Sensible Erection | Evangelical Lutherans to Ordain Sodomites

Saturday, 22 August 2009

Evangelical Lutherans to Ordain Sodomites

quote [ "For those of us who have opposed this on biblical grounds, it is bound to reinforce the sense that we are no longer welcome in the mainline." ]

WHAT NEXT?!? MAN ON DOG! MAN ON DOG!

My friend is a Lutheran Pastor. He doesn't like it.

[by Lord of the Barnyard@10:23pmGMT] [+10 Good]

Comments

smurfofdoom said @ 10:27pm GMT on 22nd Aug
When did religions start thinking with logic? We will just have to wait and see.

theolypse said @ 10:32pm GMT on 22nd Aug
SODOMITES.

wheee

sanepride said @ 11:22pm GMT on 22nd Aug
People who live in Sodom? Not too many left.

willrogers said @ 10:32pm GMT on 22nd Aug
I can't believe that I'm about to say this, but organized religion sometimes works.

Ubie said @ 10:35pm GMT on 22nd Aug [Score:1 Underrated]
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Hito said @ 10:48pm GMT on 22nd Aug [Score:4 Funny]
Unless it's digital.

papango said @ 10:38pm GMT on 22nd Aug [Score:1 Underrated]
If by works you mean 'can be hauled kicking and screaming to look at their doctrines with some sort of consistency and accept the basic humanity of individuals'. Then, yeah. I guess. You put the bar low enough I guess they leap right over it.

Lord of the Barnyard said @ 10:50pm GMT on 22nd Aug
As my friend tell it, the old Lutheran basis for their policy of what exactly was non-sinful sexual behavior was based upon 1) the creation story 2) the affirming of said story by Jesus (?) and 3) the church as bride of Christ. There may have been more, but that was the main sources. Hardly anything you could ague with.

He's up in arms because any derivation from this standard must mean, what, that the old interpretation was flawed? Golly gee, what ARE we to believe? The new logic is " trust (with undercurrents of mutuality and respect) [as] the basis for such relationships."

The old rule was based on silly interpretations of the Bible. The new one ignores the old silly and tries to argue in respect and reality. It's tough when things improve.

Roulette1337 said @ 11:37pm GMT on 22nd Aug
Wait isnt Lutheranism named after a guy who fought for major changes to church doctrine and a re-examining of the bible?

willrogers said @ 11:39pm GMT on 22nd Aug [Score:1 Informative]
Yeah, and that guy was a huge anti-Semite.

He even wrote a book called "on the Jews and their Lies."

He sure doesn't sound like a guy to to emulate.

Isosceles Lock™ said @ 11:54pm GMT on 22nd Aug
Luther wrote that they are "full of the devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine,"

Wow.

Nihil said @ 11:56pm GMT on 22nd Aug
Look up his comments on the peasants' revolt. Fucking sellout.

Lord of the Barnyard said @ 3:03am GMT on 23rd Aug
Yes, and in 1994, the same body that is today allowing the Sodomites their preacherhoods, publicly rejected his anti-Semitic writings. They're real quick on the uptake.

Naruki said @ 12:26am GMT on 23rd Aug [Score:-1 Overrated]
I'm pretty sure I could ague with anything, if I were sick enough.

papango said @ 4:57am GMT on 23rd Aug
Well, there's always the question of the food restrictions. I've just been reading a commnetary on the first five books of the bible and there are a lot of things you can't eat, and a lot of rules about how you can eat what you are allowed to eat. I want to see more christian fundamentalist protesting cheese burger places (do not cook a kid in its mothers milk) before I take their views on 'what the bible says' seriously at all.

willrogers said @ 5:11am GMT on 23rd Aug
Yeah, I was pretty "WTF?!" when I learned that orthodox Jews can't eat cheeseburgers. My pre-teenage self thought that was like someone saying that they couldn't watch TV for some reason...

willrogers said @ 5:20am GMT on 23rd Aug
Speaking of the different books of the Bible, is it just me or is the God of the Old Testament not the same dude in the New Testament?

I mean, the Old Testament God is this vengeful, short-tempered guy that would kill all the first born kids of Egypt for what their parents/Pharaoh did, while the New Testament God is like this super compassionate Buddha that not only doesn't vengefully punish people, but sends his only child to die for the sins of mankind.

And even beyond personality, the New Testament God does things to fix where the Old Testament God essentially fucked up, like the Harrowing of Hell.

Isn't the harrowing God's way of changing his mind about where the "just men" belong after death?

If God is omniscient and has a "plan," why didn't he just bring those guys to Heaven when they died because he knew they deserved to be there anyway and it wasn't their fault that they died before God had Jesus born?

And then what about Jesus flagrantly violating some of the edicts of the Old Testament, like having long hair (Corinthians disparages long hair on men) or not wearing a Yarmulke (I can't remember which New Testament book says to not cover your head before God, contradicting Jews wearing yarmulkes in temple)?

I'm not saying my criticisms and questions are definitively or anything but these and other things between the two testaments seem to contradict one another and make it seem like God is just a completely different person or at least God changed his mind about some stuff (how can God change his mind?!?).

papango said @ 5:26am GMT on 23rd Aug
As far as I can tell, he's a different guy depending on the source (Priestly sources have him obsessed with temple ritual, even in the desert, other sources have him more interested in the narrative). He is also a bargaining god, look at Abraham haggling him down about Sodom. Or Moses defending the Israelites from his wrath (he's going to kill them all, then he's not, then he is again, then he's only going to kill some, and so forth).

willrogers said @ 6:19am GMT on 23rd Aug
I was sort of thinking about summarizing the Old Testament and New testament into separate individuals and comparing them.

They definitely don't seem like the same guy at all.

I mean, the New Testament God is very enlightened, Buddha-like guy that is beyond pettiness and just feels deep compassion and empathy for EVERYONE.

The Old Testament God is like a Roman or Greek God, a being with divine power and human foibles.

Look at Job. Why does God give a rat's fucking ass what Satan says? Why doesn't God just say, "Fuck you Satan, I'm God, I know Job loves me and is genuinely a good guy?"

Why does Job have to go through all of that just because Satan made God feel insecure?

I really don't think these two Gods are the same being unless God underwent some massive transformation from some really profound epiphany.

willrogers said @ 9:38am GMT on 23rd Aug
I have to update this comment, having just seen the "Trembling before God" movie on Hulu.

One guy, the first openly gay orthodox Rabbi, specifically said that God actually listens to what the Jews have to say to Him and this can actually change His opinion and decisions.

This perspective makes the two testaments more amenable than I previously thought.

I'm not sure how it exactly works (I'm thinking of the movie Dogma here), but it's actually an interesting perspective and makes me more interested in religious belief that includes the Old Testament than I was before.

bruceski said @ 8:49pm GMT on 23rd Aug [Score:2 Funny]
A guy can be a complete bastard his whole life. Then he has a kid and suddenly he needs to make the world a better place.

Naruki said @ 10:58pm GMT on 23rd Aug
Word to your father. And, uh, his son and the holy spook.

the circus said @ 9:05pm GMT on 23rd Aug [Score:1 Insightful]
O Y G

I never thought of that perspective before. God acts all vengeful and stuff for a very long time. Then one day New God (Jesus) shows up. He's God's son but that still makes him God, and he's totally different and changes all the rules. Suddenly, this is starting to look like a Greek Gods slaying the Titans situation.

This is either the beginning of a new religion, or at least a new Dan Brown novel!

Viking_Biochemist said @ 5:47am GMT on 23rd Aug
Excuse my ignorance, but is the harrowing of hell actually in the bible? I always thought it was one of those tacked-on-afterwards-because-people-were-asking-too-many-questions bits of Catholic dogma.

papango said @ 5:55am GMT on 23rd Aug
Sort of, depending on how you look at a bunch of references in a bunch of different places.

willrogers said @ 6:21am GMT on 23rd Aug
It's mainly in the Apostles' Creed which is accepted by most denominations, including Roman Catholics and many Protestant denominations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed

Naruki said @ 5:41am GMT on 23rd Aug
Very thoughtful, thank you. However...

Ague: A fever (such as from malaria) that is marked by paroxysms of chills, fever, and sweating recurring regular intervals. Also a fit of shivering, a chill. Hence, ague can refer to both chills and fevers.

papango said @ 5:59am GMT on 23rd Aug [Score:1 Funny]
You're unclean. I can't be communicating with you. Kill a goat, splash it's blood around, wash your clothes and come back in seven days. Try not to touch any insects.

willrogers said @ 11:03pm GMT on 22nd Aug
Can someone tell me how not granting gay rights and gay marriage isn't a form of bigotry?

Every time I point out to conservatives I know that they are being bigots against gays, they retort that they aren't being bigots because it's their religious beliefs.

How is it that because the beliefs may stem from religion that they are exempt from being considered bigoted?

Doesn't it just mean that their religion is bigoted?

atter_cob said @ 11:13pm GMT on 22nd Aug
Doesn't it just mean that their religion is bigoted?

Well, yeah it does. The thing is that people seem to confuse "freedom of X" to mean "X can be used to justify anything."

Freedom of religion means that the government will not mandate your religious beliefs. It does not mean that other individuals have to accept your religious beliefs. It also does not mean that your actions are justifiable based on religion.

willrogers said @ 11:38pm GMT on 22nd Aug
The first Amendment actually only covers freedom of belief, it doesn't cover freedom of practice.

This is why you couldn't be some kind kind of pagan and then sacrifice a human and be immunized because it is part of your religion.

The government can't force to believe or not believe something, but your religious actions aren't covered by the 1st Amendment..

atter_cob said @ 2:14am GMT on 23rd Aug
Exactly. But people are stupid and think they can do anything or say anything in the name of religious freedom. They also think they can say anything then claim "freedom of speech".

Example:

"I donated money to support prop 8... but you can call me a homophobe because it's my religion."

willrogers said @ 4:14am GMT on 23rd Aug
Yeah, I remember when the LDS Church got all defensive when anti-Prop. 8 people were protesting them and their churches.

They were like "we didn't do anything, go protest all those black people that voted in favor of Prop. 8."

Yeah, because there is some kind black organization that spent millions of dollars promoting prop. 8 like the LDS church did.

Lord of the Barnyard said @ 11:31pm GMT on 22nd Aug
Bigot -
a hypocritical professor of religion, a hypocrite
a superstitious adherent of religion

a person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, or ritual

Bigoted - ...and intolerant towards others

sayeth the OED.
So, depending on how you want to read the definition, yes or no. They wouldn't see it as hypocritical to dislike the gays since it says so right next to the shellfish not-eatingness. But there may be a clear intolerance towards others. Esp coming from a religion that wants you to love your neighbor. Just not that way.

cb361 said @ 12:32am GMT on 23rd Aug
No. I checked:

–noun
a very large, hairy, humanoid creature reputed to inhabit wilderness areas of the U.S. and Canada, esp. the Pacific Northwest.

Naruki said @ 12:27am GMT on 23rd Aug
Look up the etymology of the the word "bigot". You will be pleasantly amused to find his entire argument is specious from the get go.

sacrelicious said @ 12:32am GMT on 23rd Aug
sodomy? no my friend, sodom you!

cb361 said @ 12:33am GMT on 23rd Aug
That might not be blas-for-you, but it's blas-for-me!

bbqkink said @ 1:08am GMT on 23rd Aug
For those who take the bible or Koran literally, there are few other things you need to know.

# A woman is worth half as much as a man.

Bible Leviticus 27:3-7
Quran 4:11, 4:176, 2:282

# Stay away from menstruating women.

Bible Ezekiel 18:5, Leviticus 15:19-30, 18:19, 20:18
Quran 2:222

# Women must cover their heads and dress modestly.

Bible 1 Corinthians 11:3-10, Deuteronomy 22:5
Quran 24:31, 33:59

# Insects have four legs.

Bible Leviticus 11:22-23
Quran 24:45

there is more

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2008/07/things-on-which-bible-and-quran-agree.html

CapnSilver said @ 1:27am GMT on 23rd Aug
But some of this is common sense.
Like staying away from a woman on her rags. I know I try to.

There's no real religious reason, at some point some scribe went "Man, this is going to make things so much easier next week. Bitch starts yelling and I'll just whip out my trusty scroll"

themanwhoeatslettus said @ 1:17am GMT on 23rd Aug
Gay amongst orthodox Jewish community's

not worth a post but worth as a comment that is relevant. if only the Jewish community was as open as the luthrens showed they were today...

http://www.hulu.com/watch/76545/trembling-before-g-d

foobar said @ 1:59am GMT on 23rd Aug [Score:-1 WTF]
Fuck Hulu and their racist American only policies.

micham18 said @ 5:57am GMT on 23rd Aug [Score:-1]
You people don't understand what its like to be discriminated against just because you are Canadian.

Websites won't let you view movies for free, you have to be redirected to the comedy network just to watch the daily show, i mean why hulu. why can't you serve canadians, you'll find we are very nice people... for the most part.

Dissonant said @ 6:49am GMT on 23rd Aug
I"LL EAT UOUR BABIES

...sorry.

boshk said @ 3:06pm GMT on 23rd Aug [Score:-1]
i'm just here to service these young boys...

f00m@nB@r said @ 5:12am GMT on 23rd Aug
on dailymotion's hulu channel

willrogers said @ 6:45am GMT on 23rd Aug
This is a bit off topic but it's something I've always wanted to ask other people.

I've known some Jews and seen others with profiles on okcupid and stuff that say they would only sate and marry another Jew or that they would be willing but they can't because their parents would be mad and/or disown them.

Am I wrong for feeling a bit offended by stuff like this?

I mean, does this seem like a religious version of disowning your kid for dating outside their race or ethnicity?

I understand that marrying and having children that will be Jewish is a big part of how Judaism works, but I can't help but be pissed off by this, especially when it's a woman that I would otherwise like to go out with.

It both offends me and disappoints me that they aren't able to cut the cord and stand up to their parents.

Maybe I'm wrong. Comments?

papango said @ 7:26am GMT on 23rd Aug
I wouldn't date someone who didn't have the same value system as me. So, I'm not too bothered by other people making that same decision.

willrogers said @ 9:33am GMT on 23rd Aug
But what if I had the same values but just wasn't an official "Jew?"

I specifically mentioned women I've met that I feel almost perfect with but because I don't believe in the same exact religious stuff, haven't had the ceremonial stuff, and am not ethnically Jewish, I'm basically written off completely.

And plus, value system is a pretty vague category, are we talking about religious morals and beliefs or just human ethics or political and social leanings?

Nihil said @ 1:21pm GMT on 23rd Aug
I wouldn't date a true believer either ("true believer" here being loosely defined as someone who possesses metaphysical certainties which she refuses to even conceive might be wrong). This is largely because I would have a problem establishing a deep connection with someone with whom I cannot discuss the fundamental questions of life due to incompatible axioms.

So I can understand why a Jew would only wish to date other Jews. However, I don't see a reason beyond close-mindedness that could explain refusing to date the (admittedly rare) non-ethnically Jewish Jew. Disowning your children for abandoning Judaism, let alone for being willing to date a non-Jew, seems even more bigoted to me.

papango said @ 8:29pm GMT on 23rd Aug
This is going to sound really really harsh. And I don't know your situation so I could be really really wrong. But. From my own experience, you do the math on the repurcussions of dating someone balanced against how you feel about them (and a few other things which ususally end up counting for nothing) and in this case you didn't come out on top. I would guess that the perfect feeling might not have been fully mutual, or it just might not have been enough.

willrogers said @ 11:15pm GMT on 23rd Aug
Actually, it was one of those mutual feelings things, but she was just not used to rebelling against her family like that.

My family is just as important to me but I'll call them out on their bullshit whenever they pull crap like this.

Meh, maybe I'm just bitter. Rejection sucks.

mrcucumber said @ 8:49pm GMT on 23rd Aug
Firstly, as much as...oh never mind. My commentary will be shot down as anti-semitic, so forget it....

theolypse said @ 8:45am GMT on 23rd Aug
That doesn't sound like the sort of personality defect that exists without leaning on a bunch of others.

I'd consider it an early-warning system, and try to be grateful.

mrcucumber said @ 8:47pm GMT on 23rd Aug
Do you really want a comment?

bruceski said @ 8:57pm GMT on 23rd Aug
Judaism puts a LOT of emphasis on the Tribe, the community. Jews kept to themselves from segregation for a long time, and still do in some places, by choice or not. Leaving the faith meant leaving the family. They divide the world into "us" and "not-us". My father is not Jewish, something which caused some issues but my parents don't talk about, and my mom still worries I'll bring home a shiksa some day. She knows it's silly, and intellectually she doesn't care as long as I'm happy, but it's ingrained.

willrogers said @ 11:34pm GMT on 23rd Aug
I was reading on the SomethingAwful forums that one of the goons is not Jewish and his sister was marrying a Jewish guy and the guy's mother specifically said things like "you are killing generations of future Jews" by marrying a non-Jewish woman and that the rest of the family and community would have to shun him and his future children for marrying a non-Jewish woman.

bruceski said @ 12:18am GMT on 24th Aug
Some people see it that way. Since Judaism passes through the mother, it's a lot harsher for a Jewish man taking a wife than for a Jewish woman, but it's still very tense for both in some communities. I have a small sample size, but I've seen it strongest in survivors of the Holocaust or Russian pogroms. The armchair psychiatrist in me suspects that being singled out for their faith caused many to define themselves by that trait, and feel the need to preserve it out of defiance to their attackers.

willrogers said @ 2:57am GMT on 24th Aug
I read an article awhile back by Elie Wiesel where he discussed how Jews would stay Jewish after the Holocaust after it seemed like God abandoned them, etc.

I understood his argument, but I personally don't think I could not be really fucking pissed at God if I still believed in Him after the Holocaust.

I would be totally like "Fuck you, We're going with Jesus now!"

Naruki said @ 8:38am GMT on 24th Aug
Er, um... But the Jesusites also believe in the Jewish God. So do the Muslimians and Mormonians.

You'd probably have to go with Sid.

mrcucumber said @ 4:35pm GMT on 24th Aug
If that philosophy were made public about any other "ethnic" group, it would be labeled as racist, separatist, and xenophobic, as well as sexist and misogynistic.

Naruki said @ 11:10pm GMT on 23rd Aug
It is exactly like disowning your kid for dating outside their "group". It's bigotry, pure and simple. There is zero logical justification for it (other than where doing so may invite retaliation from other bigots).

However, why should you feel offended? You aren't a member of that group, so it's not personally against you. They would feel the same no matter who you were so long as you weren't one of them.

I would feel disgusted at the parents' bigotry or sad for your girlfriend manquÃ©'s lack of enlightenment/will power/whatever she is missing.

JOECAM said @ 1:33am GMT on 23rd Aug [Score:3 WTF]

papango said @ 1:46am GMT on 23rd Aug [Score:1 Insightful]

atter_cob said @ 2:20am GMT on 23rd Aug
You know, I'd really like to fuck Kate. There is something odd about her that makes me hard.

Just thought I'd share.

cb361 said @ 2:42am GMT on 23rd Aug
And a big thank you to you, atter. Hmmm. I wonder what other minor internet personalities our readers would like to sexually violate. Write in with your ideas, and next week one lucky winner will have a chance to make his or her deviancy come true on live television. Our address will be shown at the end of the programme, and it's on page eight of this week's Radio Times.

Dissonant said @ 5:28am GMT on 23rd Aug
...OK, I realize you're joking, but all the same... how does wanting to fuck someone equate to wanting to violate them? It's stuff like this that makes me wonder if I'm not right all along.

Please explain.

swiggy said @ 5:55am GMT on 23rd Aug [Score:1 Insightful]
sex equals violate just as much as "she's somewhat hot, in a wierd way" in this case was described as "deviancy," in that cb361 is (jokingly) calling his attraction to what's her name a sexual deviance.

I think this sorta thing sheds a little bit of light on your sex problem: the anxiety you have is partially rooted in simply reading too much into stuff.

Dissonant said @ 6:49am GMT on 23rd Aug
Fair enough. I'm always told I do that.

I actually came to a really important understanding about that recently, which I may post later if it comes up somewhere, but that I don't particularly feel like derailing this thread in order to get into.

Thanks.

cb361 said @ 10:54am GMT on 23rd Aug
Explanation: It makes the comment funnier.

Dissonant said @ 5:28pm GMT on 23rd Aug
Hmm. Not sure I agree, it made me want to cry. But YMMV of course.

cb361 said @ 6:04pm GMT on 23rd Aug [Score:1 Good]
I was hoping that things were getting better... I wanted to juxtapose atter_cob's informal comment with an old-fashioned, strait-laced sounding reply, but with an underlying air of Victorian misogynism, and my choice of words was made to reflect that. Odd, I know, especially as it wasn't very funny, but I really did put that thought into it. I can't apologise in all fidelity because there wasn't very much wrong with the comment, and I think that you agree (intellectually) that you just don't see the world (emotionally) the way it really exists. But in lieu, please accept a happy cat.

Dissonant said @ 7:38pm GMT on 23rd Aug
Understood, and I agree you don't need to apologize. The intellectual/emotional stuff is very deep, I'll get more into it later sometime if events warrant (possibly over PM if you're still interested -- if so, let me know), but right now I'm exhausted. But thanks.

spite48 said @ 7:33pm GMT on 23rd Aug
How about "I'd like to put it in her - in the most romantic way possible"?

Dissonant said @ 7:39pm GMT on 23rd Aug
Hehe. Not really. There's a far cry between violating someone and simply "not being romantic". It's the undertones of sexual abuse that I was responding to.

Naruki said @ 11:12pm GMT on 23rd Aug
Is "I'd hit it" still okay? If not, we'll have to go back to "I'd pork that" or "I'd jump those bones".

spite48 said @ 2:35pm GMT on 24th Aug [Score:1 Informative]
Or I'd smurfing smurf her up the smurf so smurfing hard, she'd smurf.

Aidentas said @ 2:41pm GMT on 24th Aug
...Anyway, the answer is Julia Nunes.

wickerjoe said @ 3:34am GMT on 23rd Aug [Score:1 Funny]
No Lea Thompson cameo? Lame!

seed of our father said @ 3:29am GMT on 23rd Aug
pure comedy gold! Imagine Genesis 19 being taught in school --

30 Lot dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth
to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father;
34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father:
let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him;
36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

Damn, it sounds like Sarah Palin's family.

Naruki said @ 5:44am GMT on 23rd Aug
Probably my favorite part of the Bible for arguing with the nutters.

I imagine in those days that was the height of incest text porn.

swiggy said @ 7:23am GMT on 23rd Aug [Score:1 Funny]

sacrelicious said @ 7:42am GMT on 23rd Aug
I just thought of something: exactly how did Lot know his wife was turned into a pillar of salt? I mean, he couldn't turn to look.

oh right, fairy tales. nevermind.

Nihil said @ 1:26pm GMT on 23rd Aug
Like this:

"Honey, are you lagging behind? Did you slip on a rock? Honey? Why don't you answer? Hang on, I'll come and check you're all right"

*starts walking backwards*

boshk said @ 3:05pm GMT on 23rd Aug
i thought she got the U.S. Supreme Court job weeks ago...

ckfahrenheit said @ 4:18pm GMT on 23rd Aug
and now, Contrail Jesus

theolypse said @ 6:39pm GMT on 23rd Aug
I know! Two snakes fucking.

Eru said @ 9:11pm GMT on 23rd Aug
no, it's obviously a dancing seahorse.