Lutherans Offer Warm Welcome to Gay Pastors

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
another thing which i find varries from culture to culture is food... chinese food and japanese food are quite different here where we live than what i had become accustomed to in the u.s... and chinese food in the u.s. would be quite unrecognisable if you take it to china. what you know as 'fried rice' doesn't even exist here. what they would call 'chopped suey' here, you would call 'beef with sauteed onions' with soy sauce.
teriaki doesn't exist here. people i know who have traveled to japan have found it disgusting.

Hey Weeb,

Yeah, I've heard that before; and it applies across a BUNCH of different cultures and continents!

Mind you, I found that to be true in Germany for a LOT of different foods, same for Portugal: though I must admit that in most US cities, real Portuguese cuisine is hard to come by (the lamb/mutton specialties, which I dearly love).

Table wine in Portugal would not be overly recognizable here in the USA: heavy duty PURPLE wine,'cheap' varieties, but VERY drinkable (and before the transition to the Euro, about $2 a bottle).

The thing that I've heard most about Sushi in Japan, is that you could just about feed a family of 40 in the USA for a real, live, high quality Sushi Dinner in Tokyo!!!!

I've heard horror stories about sushi costs and don't even get me started about Kobe beef!

I dearly love Chinese food (as close to the real stuff as possible here, I grew up in the Seattle area and ate in the old International District a LOT: where you could get as close to the real thing outside of Taiwan or the PRC as possible), but I really miss being able to eat Dim Sum on a regular basis.

Sadly, I'd never go to the PRC unless the people overthrew the fascist and murderous Maoist-Marxist Oligarchy there, as they continue to imprison, torture, and execute my brothers and sisters in Christ for worshiping the Lord Jesus.

When a government is afraid of the Word of God coming into its country, I know that those running the place are truly dictatorial and not observant of human rights.

I'd love to go to Japan for the food, but I'd have to sell the 'Great American Novel' first and have it be a super national best seller before I could afford such a trip.

It'd be nice to make it to Hokkaido though, to see and experience Ainu Culture, as little though as still exists.

Cheers and keep working on Mac to try the home roasted garlic....if we can get him to try it once, he'll become addicted and then we can move on to Dim Sum and Sushi.

JR Bailey wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey Weeb,
Yeah, I've heard that before; and it applies across a BUNCH of different cultures and continents!
Mind you, I found that to be true in Germany for a LOT of different foods, same for Portugal: though I must admit that in most US cities, real Portuguese cuisine is hard to come by (the lamb/mutton specialties, which I dearly love).
Table wine in Portugal would not be overly recognizable here in the USA: heavy duty PURPLE wine,'cheap' varieties, but VERY drinkable (and before the transition to the Euro, about $2 a bottle).
The thing that I've heard most about Sushi in Japan, is that you could just about feed a family of 40 in the USA for a real, live, high quality Sushi Dinner in Tokyo!!!!
I've heard horror stories about sushi costs and don't even get me started about Kobe beef!
I dearly love Chinese food (as close to the real stuff as possible here, I grew up in the Seattle area and ate in the old International District a LOT: where you could get as close to the real thing outside of Taiwan or the PRC as possible), but I really miss being able to eat Dim Sum on a regular basis.
Sadly, I'd never go to the PRC unless the people overthrew the fascist and murderous Maoist-Marxist Oligarchy there, as they continue to imprison, torture, and execute my brothers and sisters in Christ for worshiping the Lord Jesus.
When a government is afraid of the Word of God coming into its country, I know that those running the place are truly dictatorial and not observant of human rights.
I'd love to go to Japan for the food, but I'd have to sell the 'Great American Novel' first and have it be a super national best seller before I could afford such a trip.
It'd be nice to make it to Hokkaido though, to see and experience Ainu Culture, as little though as still exists.
Cheers and keep working on Mac to try the home roasted garlic....if we can get him to try it once, he'll become addicted and then we can move on to Dim Sum and Sushi.

once while were visiting with my brother and his family, my first wife made the statement that i would eat anything which didn't try to eat me first. my brother followed that with the quit,'yeah, even if it does it's liable to come out of the fight with a sizable bite taken out of it.'

as a cook and a chef, as well as a food addict, let's just say that i enjoy food.(and my physique shows it) my wife and i share a philosophy that there's no such thing as bad food, only bad cooks and we're passing that notion down to our children. both of our kids love to try new things honestly and without preconceived notions. both the 9 year old and the 5 year old eat just about anything which we put on their plates and we don't have to go through that 'I DON'T LIKE THAT' crap even before they've tasted it. they've learned through us also, that nothing ever tastes the same twice in a row... different cooks add different spices and cook things differently. i knew one woman in upstate new york who would never try chinese food for love, nor money... there may be a vegetable in it which she can't see and doesn't like. we were both invited to the wedding of a chinese friend and all the foods at the reception were traditional chinese... she ate nothing at all. i find that so sad.

on another note, even though we both profess our christianity, we seem to have different ways of demonstrating it. it doesn't mean that either of us are wrong... only that our minds work differently and that we carry different ideas with us. mine were learned through years of study in seminary and theology school, and through a long and interesting life.

what it means is that even if we look at the sky and you say 'light blue' and i say 'dark blue' we can find a commonality and through that an avenue toward peace.

may the peace of the lord disturb you.

The essence of liberalism is to rewrite history and change meanings of documents. For example, the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Warren, agreeing with Chief Justice Hughes)said that is is unacceptable to understand the constitution the way the founding fathers meant it, it must be understood in light of modern times. Using that logic, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional all laws forbidding abortion because the unborn are not mentioned in the constitution and are therefore not protected. On the other hand, illegals aliens are mentioned in the constitution and are therefore protected. If we would use this argumentation consistently, the supreme court should say that homosexuals are not protected by the constitution because they are not mentioned in it. However, that, of course, will not be the case.

Liberals in the church are doing the same thing with the Bible. Instead of understanding the Bible with the grammatical, historical method which had been the method of the earliest church and rediscovered in the Reformation, the liberals use the historical, critical method which through systems as Formgeschichte and Gospel Reductionism and Redaction can make the Bible say things other than what its authors intended. In this way, one can make the Bible say anything a person wants it to say. It also again placed the church under the same tyranny as the Roman church had imposed upon Christianity before the Reformation. The tyranny is that the Bible means something other than what its plain words say and that the hierarchy are the only ones who can tell you what the Bible means. To the liberal, the plains words on the pages of the Bible do not mean what the plain words say. They have to mean someone else and, most importantly, we need to them to interpret them for us. Consequently, they can come up with such inane proclamations that neither the Old Testament nor New Testament condemns homosexuality -- and they say it with a straight face and actually believe it themselves. It is like the churches which say, "Yes, I know the Bible says that women should not teach and exercise authority over men and yes, I believe that means that churches should have women ministers." How do they reconcile these two statements? Through the historical, critical method of biblical interpretation. The words of the Bible are not clear and must mean something else. It is certainly not the theologian who draws the conclusion that women should be preachers that could possibly by wrong. Now they take the passages which are correctly translated as being anti-homosexuality and say that the Bible supports homosexuality. That is what happened in the ELCA. The conservatives and liberals both used the same Bible passages to defend their position. What fools these mortals be! What do you believe? The simple words of Moses and Paul or the words of whose who say the words of Moses and Paul mean something other than what they imply, who say that some mysterious modern word search has found new meanings to ancient words, and who say yu cannot understand the Bible unless they show their gnostic wisdom?

Listen to the Word wrote:

The essence of liberalism is to rewrite history and change meanings of documents. For example, the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Warren, agreeing with Chief Justice Hughes)said that is is unacceptable to understand the constitution the way the founding fathers meant it, it must be understood in light of modern times. Using that logic, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional all laws forbidding abortion because the unborn are not mentioned in the constitution and are therefore not protected. On the other hand, illegals aliens are mentioned in the constitution and are therefore protected. If we would use this argumentation consistently, the supreme court should say that homosexuals are not protected by the constitution because they are not mentioned in it. However, that, of course, will not be the case.
Liberals in the church are doing the same thing with the Bible. Instead of understanding the Bible with the grammatical, historical method which had been the method of the earliest church and rediscovered in the Reformation, the liberals use the historical, critical method which through systems as Formgeschichte and Gospel Reductionism and Redaction can make the Bible say things other than what its authors intended. In this way, one can make the Bible say anything a person wants it to say. It also again placed the church under the same tyranny as the Roman church had imposed upon Christianity before the Reformation. The tyranny is that the Bible means something other than what its plain words say and that the hierarchy are the only ones who can tell you what the Bible means. To the liberal, the plains words on the pages of the Bible do not mean what the plain words say. They have to mean someone else and, most importantly, we need to them to interpret them for us. Consequently, they can come up with such inane proclamations that neither the Old Testament nor New Testament condemns homosexuality -- and they say it with a straight face and actually believe it themselves. It is like the churches which say, "Yes, I know the Bible says that women should not teach and exercise authority over men and yes, I believe that means that churches should have women ministers." How do they reconcile these two statements? Through the historical, critical method of biblical interpretation. The words of the Bible are not clear and must mean something else. It is certainly not the theologian who draws the conclusion that women should be preachers that could possibly by wrong. Now they take the passages which are correctly translated as being anti-homosexuality and say that the Bible supports homosexuality. That is what happened in the ELCA. The conservatives and liberals both used the same Bible passages to defend their position. What fools these mortals be! What do you believe? The simple words of Moses and Paul or the words of whose who say the words of Moses and Paul mean something other than what they imply, who say that some mysterious modern word search has found new meanings to ancient words, and who say yu cannot understand the Bible unless they show their gnostic wisdom?

King David and Jonathan in a gay relationship that is blessed by god! Many of the passages have been translated over time to change their original meanings! King James is a perfect example! King James was also a homosexual! If homosexuality was so sinful why then did Jesus never mention it? Because it jusr wasn't that important! God created gays in his own image! And you are simply a bigoted fundie phobe!Hallelujah!
David and Jonathan blessed by god!
http://www.pimknews.CO.uk/aroundtheworld/tag/...

Listen to the Word wrote:

The essence of liberalism is to rewrite history and change meanings of documents. For example, the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Warren, agreeing with Chief Justice Hughes)said that is is unacceptable to understand the constitution the way the founding fathers meant it, it must be understood in light of modern times. Using that logic, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional all laws forbidding abortion because the unborn are not mentioned in the constitution and are therefore not protected. On the other hand, illegals aliens are mentioned in the constitution and are therefore protected. If we would use this argumentation consistently, the supreme court should say that homosexuals are not protected by the constitution because they are not mentioned in it. However, that, of course, will not be the case.
Liberals in the church are doing the same thing with the Bible. Instead of understanding the Bible with the grammatical, historical method which had been the method of the earliest church and rediscovered in the Reformation, the liberals use the historical, critical method which through systems as Formgeschichte and Gospel Reductionism and Redaction can make the Bible say things other than what its authors intended. In this way, one can make the Bible say anything a person wants it to say. It also again placed the church under the same tyranny as the Roman church had imposed upon Christianity before the Reformation. The tyranny is that the Bible means something other than what its plain words say and that the hierarchy are the only ones who can tell you what the Bible means. To the liberal, the plains words on the pages of the Bible do not mean what the plain words say. They have to mean someone else and, most importantly, we need to them to interpret them for us. Consequently, they can come up with such inane proclamations that neither the Old Testament nor New Testament condemns homosexuality -- and they say it with a straight face and actually believe it themselves. It is like the churches which say, "Yes, I know the Bible says that women should not teach and exercise authority over men and yes, I believe that means that churches should have women ministers." How do they reconcile these two statements? Through the historical, critical method of biblical interpretation. The words of the Bible are not clear and must mean something else. It is certainly not the theologian who draws the conclusion that women should be preachers that could possibly by wrong. Now they take the passages which are correctly translated as being anti-homosexuality and say that the Bible supports homosexuality. That is what happened in the ELCA. The conservatives and liberals both used the same Bible passages to defend their position. What fools these mortals be! What do you believe? The simple words of Moses and Paul or the words of whose who say the words of Moses and Paul mean something other than what they imply, who say that some mysterious modern word search has found new meanings to ancient words, and who say yu cannot understand the Bible unless they show their gnostic wisdom?

LOL! Glenn Beck much?! His twisted rightwingnut "logic" contaminates your noggin...

You "regerlur americunz" ought to be called the "Kool Aid Party"...it describes your addiction well.

Listen to the Word wrote:

The essence of liberalism is to rewrite history and change meanings of documents. For example, the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Warren, agreeing with Chief Justice Hughes)said that is is unacceptable to understand the constitution the way the founding fathers meant it, it must be understood in light of modern times. Using that logic, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional all laws forbidding abortion because the unborn are not mentioned in the constitution and are therefore not protected. On the other hand, illegals aliens are mentioned in the constitution and are therefore protected. If we would use this argumentation consistently, the supreme court should say that homosexuals are not protected by the constitution because they are not mentioned in it. However, that, of course, will not be the case.
Liberals in the church are doing the same thing with the Bible. Instead of understanding the Bible with the grammatical, historical method which had been the method of the earliest church and rediscovered in the Reformation, the liberals use the historical, critical method which through systems as Formgeschichte and Gospel Reductionism and Redaction can make the Bible say things other than what its authors intended. In this way, one can make the Bible say anything a person wants it to say. It also again placed the church under the same tyranny as the Roman church had imposed upon Christianity before the Reformation. The tyranny is that the Bible means something other than what its plain words say and that the hierarchy are the only ones who can tell you what the Bible means. To the liberal, the plains words on the pages of the Bible do not mean what the plain words say. They have to mean someone else and, most importantly, we need to them to interpret them for us. Consequently, they can come up with such inane proclamations that neither the Old Testament nor New Testament condemns homosexuality -- and they say it with a straight face and actually believe it themselves. It is like the churches which say, "Yes, I know the Bible says that women should not teach and exercise authority over men and yes, I believe that means that churches should have women ministers." How do they reconcile these two statements? Through the historical, critical method of biblical interpretation. The words of the Bible are not clear and must mean something else. It is certainly not the theologian who draws the conclusion that women should be preachers that could possibly by wrong. Now they take the passages which are correctly translated as being anti-homosexuality and say that the Bible supports homosexuality. That is what happened in the ELCA. The conservatives and liberals both used the same Bible passages to defend their position. What fools these mortals be! What do you believe? The simple words of Moses and Paul or the words of whose who say the words of Moses and Paul mean something other than what they imply, who say that some mysterious modern word search has found new meanings to ancient words, and who say yu cannot understand the Bible unless they show their gnostic wisdom?

I must say"very well put".

Wiley Cyote wrote:

<quoted text>
King David and Jonathan in a gay relationship that is blessed by god! Many of the passages have been translated over time to change their original meanings! King James is a perfect example! King James was also a homosexual! If homosexuality was so sinful why then did Jesus never mention it? Because it jusr wasn't that important! God created gays in his own image! And you are simply a bigoted fundie phobe!Hallelujah!
David and Jonathan blessed by god!
http://www.pimknews.CO.uk/aroundtheworld/tag/...

How can you possibly refute such logic? I think that this poster hit the issue square between the eyes. You will not recieve such logic because it would rebuke your lifestyle, and we certainly would not want that...now would we?

eyeful wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL! Glenn Beck much?! His twisted rightwingnut "logic" contaminates your noggin...
You "regerlur americunz" ought to be called the "Kool Aid Party"...it describes your addiction well.

Do you not have anything of value to say?

His Own wrote:

<quoted text>Do you not have anything of value to say?

the real question is,'do you?'

Dan Dougherty wrote:

How great the fall by Lutherans into spiritual apostasy!
www.scribd.com/doc/22629976/They-Shall-Receiv...

Yet more "Absolute Truth!" that you jesus zealots are oddly detached from the real world, obsessed with the archaic babblings of your bibble, and altogether delusional.

Next time your particular "god" whispers weird nothings in your ear...go find a psychiatrist.

Partly because of this, I returned to ELCA after an absence of 14 years.