lying with a man.” Which is the literal translation of the act that thought to be what people who are given up by God and left to their own devices do (according to Paul anyway - Romans). Before going to this last supper Jesus told the disciples to find the male water carrier – which is the ancient equivalent of an outcast man who does woman’s work.
But what if the Gospel calls me in a state of sin, should I remain in that? Answer: If you have entered into faith and love, that is, if you are in the call of the Gospel, then sin as much as you please. But how can you sin if you have faith and love? Since God is satisfied with your faith and your neighbor with your love, it is impossible that you should be called and still remain in a state of sin. If, however, you remain in that state, then either you were not called as yet, or you did not comprehend the call. For this call brings you from the state of sin to a state of virtue, making you unable to sin as long as you are in that state. All things are free to you with God through faith; but with men you are the servant of everyman through love.
Like I said...wow.
---Katie
3 comments:
What I find interesting (translate sad) about this whole discussion is the following:
1) She believes what she is saying.
2) She is in a position to teach young people.
There is another point which is sad, and that is her point of view, if left unchallenged (look at the CW council and you find most have some sympathy for her view, though not the activism to go all the way and change a CW assembly vote) will eventually be the voice of the ELCA.
God preserve us.
Rob Buechler
Praying for the parusia to arrive this very day!
Trouble wrote: " We can give all the pro-homosexual agenda folks (including church leaders) Massachusetts and Oregon."
Hey, what happened to California! If they won't buy it, give it away!
Peace in the Lord!
Rob Buechler
Holy cow. "Wow" is right, Katie. What Megan has posted almost made me physically ill.
After visiting the post on Shellfish's blog, I also observe that 7 of the 17 comments are hers, containing over 30 paragraphs of text. Methinks the lady doth talk too much. Is this just one way that revisionists attempt to create confusion and overwhelm/wear down other points of view? Or is she trying to further convince herself that her lifestyle is somehow sanctioned by Scripture? Either way, one suggestion for this young lady might be to actually listen to Scripture once in awhile, rather than continuously drown it out with her personal interpretation-du-jour.
Just my two cents,
Karen
(just an ordinary ELCA member in the Greater Milwaukee Synod)
Post a Comment