I AM saying that homosexual attraction and practice is sinful.

There is yet another recent study out that tested people on smells/pheremones. It was observed that the brain activity in gay men responded the same as women to certain smells, rather than other men. THis clearly indicates a biological origin to homosexuality.

Christianity will have to be very creative to continue to try and rationalize how one can be born already sinful. I'm confident though that people like you will find the way.

I've heard some argue that "well, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality." And my response is, "true, but He didn't say anything about date rape, necrophilia or cannibalism either. Does that mean we can put those on the table as well?" Theirs is an argument from silence, which is the weakest possible argument one can make.

Actually, I think the silence comes from being stunned over the realization of the psychosis they are conversing with. To equate the actions of two consenting adults expressing the emotion of love/attraction, to the actions of forcible rape, intercourse with the dead or eating human flesh probably makes them realize they aren't conversing with someone with an accurate perspective of things.

A recent article in the Christian Research Journal (Vol.27/No.6/2005) by Frank Turek ably demonstrates the harm homosexual practice causes to individuals, families and societies.

Well there's a non-biased source! I'm a gay man, in a monogamous relationship for 20 years and we are raising a child in a loving home environment. Can't you
feel the decay all around you?

we deprive the individual of an opportunity to be reconciled to his Heavenly Father. And how loving is that?

When it is finally proven that people do not choose who they are attracted to, but that attraction is biological, then I imagine you will feel real good having shut the doors of your faith to those who were born different. I imagine your God will really have something to cry about then.

I wasn't comparing homosexual sex to rape, etc. I was making the point that Jesus' silence on homosexuality does not mean He approves of it. Jesus was silent about many things. The fact that there are no recorded sayings of Jesus about homosexuality proves nothing. And yet, I have heard people state that it does.

I've read the pheremones report. I'm not a scientist, but it seems that this could just as easily be a conditioned response. Pavlov's dogs salivated at the sight of food, but he was able to condition them to salivate at the sound of a bell. And I am not calling you or anyone a dog. That is just an illustration of a conditioned response.

And I don't rule out the possibility that homosexual attraction has a biological basis. I'm a happily married monogamous heterosexual man and yet I quite naturally sometimes have sexual attraction toward other women. The naturalness of that attraction does not excuse me to act on it. Some men are attracted to children. This is not defensible, even if they can't help it. I mean to say that not everything now in our genes was necessarily put there by our Creator.

I regret that I have offended you. I am honestly not trying to hurt anyone. But I do think this discussion needs to take place.

I'm a happily married monogamous heterosexual man and yet I quite naturally sometimes have sexual attraction toward other women. The naturalness of that attraction does not excuse me to act on it.

Of course it does not, because you took a vow to refrain from it and you already have an alternative outlet to focus your attractions on. It is entirely different and not comparable.

I am NOT even saying that people who struggle with homosexuality can't be fine Christians but I AM saying that homosexual attraction and practice is sinful.

In your comment #2, homosexual attraction is not sinful. In your main post, it is. That kind of mixed message dilutes your argument severely, and, I think, reveals your basic reaction: anything different from your own inclination in this regard is sinful.

I'm pleased you're attracted to other women, and willing to offer gays equality in civil matters. Why not agree that homosexuals, like all humans, share in both the innate sinfulness and the perfectability with which they were Designed?

I mean to say that not everything now in our genes was necessarily put there by our Creator.

Oh, if you're going to preach Manichaean dualism, I'm going to take my ball and go home...

The point of comparison was not whether gays can be married. The point of comparison was whether something is moral just because it is biological. Thus, the second illustration. A person's sexual attractions might be ingrained, but that alone is not sufficient to make them good. Our biological urges should not be the foundation for our values and ethics. I apologize if I am coming across as arrogant or belittling. This form of communication has its limitations.

Dr. Pat,
You misunderstood comment #2. I do believe homosexual attraction is sinful. I just concede the possibility that it is genetic. I also believe it is sinful to be hot-tempered, but that has a genetic component. And the reason I'm not a dualist, as you accuse, is because I believe that the perfect creation fashioned by God has been corrupted.

Another example, many people are genetically predisposed to certain mental illnesses. Did God make that? I don't think so. God looked upon His creation and called it good. The creation has been tainted, polluted. And He is in the process of making a new creation, a new heaven and earth. That is quite different than saying that evil is a created substance or that there are two equal and opposing divine sources in competition with each other.

Are you saying that we are created sinful by God?

Are you saying that an evil power has equal abilities with God to create the capacity for sin? That's Manicheanism.

And if someone is attracted to another person "for biological reasons," and this is not defensible, even if they can't help it, then at least some of the sin you condemn is involuntary. Whether that "innate sin" was created in us by God or devil, by good or evil power, it is not our action or choice, and thus is not accessible to our free will.

So I guess it's Determinism or Pre-Ordained Election you're preaching, Scott. And judging from your own admission of "innate sin" in being attracted to other women outside your marital sacrament, you yourself are not one of the Elect.

Dr. Pat,

Oh, now you're just being silly. Honestly, that is the most off-the-wall string of non-sequiturs.

Do I believe in an evil power equal to God? Of course not. It's ridiculous.

Do I believe in Original Sin? Yes. Look it up. You don't seem to understand the doctrine as it is professed by those of a Reformation heritage.

And do I believe in Election? You betcha. Does my election have ANYTHING to do with my sinfulness? Nope. If election were conditional, then no one could be saved.

Luther's "Bondage of the Will" might help you out in terms of understanding basic Reformation teaching.

This is basic Biblical doctrine 101. Time to move on.

People can argue whether or not homosexuality is biological until they are blue in the face. As it relates to Christianity, however, the Bible does clearly take a stand against it. Therefore, allowing practicing homosexual preachers is a slap in the face to religion.

The Church's continuing to bow down to society on issues is a horrid weakness.

Theory,
I agree with you that the Bible condemns homosexuality. It is sinful. As is heterosexual adultery, etc. My point is precisely that whether there is a gay gene or not does alter the fact that it is wrong. As Christians, our task is to proclaim and to persuade. We cannot ignore the findings and claims of science. Science will not change my doctrine, but it may affect how I address others regarding my beliefs.

>>As Christians, our task is to proclaim and to persuade

See, I don't know how much I agree with that. I think that if Christians display the traits of Christ (remember the song "They Will Know We Are Christians by our Love") instead of going out and trying to persuade (using Biblical stances in a secular setting is always frustrating at best and ineffective) will allow God to work and bring change.

Theory,
Re-read Acts 17. The apostle Paul went to Athens, the center of worldly philosophy and he stood up at the place where the pagan scholars congregated. And he began to explain who God is to them. And in doing so, he even quoted Greek pagan poets. All of this was to lead him to proclaim the resurrection of Jesus.

And keep in mind 1 Peter 3:15. He tells us to be prepared to give the REASON for the hope that we have. The greek word that is used there is apologia which means defense. He is telling us to be prepared to explain, defend and articulate not only what we believe but why we believe it. And the Holy Spirit will bless those efforts.

I'm not saying we can argue people into having faith. Only the HOly Spirit, working through the gospel can bring people to faith. But we can help to eliminate obstacles to faith by clear explanation.

Once someone admits to believing in election the discussion should be over. If you accept election then nothing you say can really be taken all that seriously, because it's either just an intellectual exercise or an attempt to just torment and annoy people who are not 'elect' for sadistic purposes.

Dave

Dave,
I don't know what you're talking about. What, in your understanding, is the Lutheran doctrine of election? I have a feeling we're not talking about the same thing.

And since we're waxing theological, Christians who adhere to the New Testament believe in predestination because it is taught in the New Testament, very explicitly. Someone who does not recognize the authority of the New Testament has the right to his/her opinion.

For me, the question is "what does the New Testament teach about the matter?" not "what is my personal preference or opinion?"

But based on your comments, I suspect we are thinking of quite different things in regards to election.

Coincidentally, as I mentioned above, Martin Luther's "Bondage of the Will" would, at least, inform you as to what I believe.

I assume the Lutheran version of election is the same as everyone else's. Basically, the elect are predestined to go to heaven, and while no one knows for sure if they are elect, god knows and will allow only those who are elect into heaven.

Like many things in the Bible it basically makes no sense.

Dave

Well Dave, not surprisingly, you got it wrong. I'd be happy to discuss it, but only if you're willing to read the book I recommended. But since you have already (a priori) decided that it won't make sense. . .

The Bible? I've read it a dozen times. I spent 4 years in a church school having it crammed down my throat repeatedly.

You see, there's no discussion of 'election' as such in the New Testament. It's extrapolated from things Jesus said. The version I described is the one adhered to by early puritans in England - which is what I'm most familiar with as a historian. If you've got a different version, perhaps you could post a quick summary.

Dave

Dave, I'm sorry to be so glib, but you're simply wrong about the doctrine of election not being found in the NT, except from the statements of Jesus (though that would be sufficient). It is found, I think pretty clearly, througout the writings of St. Luke (Acts), St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. John.

The Puritans were Calvinists and their view of predestination is indiosyncratic. Remember that Christianity is not encapsulated in the Synod of Dort. The Lutheran position is similar, but with significant differences.

Please understand that it would not be possible for me to give a "quick summary" of such a complex subject without over-simplifying. And since I think you are not being particularly open-minded toward me at the moment, any over-simplification on my part would only seem to add fuel to your already well-stoked fire.

You said that this doctrine makes no sense. If by that you mean that you don't understand it and something you don't understand can't be true, then I'm not sure I can offer much.

And since I am a Lutheran pastor, any detailed explanation of this subject that I would offer would draw heavily from the very Scriptures you don't want crammed down your throat.

EVEN SO, I will make these comments for you to go at:

- Only the elect will be saved.
- All the elect will be saved.
- Election is not apart from faith.
- The elect are called to faith in Christ.
- Faith comes by hearing the gospel.
- God does not desire the death of the wicked and does desire that all men be saved.
- Only those with faith in Christ are saved.
- Faith is worked in man by the Holy Spirit working through means (Word and Sacrament).
- Lutherans do not believe that predestines men for damnation.
- Christians need not fear whether or not they are elect.
- All who die in faith are the elect.

That's just a quick rattling off of theses. Again, Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will (contra Erasmus) is where I'm coming from.

Scott says:
The point of comparison was whether something is moral just because it is biological....A person's sexual attractions might be ingrained, but that alone is not sufficient to make them good. Our biological urges should not be the foundation for our values and ethics.

oh, I see, our biological urges of love should not be a foundation for our values and ethics. We as a society should dump the concept of family and marriage and monogamy, so that's what you are saying.

Or do you mean you get to pick and choose which biological urges we can use as a foundation for our values and ethics? Specifically yours and not mine.

>>Dave, I'm sorry to be so glib, but you're simply wrong about the doctrine of election not being found in the NT, except from the statements of Jesus (though that would be sufficient). It is found, I think pretty clearly, througout the writings of St. Luke (Acts), St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. John. <<

So as I said it's extrapolated, if not by Luther and his successors, then by the apostles and others writing long after the fact.

>>You said that this doctrine makes no sense. If by that you mean that you don't understand it and something you don't understand can't be true, then I'm not sure I can offer much.<<

Presuming that you know what God's plan for man is makes no sense on such a basic level that you can take as long or as short as you like to explain your particular set of rationalizations for your faith. No matter how long you take it will still come down to a matter of faith rather than fact.

>>And since I am a Lutheran pastor, any detailed explanation of this subject that I would offer would draw heavily from the very Scriptures you don't want crammed down your throat.<<

You seem to misunderstand. I've already had them crammed, so I'm innoculated.

EVEN SO, I will make these comments for you to go at:

>>- Only the elect will be saved.
- All the elect will be saved.
- Election is not apart from faith.
- The elect are called to faith in Christ.
- Faith comes by hearing the gospel.
- God does not desire the death of the wicked and does desire that all men be saved.
- Only those with faith in Christ are saved.
- Faith is worked in man by the Holy Spirit working through means (Word and Sacrament).
- Lutherans do not believe that predestines men for damnation.
- Christians need not fear whether or not they are elect.
- All who die in faith are the elect.<<

So in short, those who have faith are the elect and will be saved. See, it can be summed up simply. And summed up that simply it makes sense in context. The key to it making sense is that you seem to have taken predestination out of the picture. That makes all the difference in the world.

Dave

ummm..one bit of a Question..

if all are guilty of some sin

and clergy are chosen from among them

why should it matter WHICH sin they are guilty of?

i mean, i am guessing here there is a threshold on severity..one would not want a practicing cannibal as a pastor (tho the practice of symbolic ritual cannibalism is done at least once a week by any of the "elect" that receive communion)

i fail to see how a gay member of the church is more sinful than one overweight from too much love of food, or a borderline alcoholic..or numerous other peccadillos that infest all the imperfect creations that are "man"

just a passing thought..i will leave the discussion/debate of the reference literature alone...silly heretic that i am...

Excelsior!

Well, Gonzo, the Lutheran Church is one of the leading churches in accepting gays into the ministry. Clearly not _Scott's_ church, but other branches of Lutheranism are very progressive about homosexuality. In fact, here in Austin we have an increasingly gay dominated Lutheran congregation.

Dave

Dave,
You wrote:

"The key to it making sense is that you seem to have taken predestination out of the picture."

Except that I'm not taking predestination out of the picture at all. I think here is a key area of misunderstanding between us. For me, the words "election" and "predestination" are basically synonymous or interchangeable. There are nuances of difference, but in both cases, I am speaking of an act of God, outside of history, naming me His child through Christ.

So, those with faith in Christ are called to faith and predestined to faith from before creation.

Lutherans believe that God typically uses means to accomplish his goals. So he calls us to faith. Faith comes by hearing the message. The message is heard/received through preaching and the sacraments. Ministers are called by God through the church and sent to preach and administer those sacraments so that people will hear, believe, be converted and live.

Regarding faith, Lutherans believe that human beings are incapable of believing in Christ or coming to Him without the working of the Holy Spirit. So it's all grace (gift). Human beings can take none of the credit or glory. It's all God's doing, even the creation of faith, the faith by which I grasp the benefits of the atonement.

This generally leads someone to say: "Well, if a person's salvation is 100% the doing of God and if not all people are saved in the end, then how can we posit that God desires the salvation of all?" It's the age old "cur alius, non alii?" Or "why some, not others?" [I can't swear my Latin is exactly right.] And I won't be able to give a satisfying answer. I don't get it either.

Hi Gonzo,

It does NOT MATTER which sin one is guilty of. I have no difficulty with a gay man becoming a Lutheran pastor. Just as I have no problem with a murderer or fornicator becoming a pastor. The issue is not about the sin. The issue is rather about repentance.

All clergy are sinners, of course. Not one exception. St. Paul, for instance, was a murderer. He called himself the "chief of sinners." But he didn't remain a murderer. He repented.

St. Augustine was a libertine who went from one woman's bed to another. But he repented and became chaste.

The fulcrum is this: Is a practicing homosexual sinning in thought, word and deed? Based on several passages in the New Testament, I would say yes. A repentant sinner can become a pastor. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any pastors anywhere. The chief disagreement arises when someone says homosexuality is not sin at all. The scriptures are wrong. So then that person is not looking for the forgiveness of God and man, but for affirmation in his/her orientation and behavior.

I have my sins too, but I wrestle against them. And I'm not asking anyone to say they're not sins.

>oh, I see, our biological urges of love should not be a foundation for our values and ethics. We as a society should dump the concept of family and marriage and monogamy, so that's what you are saying.
>
>
>
>Or do you mean you get to pick and choose which biological urges we can use as a foundation for our values and ethics? Specifically yours and not mine.
>
>
>

You are hearing me say things I am not saying. I apologize for not being clear. That is the trouble with these short spurts of text.

First, love and sex are not the same thing. I was talking about sexual attraction. That is not identical to love. Sex is a biological urge, with a spiritual component. Love is a spiritual matter, with a biological component. I posit that love is not chiefly biological, but spiritual.

The Greeks used at least three different words for love. Thus the New Testament, originally written in Greek, uses three words for love. English is far more confusing, I think. I could say "I love ice cream," or "I love my wife," or "I love you," or "I love God." But I'm not talking about the same thing in each case. The Greeks spoke of Eros, the love of animal sexual passion. And they spoke of Philia, that is brotherly love (as in "Philadelphia" the city of brotherly love). And they spoke of Agape. That is perfect selfless love and that is the type of love God has for us. That, I believe, is the basis for our values and ethics. When we are speaking of sexual desire, I meant Eros. Of course, these three forms of love are not mutually exclusive and often overlap, but it is helpful to make a distinction.

So you do understand me correctly when you state that our "urges of love should not be the foundation for our values and ethics." The foundation for my values system is not my urge to love. The foundation is God's love for us. Then, our love for God. And thirdly, our love for one another. But the foundation is God, not anything within us.

In addition, I believe in the notion of Natural Law. That is to say that I believe values of right and wrong are determined and given to us from outside ourselves. From God.

Since I don't hold to the premise of your third paragraph, I do not agree with your conclusion.

can we get the exact passages you are referring to that condemn homosexuality?

i know, of course, of the ones in Leviticus..but since it is my understanding that the Christ released Man from those strictures under the Covenant of his Sacrifice, that Book of the old Testament would seem to be irrelevant..

from what you posted above, it seems that the only source you cite is from others, AFTER the Passion of the Christ..and thus the fallible word of a Man, rather than the direct Teachings of the Christ himself...

thanks for your Time..

Excelsior!

it is good to see such a civil discussion on such a subject - an exchange of opposite views with holy manners. i'd like to add that there are other well-considered positions within the religious community that do accept gays. actually it is not really so much a matter of acceptance, but of erasing the error of rejection.

while it is respected that many (perhaps even most) christians jews and muslims take their scriptures literally, it is also the case that many hold scriptures holy, while believing them subject to human errors of transcription and translation.

i'm a member of the united church of canada which a decade ago began such considerations and arrived at a place of complete acceptance. the united church acknowledges that many members honestly hold contrary positions on this matter and provides much reference and debate and support systems on these matters. the united church petitioned parliament in favour of the bill that now permits gay marriage.

here is a link to some of these papers. http://www.united-church.ca/equalmarriage/

bishop john spong in his retirement, continues to stir the pot with his latest book "the sins of scripture" where he brings to public attention biblical interpretations that have been occuring in the seminaries for a century! the book is well worth reading if only for his discussion of paul's homophobia.

from another direction comes an important book from a new york rabbi. steven greenberg was the first rabbi to publically announce himself gay a decade back. link to book review. http://www.wrestlingwithgodandmen.com in this book there is a facinating bit of exegesis on the main biblical injunction against homosexual practice.

Leviticus 18:22 alternate translation:
"And (either a female or) a male you shall not sexually penetrate to humiliate - it is abhorrent"

for more check out the review by bob mcdonald at http://bmd.gx.ca/wrestling_with_god_and_men.htm

Hi Gonzo,

Any concordance would help you, but give these a shot: Romans 1; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10.

You imply that because I don't have a quote from Jesus in the Gospels about homosexuality He must therefore not have a problem with it. You may wish to look again at the orginal article I posted.

You are only arguing from silence, which is a very weak argument. Shall I list off some other things that Jesus is silent about? Necrophilia, pedophilia, cannibalism, nuclear war to name a few. Jesus said not one word about those subjects either. I am not trying to equate homosexuals with cannibals or the others. I am only saying that the silence of Jesus on a subject proves nothing.

However, you seem to have a bit of a cavalier approach to the apostles whom Christ selected as His representatives.

Jesus said of his twelve, "He who hears you, HEARS ME. And He who rejects you, REJECTS ME (Luke 10:16)." You see, Jesus Himself said that we are to obey the teachings of His disciples just as much as if they had come from His own mouth. And there is no question that the disciples of Jesus accepted Paul as one of their equals. He too was chosen by Jesus as His messenger (Acts 9).

So if you honor the words of Jesus, you must honor His words recorded in Luke 10:16 (quoted above).

And you might be careful when you too easily dismiss the legislation in Leviticus. It doesn condemn homosexuality, but also witchcraft, murder, adultery, stealing and adultery. There is a distinction to be made of the various types of Law. Some of it does only apply to Israel under the Old Covenant as you correctly noted. But the moral laws are not cancelled.

Jesus said, "Go and sin no more."

Jock,

I too am glad when such discussions can be civil. Speaking personally, if civility here dies, I leave.

I believe that people can have strongly held viewpoints and can try to persuade others without rage or hostility. The trouble is that, nowadays, anytime you disagree with someone and say they are wrong, they tend to think you hate them.

I respect that you have a different view than mine. But Bishop Spong is about as radical a name as you could have dropped here. Bishop Spong has written (and this is as near a quote as my memory can produce): "Theism, as a way to consider God, is dead." That sounds to me like Spong is an a-theist. Not quite sure that an atheist bishop is too authoritative. Either be an atheist or a bishop, but being both probably means that you aren't really either one.

goodness no. spong is controversial and colourful to be sure, but as sincere as you or i in his spirituality. "theism" is as much philosophy 101 as theology 101. the dead god spong describes is just that idea of god expressed in ancient language that fails to speak today to people. in "a new christianity for a new world" he discusses at length his understanding and experience of the living god.

"I assert only that no human words, no human formulas and no human religious systems will ever capture that reality. To claim that any one at any time has ever done so is idolatrous. Human beings can approach God only by human analogy, nothing more. We can speak of God only in human words. ... To deny theism is not to be an atheist. To propose that we step beyond theism is not to join the secular sojourn in a meaningless deism. I believe passionately in God. Yet I now find the theistic definition of God far too limiting."

well well...if i understand it correctly, each of the Sources you Quote are allegedly from Paul...as i stated earlier..a fallible Man

i shoud point out that much of my problem stems from a Skepticism based on research into the history and translation of the Writings you take as Gospel...

you mistake my Intent if you believe i am working from a position of "arguing from silence" ...

nothing could be further from the Truth

as for my "cavalier" approach...it is from a considered and extensive delving into the documented history of the Works in Question...their translations, contradictions and my own pitiful attempts at understanding the Meanings..

i will make one point as to why i prefer to pay closer attention to the Words moredirectly attributed to the Teachings of Yeshua than those espoused, theoretically, from those that came afterwards...

we will stick with the 4 Gospels of the New Testament for the moment...i quite realize that 3 of these are referred to as the "Synoptic" texts..meaning that they are supposed to be identical in their take on the Events described within...but there are plentiful examples of inconsistency...

one describes the Birth of Yeshua as being witnessed by shepards and animals...another by 3 Wise Men(Kings)..who find him via astrology

one describes him as the humble son of a carpenter, another as a decendant of the House of David...thus of "royal blood" within Judaic society...at the very least a member of the aristocracy

now..i am certain you are Aware of the mistranslation that changes the greek "Jesus the Nazarene" (the Nazarene's being sect within Judaism at the time)..and the current mistranslation that is accepted in many modern "churches" of "Jesus of Nazareth"...especially in light of archeaological studies that tend to show that Nazareth had not been established at the time described in the New Testament

even prior to the fallacies surrounding the roman emperor Constantine and the conclave in Nicea, the first reference i am able to find of the 4 Gospels as a single reference being utilized, to the exclusion of all other "cristian scripture" at the time comes from Bishop Ignaeus's writing around 180 A.D.

in those writings he is admonishing other's that in order to form a "catholic"(read universal or unified)church of Christ is is needed to call "heretics" liars, even when they are tell a Truth

this was in response to many early christian sects that took a more gnostic approach, or used scriptures from other sources than the Gospels that were written many years after the events depicted within

both the Dead Sea scrolls and the Nag Hammadi texts have greatly informed and influenced my person Pilgimage along the Path of Understanding....i have merely scratched the surface, and do not claim to be any kind of expert...merely curious and well read...

i also mean to disRespect to the Faith or Beliefs of anyone...but i, personally, reject the tenets of dogma while still admiring the Teachings ascribed to Yeshua, among others...

it is the Institutions of Churches i generally deplore...for various reasons, which i will be happy to discuss , if such is Asked of me

many of these reasons lead me to be quite Skeptical of the accuracy in many of the documents and policies implemented by Organizations that came after a certin rabbi's ministry...i see the frailties of Man inherent, and confidence men making their Living from the sweat of other's work...

not all fall into this Category...i do Respect the good works of anyone, regardless of their Belief system

but one of my personal tests is if the "pastor/priest" who makes his living from the work of others , lives better than the least of his Flock...he is Ethically no better than any other confidence Trickster...

many good Men do NOT fall inot the Category...unfortunately ..many do..

i hope i have not Offended, and that my little ranting helps explain where i am coming from to some extent...

the preceeding is just my one sixth billionths of the World's Opinion..

your mileage may vary...

Excelsior!

Gonzo,
You bring up so many issues that I am simply not able to adequately respond. I am a busy parish pastor you see. However, I take your points seriously and would love to debate each one. It wouldn't be my first time.

Your contradictions are hardly contradictions. Synoptic doesn't imply they are supposed to be identical in every detail. Three eyewitnesses standing from different vantage points, working with different sources, would naturally record different aspects of any event or series of events. So many texts have been written to show the essential harmony of the Gospels.

Your linguistic and archaeological assertions are somewhat flawed as well. With a funeral to prepare for, all I am able to do at the moment is to direct your attention to a couple of easily accessed books: "Is the Bible True?" by Jeffrey Sheler and "In the Fullness of Time" by Paul Maier.

I wanted to offer at least this brief response so you didn't think I was blowing you off.

no worries Scott...

i am sorry to hear of the need to attend a funeral...

we will just have to agree to disagree on some subjects

but i do find it pleasing that such can be discussed reasonably, without my having to look out the window to see if a stake is being doused with gasoline and my name is on it...

kidding...really...

as i have stated, it is my own Opinion that..

gnosis > dogma

your mileage may vary..

Excelsior!

Hi Gonzo,

I am actually DOING the funeral. Tomorrow morning. 59 year old man died suddenly in the parking lot of Home Depot last Wednesday. Very tough.

Your tag "Gnosis > Dogma" is interesting. The definition of dogma is "belief." It is something one believes. "Gnosis" means knowledge. As I see it, what one "knows" is the same as what one "believes." There are different kinds of knowledge. But presumably everything I "know" to be true is also something I "believe" to be true.

Occasionally I hear someone dividing faith from fact. As in, "this belief is faith," and "this other belief is factual." I operate from the perspective of "faith founded on fact." And so does everyone else really. Show me the person who says, "I have a faith (belief) which I do NOT think is factual."

>>I am actually DOING the funeral. Tomorrow morning. 59 year old man died suddenly in the parking lot of Home Depot last Wednesday. Very tough.<<

Yet another reason to condemn Home Depot.

>>Occasionally I hear someone dividing faith from fact. As in, "this belief is faith," and "this other belief is factual." I operate from the perspective of "faith founded on fact." And so does everyone else really. Show me the person who says, "I have a faith (belief) which I do NOT think is factual."<<

I don't see how something derived from faith can be considered inherently factual. You may think that your beliefs reached by faith are factual, but that doesn't actually make it so. To be factual it would need to be provable through the use of clear, uncontrovertible evidence.

>>But presumably everything I "know" to be true is also something I "believe" to be true.<<

This true for you. But is everything you believe to be true something that any other person you ask will also know to be true?

BTW, I read your explanation of election and predestination earlier. There's not much I can say in response. It seems inherently suspect. If God is going to call the faithful to salvation, then what need is there for the church or members of it to do anything to help bring others - who may or may not hear that call on their own - to faith? At best they're intefering with God's plan. At worst they're offering a false hope of salvation to people who may be doomed no matter what they do.

Dave

greetings Scott..

let's go thru this..the basis of reasonable discussion is to come to a unified understanding of the episemology involved..

Scott sez..
*The definition of dogma is "belief." It is something one believes.*

i disagree..here's why..
dictionary.com sez..
*A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.*

that is the definition i was using..

we are both in agreement that gnosis is a greek word meaning "knowledge"

therefore what i was saying is that knowledge is greater than doctrine

hope that helps clear things up a bit..

now..on to the Logical fallacy of "faith" and "fact" you are putting forward as a Postulate..

Scott sez..
*Occasionally I hear someone dividing faith from fact. As in, "this belief is faith," and "this other belief is factual." I operate from the perspective of "faith founded on fact." And so does everyone else really. Show me the person who says, "I have a faith (belief) which I do NOT think is factual."*

again..let us define our Terms..
a Fact is true whether you believe or have faith in it or not...light travels at approximately 186,000 miles per second per second...this is a demonstable fact that cares not a whit if anyone has faith in it or believes it...it can be proven and quantified over and over again without exception (and no, we are not talking abotu the event horizon off black holes here..this is just a simple example for analogy sake...sheesh)

the definition of Faith, dictionary.com sez..
*Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.*

this describes Beliefs that cannot be quantified and are variable depending on Subjective criteria....the Faith of a Roman Catholic differs from a Lutheran and differs from a Buddhist...

on and on

so when you state..
* I operate from the perspective of faith founded on fact.*

i ask..what facts are we speaking about?
i will not insult you by attempting to speak about your Faith...but i am more than willing to discuss the "facts" you are talking about..

you then state..
*And so does everyone else really*

and i disagree as well as resent the presumption of anyone speaking for anyone but themselves...such cannot be done in Fact and is a poor debate tactic easily disproved by merely stating ones own disagreement..

however, i do understand the limitations of the medium we are communicating across...and thus take no Offense, as well as send out my assurance that i mean none, myself...

i will be glad to discuss the history of the Gospels and the discrepancies contained therein...or anythign else you choose pertaining to these matters...i find it fascinating...

i also realize you are a busy person that may not have the time nor inclination to do so...no offense taken..

but a bit of Advice...when one put forward Opinions in a place with "Critics" in it's name...one should be prepared for the inevitable consequences

thanks for the discussion so far...
but i still assert that gnosis > dogma as my own, personal Postulate...

your mileage may vary..

Excelsior!

Hi,

Since we're going to the Latin and Greek, "Dogma" comes to us through Latin from the Greek word "dokein" which means "to know, believe, teach, etc." We also get the word doctrine from it. As well as the words "doctor" and "docent." Dogma / doctrine/ belief / knowledge all mean basically the same thing, with shades of nuance in English, to be sure.

Modern usage of the word "dogma" has given it a negative connotation which classically it did not have.

Under postmodernism, however, anyone who claims to have right knowledge is suspect.

To say knowledge is greater than doctrine is like saying "what I know is greater than what I believe." Isn't everything we "know" ultimately a belief?

How many solid scientific facts have been altered, adjusted and changed just in our lifetime?

When you cite a scientific observation as a fact, such as the speed of light, that's good. But keep in mind the countless scientific facts that have been disproven upon further investigation. Even scientific knowledge is ultimately an article of faith. For instance, quantum physics rewrote much of what was once thought as scientific fact. Finally, we accept certain things as true because the preponderance of evidence, as we understand it, leads us to think so.

Faith founded on fact. I believe that a man named Jesus in first century Palestine rose from the dead. I believe that it happened. I believe it to be an historical fact, based on logical, documentary and historical evidence. And because of that historic fact, I have faith in him. Faith founded on fact.

Can I prove with scientific instruments that Jesus rose from the dead? Probably not. Historical events can not generally be "proven" that way. Archaeology helps. But the scientific method requires direct observation and repeatability. We have to use textual criticism, ancient sources and sound reason.

greetings once again..

i have stated my definitions of both terms used in my silly "tag equation" and stick by my words...using the accepted english definition of dogma it makes exactly the semantic and Symbolic Logic point i am attempting to communicate..

it is your Right to disagree...but a poor debating tactic to attempt to change a definition unless you can dispute the source...

Scott sez..
*Faith founded on fact. I believe that a man named Jesus in first century Palestine rose from the dead. I believe that it happened. I believe it to be an historical fact, based on logical, documentary and historical evidence. And because of that historic fact, I have faith in him. Faith founded on fact.*

again we have a breakdown in agreement on Logic and epistomology..

i gladly Accept that your words show yoru Faith, as i have stated..

but, as i had thought i had adequately shown, Belief does NOT equal Fact

just because you believe something does not make it a historical fact

i can easily agree that there is strong evidence tat suggests Yeshua ben Miriam (Jesus Christ)existed...of that we have total Agreement...

the divinity and resurrection are the points you take on Faith and that i have some difficulty with...for various Reasons...and while i Acknowledge they are tenets of Faith, i refute you statements that they are Facts as defined by myself previously

now..we have digressed quite the Way from your original Article...

thanks for the fascinating "conversation"...we will just have to agree to disagree on some points...i hope i have made it clear , from my perspective, as to why...

Excelsior!

Hi, yes, fascinating. On the definitions of "dogma" and "gnosis," I recommend a study of the greek etymology and history of usage rather than reliance on a single modern lexicon. But I don't wish to belabor that. We have both, I think, stated our views.

I know that the resurrection is not a fact BECAUSE I believe it. I am saying that there is logical, documentary and historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. I find that evidence convincing. Others may not. On the basis of that evidence, I have concluded that Jesus did, in fact, rise from the dead. On that basis, my faith is built.

It's not true because I believe it. I believe it because it is true. I realize this seems a bit circular, but I am only saying that everything we accept as true, we accept on the basis of evidence of some kind. And our correct-ness depends essentially on the veracity of the evidence.

How ironic, gonzo, if it turns out that God has Elected you and me, but left Scott off the list!

No, Scott, I don't believe in Original Sin (of Catholic or Reformation style), because it doesn't accord with Free Will. Neither does Election, for different reasons.

Either Heaven is our reward for Right Choice, or God has loaded the dice against us: Snake eyes! You lose!

If something that was created in us (innate) is sinful, and our own consistent choice not to act on these desires innate in us is not sufficient to remove one from the ranks of the sinful, who besides our Creator is responsible?

I choose not to buy into this roulette, friend, I can see the Thumb pressed firmly to tilt the wheel!

the tension between knowing and believing is long standing. and meanings change. we are the children of an age of reason where science is our mantra. we therefore put higher expectation of language over generations before.

it is interesting to notice the language of the mystics whose direct experience of god tend to speak of "knowing" of god. and that we who commend them but lack the direct experience of god speak of "believing". which ever word we would choose as best, we need to speak it with compassion for those we speak it to.

of course we should put our faith in truth. we all of us do. but the history of our kind leads us to question our confidence in each other. like the old quaker joke "Sadly, Brother, I am persuaded that there are none righteous in our midst but me and thee; and I'm not certain about thee!"

what we have in common is greater than the differences, and more important than the details we are so zealous about. we are god's children. we are called to be the leaven in the world. we are called to seek god's justice.

i was just participating on another group about the lessons of the parable of the samaritan. it was pointed out that the samaritans and the jews were both people of the torah, but had come to hate each other. jesus in using the example of the samaritan as the good guy was certainly stretching his jewish audience to the limit of their understanding of god's kingdom.

i say again, it is pleasing to see such honest sharing, listening and respect. thankyou all.

and thank you, jock, for your thoughtful and considerate Words...

on the discussion..and the original Topic of this Thread...allow me to offer a bit of something fom one of my favorite modern Poets...

"just between us..
I think it's Time for us to Recognize,
the Differences we sometimes fear to show.
just between us..
I think it's Time for us to Realize,
the spaces in this Weave,
leave room,
for you and I to Grow."
from "Entre Nous" by Neal Peart of Rush

nuff said?

Excelsior!