Finnish Exodus

Blueboyd

Record numbers of Finns resign from church after gay rights panel discussion on TV

A record number of Finns seceded from the Evangelical Lutheran Church on Wednesday.


People carried out their mass exodus from the state church via an online service, the standard procedure used these days.

By late yesterday afternoon, 1,200 people had resigned from the church. According to the eroakirkosta.fi website, which facilitates the seceding from the church, yesterday’s total number of people to make their exit was 2,633. This was not merely around 1,500 more than the previous daily high, but greater than the total number in the entire month of July.

The previous record of 1,049 individuals parting ways with the state church in the space of one day was from the last day of 2008.

Information Officer Heikki Orsila from eroakirkosta.fi suspected that the statistical spike resulted from the Finnish Broadcasting Company YLE’s current affairs programme Ajankohtainen Kakkonen, aired on Tuesday night.

The show entitled Homoilta (Gay Night) was a panel discussion dealing with gay rights issues, including the question of the rights of same-sex couples to marry in church.

The programme’s discussion panel included for example Christian Democrat MP Päivi Räsänen, who has been fiercely critical of same-sex marriages and was a principal opponent in the Parliamentary debate on internal adoption rights for registered same-sex couples, and the Bishop of Tampere Matti Repo.

More than half of Tuesday’s 372 resignations were sent while the programme was running.

According to Orsila, around 90 per cent of all the resignations from the church now happen through the Internet.

The eroakirkosta.fi site also noted that women have normally made up roughly 44% of church-leavers, but that this share rose on Wednesday to 48%, and that those announcing their departure were also older than the norm.

Whilst roughly eight out of ten Finns belong to the state church, actual attendance at services is at a much lower level, and many remain inside the church - something that also involves an obligation to pay an annual parish council tax - largely to be able to get married in church.

Numbers have been declining steadily as the society becomes increasingly secularised.

However, often the cause is a fundamental difference of opinion on a hot-button issue such as gay rights or the ordination of women (some members have left to join branches of Lutheranism that still oppose this - see link from August concerning a "renegade bishop").

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Record+.... /1135260896872


===

Was 5500 today since the tv program but estimated to be 7000 by tonight

daily counter for resignations here

daily average has been around 100 persons per day before

I'm not gay myself but have no problem with anyone who is as long as the person does not have anything against me being a hetero.

I think it is good thing that people are voting with their feet. And no I don't think they are denouncing God - they are resigning from the church because they oppose discrimination. There is a difference. I think most believe that God is not for discrmination.

The whole discussion reminds me of the discussion we had back in the beginning of the 20th -century when Finland as a second nation in the world was deciding on whether women should have the right to vote or not. Even then those who opposed the change based it very much with the bible - that women should be quiet and that it is against God¨s will for women to have the right to vote.

Thank God - yes God - those voices were a minority and women did get the right to vote. Of course the change does not come in one day just by passing new legislation - even today still only 80 out of 200 seats in the parliament is held by women but on the other hand it is much less in many other places. It is not just legislation that needs to be changed but predjudices.

Hope that this new Finnish Exodus can lead the way - and that one day the world won't discriminate people anymore by their sexual orientation. Either.

JimiTime

Personally I think its good that so many who obviously don't actually believe in the tenets of their church are leaving it. It always baffles me at how ignorant people are about the church they call themselves members of.

As for discrimination, as a Christian, we discriminate against many behaviours and practices not in line with Gods standard. We all struggle with sin of course, but the honest Christian does not look for reasons to feel that their sin is ok.

Blueboyd

JimiTime wrote: »

As for discrimination, as a Christian, we discriminate against many behaviours and practices not in line with Gods standard. We all struggle with sin of course, but the honest Christian does not look for reasons to feel that their sin is ok.

That is very well but I think the people who have resigned have resigned particularly because they do not want to sin or belong to an orginzation that so clearly promotes sin.

So it is Saturday now here and 3473 left the church during Friday - almost doubling the speed from Thursday.

JimiTime

Blueboyd wrote: »

That is very well but I think the people who have resigned have resigned particularly because they do not want to sin or belong to an orginzation that so clearly promotes sin.

Could you clarify what sin you are accusing this church of? Is it the disapproval of homosexuality you are referring to?

So it is Saturday now here and 3473 left the church during Friday - almost doubling the speed from Thursday.

Again, that to me states that 3473 people did not know about the tenets of the church they called themselves members of. If i was a member of this said church, I'd probably see this as a positive thing, or at least see a positive side to it.

Blueboyd

I'm not accusing anybody from anything. I am merely reporting what 's going on up here and what the the general feeling seems to be.

Lets put it like this. Traditionally here most of the people rely own thier own interpretion of what God wants from them and what is sin or what is not. All polls show that majority are in favour of gay marriages. At this point it is only legal to register the gay relationship at the register office.

To allow also gays to get married in a church has been a hot topic in the church here but what I know the hierarchy left the isue on the table so to speak in spring.

In the hierarchy there are those who oppose it and those who are for it. Like I said all polls show that the members are for it. The TV panel discussion brought it into the living rooms and many people seem to got upset of the discriminating comments of some of the most conservative members of the church. Talking like being gay was a disease and "those people" can "be cured". To put it in short.

Like my reference to the voting right of women - the general feeling up here - general - meaning the majority of church members - that gay marriages and the right for gay couple's to adopt children - will come pretty soon - after next election probably or at leatest after the following.

People do not tolearate opression of basic human rights - and my view is that very soon it will be like with the women preisthood. Now it is legal and within church rules. See suddely they have another interpretion of the bible. And the thing that has started to happen to the most conservative ones who refuse to work with women priests - they end up in court and get sentenced based on work discrimination legislation. I expect this to happen very soon in the gay issue too.


So tell me - as you seem to know what is sin in God's eyes - I could not help noticing there are only 23 women out of 165 in the parilament in Ireland - you are right there with Djibouti - do you think this could be because people unconsciously still think that voting for women is against God's will and a sin. You tell me I'm only guessing.

JimiTime

Blueboyd wrote: »

I'm not accusing anybody from anything. I am merely reporting what 's going on up here and what the the general feeling seems to be.

This is what you posted:

That is very well but I think the people who have resigned have resigned particularly because they do not want to sin or belong to an orginzation that so clearly promotes sin.

So what sin is this organisation clearly promoting, thats what I'm asking?

Lets put it like this. Traditionally here most of the people rely own thier own interpretion of what God wants from them

And is that what this church promotes?

To allow also gays to get married in a church has been a hot topic in the church here but what I know the hierarchy left the isue on the table so to speak in spring.

In the hierarchy there are those who oppose it and those who are for it.

So there is a debate going on within this churches hierarchy as to whether to give their blessing to homosexual unions?

Like I said all polls show that the members are for it. The TV panel discussion brought it into the living rooms and many people seem to got upset of the discriminating comments of some of the most conservative members of the church.

So people are unhappy that a church is saying that homosexuality is sinful?

Talking like being gay was a disease and "those people" can "be cured". To put it in short.

I don't know about the finer points of sexual desire, but from a Christian perspective its reasonable to say it is sinful. The disease stuff etc is a different discussion. Using such language is probably at best insensitive.

Like my reference to the voting right of women - the general feeling up here - general - meaning the majority of church members - that gay marriages and the right for gay couple's to adopt children - will come pretty soon - after next election probably or at leatest after the following.

Is this church you are talking about a democratic organisation?

So tell me - as you seem to know what is sin in God's eyes

I only know what God has revealed through his prophets and servants like everyone else.

- I could not help noticing there are only 23 women out of 165 in the parilament in Ireland - you are right there with Djibouti - do you think this could be because people unconsciously still think that voting for women is against God's will and a sin. You tell me I'm only guessing.

I'm not aware it was ever seen as sin against God to vote women into parliament here. Maybe its the patriarchal nature of society though. At the end of the day, people use or rather mis-use the bible to try justify all kinds of crazy stuff. All we can do is HONESTLY look at what we have available, and seek what the biblical authors are telling us (exegesis) rather than approaching it with an idea you want to support and looking for ways to interpret (or rather mis-interpret) scripture to back up your pre-conceptions (eisegesis).

philologos

OP: As JimiTime said, if people wish to leave, let them leave. I think the end of nominalism will be a good thing for Christianity. People will believe truly in their hearts again.

Blueboyd

JimiTime wrote: »

This is what you posted:

That is very well but I think the people who have resigned have resigned particularly because they do not want to sin or belong to an orginzation that so clearly promotes sin.

So what sin is this organisation clearly promoting, thats what I'm asking?

And is that what this church promotes?

I am talking about people's opinion about the church hierarchy here and the most conservative part of it. Nowadays when peope can read and there is a bible available for common people it is clear that people are not buying into the interpretion of the church that being gay is a sin. In fact most people seem to think that condeming somebody's sexual oriantation is a sin. That God would not be happy about such discrimnation. I don't think people take bible literally as God's word anymore but as a collection of religios scriptures and can put them in prespective of the time they were written in. That doesn't mean they do not believe in God or that they would not be Christians.

JimiTime wrote: »

So there is a debate going on within this churches hierarchy as to whether to give their blessing to homosexual unions?

yes. There is a discussion going on whether gay people can get maried in a church or not.

And another discussion whether gay couple's have the right to adopt children.

JimiTime wrote: »

So people are unhappy that a church is saying that homosexuality is sinful?

Actually there are mixed voices coming out of the hierarchy. Some of the hierarchy say it is sinful. Some say it is not and are for gay marriages. Some say that it is not sin but are opposing it for other reasons. Majority of members say gay marriages should be accepted. At the moment the church do not allow gay marriages in the church though. This will probably change in the future like it changed with the priesthood of women.

EDIT
according the researcher Kati Niemelä form the Research Center of the Church 1/3 of the preists are for that gays should have the right to get married in Chuch, 1/3 are against it - the rest has not made up their minds yet or are not telling it.
END OF EDIT

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't know about the finer points of sexual desire, but from a Christian perspective its reasonable to say it is sinful. The disease stuff etc is a different discussion. Using such language is probably at best insensitive.

That is your interpretion - that is unless you are blindly repeating like a parrot what the hierarchy is saying without any thought. Literally Leviticus doesn't say it is a sin - it says it is an abomination and gays should be put to death. Luckily no-one takes the putting to death part literally in the western world. Saying somebody's sexual orientation is sinful does though give room for an atmosphere where people with different sexual oriantion than ours can be bullied, harrased and threatened. I just saw this and maybe that can give you few thoughts whether claming that being gay is sinful is a sin or not

JimiTime wrote: »

Is this church you are talking about a democratic organisation?

Partly yes. In my opinion the democracy could be stronger i.e. some times in chuch elections it can be even hard to find a candidate that would have the same opinions as the voters and those in power do not listen enough the opinions of members.


You can read more about chuch and & democracy here - sorry it is only google translation

JimiTime wrote: »

I only know what God has revealed through his prophets and servants like everyone else.

That hints that you believe there are people who know better than you what is God's will and what is not. In my opinion that is sort of desecrating of your soul that God created. But it is your soul - you do what you like with it.

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm not aware it was ever seen as sin against God to vote women into parliament here. Maybe its the patriarchal nature of society though. At the end of the day, people use or rather mis-use the bible to try justify all kinds of crazy stuff. All we can do is HONESTLY look at what we have available, and seek what the biblical authors are telling us (exegesis) rather than approaching it with an idea you want to support and looking for ways to interpret (or rather mis-interpret) scripture to back up your pre-conceptions (eisegesis).

Scriptures have been used many times for political goals and morbid interpretions. In my opinion there is only a minor difference between this interpretion that being gay would be sinful and the Iranian Mullah interpretion that it is sinful for women to sing publicly. Not to mentioned the perverted interpretions the Taliban have.

I find it good though that democracy movement in the church is getting stronger. I think this is the Exodus that will sweep your way too sooner or later.

I remember one great documentary I saw about a journalist who infiltrated an Al Quaida cell in France and filmed it with hidden cameras.

The Al Quaida guys were saying - that in democracy people decide - but in their fundamentalist system God decided - so they thought their system was better.

Hearing that I could not help of thinkin the despising of democracy in many western churches. People having the right to make their interpretion has been always been a threat for those in power and who want to decide for us what is best.

I'm not very much into church history but was this not one of the key issues why the Luheran Church departed from the Cathcolic Church cos the Catholic church did not want the bible to be translated to German so people could read it for themselves. So even that one was in a way about democracy in the church.

Blueboyd

Jakkass wrote: »

OP: As JimiTime said, if people wish to leave, let them leave. I think the end of nominalism will be a good thing for Christianity. People will believe truly in their hearts again.

Yes many are leaving. But many are staying and will fight for the democracy inside the church.

What is happening here is that some of the ultra-concervative hierarchy is actually leaving cos the church has okayed for instance priesthood of women. And there is huge public pressure now for church to change in this gay isue.

How I see it - this reminds a bit of the fall of East Germany 20 years ago. People are leaving but in the same time people are not buying to non-democratic ways of the church anymore.

philologos

Blueboyd: It seems as if you have your mind made up as to what conclusions to draw. Personally, I would consider the church in general to be about serving God's will not about gratifying our own will. Indeed, in Anglicanism which I'm most familiar with, there has been a similar impasse over this, you can be guaranteed that there will be conservative and liberal elements in the church for years to come. It won't be either or.

The church isn't meant to be just about human decisions, it isn't a secular organisation. Rather it is about serving God, and as such it concerns theology also. Sin or not sin, concerns God, not people. People can easily go to the Bible with a permanent marker and black out sections, but God has decreed what is sinful from what isn't.

Blueboyd

Jakkass wrote: »

Sin or not sin, concerns God, not people. People can easily go to the Bible with a permanent marker and black out sections, but God has decreed what is sinful from what isn't.

So do you find not putting gays to death as sin or not? Or have you blacked out that part with a marker?

Zombrex

Blueboyd wrote: »

So do you find not putting gays to death as sin or not? Or have you blacked out that part with a marker?

You are some what missing the point.

If you don't subscribe to the beliefs of a church then leave the church (or better yet don't join a church you don't understand). I'm not a Christian, I don't believe in Christianity. JimiTime and Jakkass are not Catholics, they don't believe in Catholicism. JimiTime isn't sitting in Catholic mass demanding they change because he doesn't believe what they teach.

Christians who suddenly realize that their churches teach that homosexual acts are a sin and are horrified by this should leave their church, and also ask themselves the serious question of what the heck they thought their church taught in the first place and why were they members of a church they didn't understand?

It seems rather ridiculous to request that they democratically vote that the church change its position.

Was the original position the teaching of god or wasn't it? If it wasn't why were people members of a church that they didn't believe in to begin with?

If it was then how can you democratically change that?

The issue here, as JimiTime said, is believers being ignorant of that the church claim to be a member of actually teaches. I'm all for people leaving and doing what they believe, plenty of Christians believe homosexual acts are not sinful when in a loving committed relationship. But that is there interpretation they aren't trying to force other churches who maintain a different view to change that view.

This is a case of personal ignorance, not church reforms.

Blueboyd

You have misunderstood.

The gay issue do not differ in any way from the women priesthood question which was said by the church hierarchy to be a sin also. Well people disagreed and fought for the Church to change and it did. The same will happen in this case in my opinion.

And I find this as interesting as following the change that took place in DDR. Just because Erich Honecker said "this is the truth" it is not necessarily so in reality.

wolfsbane

Blueboyd wrote: »

You have misunderstood.

The gay issue do not differ in any way from the women priesthood question which was said by the church hierarchy to be a sin also. Well people disagreed and fought for the Church to change and it did. The same will happen in this case in my opinion.

And I find this as interesting as following the change that took place in DDR. Just because Erich Honecker said "this is the truth" it is not necessarily so in reality.

It comes down to this: Is the Church under God's authority, and consequently obliged to follow HIS commandments? Or is it an autonomous body, free to pick and choose which bits of His will to obey? If the former, homosexuality will be recognised as a sin. If the latter, how homosexuality is viewed will depend on the mood or prejudices of each generation.

Intellectual honesty comes into this. Why on earth would anyone join a church that professes to believe in the God of the Bible, it they do not recognise the Bible as their rule of faith and conduct? Why not join a Humanist society instead? Why would I join a Socialist party, if I believed in free market Capitalism? Would it not be dishonest of me to do so and then campaign for free market strategies?

Because this has happened in the churches, and is happening, is no justification for it.

Erich Honecker, and Communism in general, was deluded. Those who moved it away from Marxism to the free market cannot legitimately call themselves Marxists. Neither can those who moved their church away from its Christian principles legitimately call themselves Christians.
_________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 1:8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.

Blueboyd

wolfsbane wrote: »

It comes down to this: Is the Church under God's authority, and consequently obliged to follow HIS commandments? Or is it an autonomous body, free to pick and choose which bits of His will to obey? If the former, homosexuality will be recognised as a sin. If the latter, how homosexuality is viewed will depend on the mood or prejudices of each generation.

The church has picked this and that through out the times. What is HIS commandments and what is just religious scriptures written by clergy men is debatable. I don't find in the bible a direct quote from Jesus where he would condemn anyones sexual oriantiaton. Instead what he said was what you do to these children you do to him. He didn't say: "These children - except the gay ones."

wolfsbane wrote: »

Intellectual honesty comes into this. Why on earth would anyone join a church that professes to believe in the God of the Bible, it they do not recognise the Bible as their rule of faith and conduct? Why not join a Humanist society instead? Why would I join a Socialist party, if I believed in free market Capitalism? Would it not be dishonest of me to do so and then campaign for free market strategies?

Because it is part of their culture. That is how most people belong to a religion. And that culture shapes that religion. It is not written in stone. Not long ago we burned witches and the sun was orbiting the earth and it was heretic to think otherwise. It was easy to find justification for that too in the bible.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Because this has happened in the churches, and is happening, is no justification for it.

Erich Honecker, and Communism in general, was deluded. Those who moved it away from Marxism to the free market cannot legitimately call themselves Marxists. Neither can those who moved their church away from its Christian principles legitimately call themselves Christians.

Are you saying that the Lutheran Church is not a Christian church cos it now interprets officially that it is not against God's will for women to be priests?

Btw new record of resignations today again 4 545 compared to yesterday's 3473. Some from the church has already voiced about their concerns how this will affect the church financially as church tax payers are leaving in masses. They always seem to think about their monies first.

philologos

Blueboyd wrote: »

The church has picked this and that through out the times. What is HIS commandments and what is just religious scriptures written by clergy men is debatable. I don't find in the bible a direct quote from Jesus where he would condemn anyones sexual oriantiaton. Instead what he said was what you do to these children you do to him. He didn't say: "These children - except the gay ones."

Christians base their views on sexual immorality on the basis of the New Testament, which would say that marriage is the correct context for sexuality. People may or may not agree with this view, but it is certainly the one put across in the New Testament.

As for Judaism and the death penalty, Christianity differs precisely because all sin is worthy of death (Romans 1:32) but Jesus has died for our sins, on our behalf, therefore how can we expect such a penalty from anyone else. The death penalty has been fulfilled or satisfied by Jesus on the cross (Romans 3:25-26).

Mercy & Grace come from Christianity. Therefore, we have mercy, but we recognise that God calls us to a lifestyle of holiness. Sexuality outside of marriage, according to God isn't in keeping with a lifestyle of holiness.

So nobody is saying that LGBT people should be excluded from church life. What people are saying is that the Gospel mustn't be compromised in order to do this. From what you say it is that the Finnish people want to alter the Gospel. That's fine, but eventually after alteration it isn't going to be fully Christian.

Blueboyd wrote: »

Because it is part of their culture. That is how most people belong to a religion. And that culture shapes that religion. It is not written in stone. Not long ago we burned witches and the sun was orbiting the earth and it was heretic to think otherwise. It was easy to find justification for that too in the bible.

As I would see it culture doesn't matter to God. His standards apply to Finns, as well as everyone else. If Christianity is of God, culture won't influence Him. Rather He is one who can break down cultural barriers. (Ephesians 2:11-16).

The question these people should be asking if they don't like what the Bible says, is why be Christian, or hold the label?

Blueboyd wrote: »

Btw new record of resignations today again 4 545 compared to yesterday's 3473. Some from the church has already voiced about their concerns how this will affect the church financially as church tax payers are leaving in masses. They always seem to think about their monies first.

See what we've said already. Who cares? If people don't want to be Christians or if they don't want to be members of the church, or both, that is their decision - By the by, I'm sure there are plenty of other churches operating in Finland.

Blueboyd

I see that the basic idea that people and churches have another interpretion of Christianity or bible and still think they are Christian seems to bother you.

Like I said according the researcher Kati Niemelä form the Research Center of the Church 1/3 of the priests are for that gays should have the right to get married in Chuch, 1/3 are against it - the rest has not made up their minds yet or are not telling it.

Those 1/3 of priests who are for it now interpret Christ's meassage so that homosexuality is not a sin, 1/3 who are against it now do not all consider it to be a sin. The majority of Christians in Lutheran church do not consider it to be a sin. It is just a question of time when this change will take place. When it will the the church will still be a Christian.

I guess there is no point of discussing this further if you are just gonna quote what you have been taught and don't have anything to say yourself.


Finally I want say that I'm not a Lutheran - I was reporting on this only beacause I happen to be up here and it is #1 news at the moment. I'm sure I would have reported of the fall of DDR too if I had been there.

philologos

Blueboyd wrote: »

I see that the basic idea that people and churches have another interpretion of Christianity or bible and still think they are Christian seems to bother you.

I disagree thoroughly with it, is what I would say.

Blueboyd wrote: »

Like I said according the researcher Kati Niemelä form the Research Center of the Church 1/3 of the priests are for that gays should have the right to get married in Chuch, 1/3 are against it - the rest has not made up their minds yet or are not telling it. Those 1/3 of preists who are for it now interpret Christ's meassage so that homosexuality is not a sin, 1/3 that who are against it do not all consider it to be a sin. The majority of Christian in Lutheran church do not consider it ti be a sin. It is just a question of time when this change will take place. When it will the the church will still be a Christian.

You're talking about church heirarchies, I'm discussing the Gospel. Personally, it doesn't matter whether or not the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Finland decides to make changes, what matters is whether or not they are in agreement with the Gospel, and with God. His will is the one that will count at the end of all time, not the will of humans in the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

I personally hold that the change is incompatible with mainline Christianity, that's my take I guess.

Blueboyd wrote: »

I guess there is no point of discussing this further if you are just gonna quote what you have been taught and don't have anything to say yourself.

What I've been taught? - This is suitably patronising! I read the Scriptures for myself, and my viewpoint is based on lots and lots of personal thought. I realise that I'm responsible for what I think. My parents aren't responsible for this. I will base my views on what I find reasonable, not on what anyone else finds reasonable. This type of rhetoric is useless.

wolfsbane

Blueboyd said:

The church has picked this and that through out the times.

True. Didn't make them right, however. Some of it was honest mistakes, where the Scripture is not too clear - the baptism of infants, for example.

But things like the status of fornication, adultery, homosexuality, paedosexuality, bi-sexuality, etc. are not open to debate. The Bible is clear. Only those who wilfully want to break God's law will argue otherwise. The honest objector to Christian doctrine will say the Bible got it wrong, rather than try to twist the Bible to suit.

What is HIS commandments and what is just religious scriptures written by clergy men is debatable. I don't find in the bible a direct quote from Jesus where he would condemn anyones sexual oriantiaton.

Jesus, and the Church that followed Him, held to the sexual mores God revealed in the OT. He did not say homosexuality was now OK. Rather, His appointed apostles confirmed the moral degeneration of it:
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Instead what he said was what you do to these children you do to him. He didn't say: "These children - except the gay ones."

Jesus specified who He was referring to:
Matthew 18:6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
He does not condone sin, but rather warns those who lure children into it of the wrath that awaits them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Intellectual honesty comes into this. Why on earth would anyone join a church that professes to believe in the God of the Bible, it they do not recognise the Bible as their rule of faith and conduct? Why not join a Humanist society instead? Why would I join a Socialist party, if I believed in free market Capitalism? Would it not be dishonest of me to do so and then campaign for free market strategies?
Because it is part of their culture. That is how most people belong to a religion. And that culture shapes that religion. It is not written in stone.

I have no wish to speak for other religions, but can confirm that Christianity is not free to make it up as it goes along. The Bible is their rule of faith and practise. They may err in understanding what it says, but they are obliged to follow as they understand it.

So those who hold one is free to change the rules to suit themselves, are not Christian.

Not long ago we burned witches and the sun was orbiting the earth and it was heretic to think otherwise. It was easy to find justification for that too in the bible.

Indeed, but it was a faulty understanding at work - not that they knowingly said it was OK now to believe something the Bible rejected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Because this has happened in the churches, and is happening, is no justification for it.

Erich Honecker, and Communism in general, was deluded. Those who moved it away from Marxism to the free market cannot legitimately call themselves Marxists. Neither can those who moved their church away from its Christian principles legitimately call themselves Christians.
Are you saying that the Lutheran Church is not a Christian church cos it now interprets officially that it is not against God's will for women to be priests?

I'm saying it is in serious error. And on the even clearer matter of homosexuality, those who allow for it are in utter disobedience to the plain will of God. Some may be deluded Christians, but on past performance in other churches, most will turn out to be apostates.

Btw new record of resignations today again 4 545 compared to yesterday's 3473. Some from the church has already voiced about their concerns how this will affect the church financially as church tax payers are leaving in masses. They always seem to think about their monies first.

Yes, that shows how ungodly most of them are - to worry about the money rather than the offence to God from tolerating sexual immorality.
_________________________________________________________________
Jude 1:7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Blueboyd

wolfsbane wrote: »

Blueboyd said:

True. Didn't make them right, however. Some of it was honest mistakes, where the Scripture is not too clear - the baptism of infants, for example.

But things like the status of fornication, adultery, homosexuality, paedosexuality, bi-sexuality, etc. are not open to debate. The Bible is clear. Only those who wilfully want to break God's law will argue otherwise. The honest objector to Christian doctrine will say the Bible got it wrong, rather than try to twist the Bible to suit.

Seems that Lutheran Church disagrees with you. I'm sorry I had it wrong before - but it seems "the Bishops Gathering" (don't know the exact translation) have already stated that homosexulaity is not a sin - that is the official view of the Lutheran Church and what God wants - I think they base their view on bible. So they are interpertig it differentely than you do or some other Churches.

I also saw this about the Church of England. Now if they are interperting God's will so that Women Bishops are okay - like it seems they are going to - that does not make them a non-Christian church. Their interpertion of God's will is as good as anyone else's. If I have understood corrctly in Ethiopia the bible consists of different books than we have. Are you saying those Christians are not Christians.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Jesus, and the Church that followed Him,

Just like that you put the two together and try to justify early churches views with Jesus. The early church consisted of people. People also decided which books of the library of books should be included in the bible. Now some may argue these people were anointed - but it is as valid argument to say that the bishops who say that homesexuality is not a sin can be as chosen ones and base it on what Jesus taught. Because it is old doesn't make it holier. Because it differs from your view - it does not make it non Christian. You don't own Christ. Do you.

In my personal view. Peter denied Jesus three times. And it didn't take long for those who follwed (in the time frame) to do so also. And it has not stoped even today. I mean people are eager to dress up and act like holy men - to boost about what they think they know about God - but what the do in real life is a completely different matter. You don't have to look into the Church Child Abuse scandals to see it. It is written all over their faces. The hierarchy has always tried to force their views on people claming they know better. Trying to push down the idea that what they say is God's will when it in fact it is mostly about their own insecurity, predjudices and hunger for power.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm saying it is in serious error. And on the even clearer matter of homosexuality, those who allow for it are in utter disobedience to the plain will of God. Some may be deluded Christians, but on past performance in other churches, most will turn out to be apostates.

That is your view - not Gods. There is the difference.

Zombrex

Blueboyd wrote: »

You have misunderstood.

The gay issue do not differ in any way from the women priesthood question which was said by the church hierarchy to be a sin also. Well people disagreed and fought for the Church to change and it did. The same will happen in this case in my opinion.

Perhaps but that is what I'm saying is ridiculous.

Look at what you are saying, the "people disagreed" with this and that.

Ok, so why the heck were they members of the church? Why are they members of a religious organisation they disagree with and why are they bothered about changing it that specific organisation when they don't agree with it in the first place?

Taking a secular example it is like a whole load of Xbox fans joining the Playstation fan club and trying to convince the rest of them that Xbox rules and PS3 sucks. There is another club for that just over there its called the Xbox fan club. Why join the Playstation fan club, when the club's position is that Playstations don't suck .

This is the nonsense here, that people seem to think it is important to be a member of church X yet don't agree with what church X says and wish to change it.

Say the Madeupville Baptist church teaches that homosexuality is a sin. I don't agree with this and but join the Madeupville Baptist church and then try and get them to change their position.
What is the purpose of this? Why did I join the church in the first place? Why am I trying to change what they teach?

It reminds me of one of the women protesting the Catholic church in Ireland was asked on RTE why does she not just leave the Catholic church and she said she had no where else to go. Of course she did, any of the other Christian churches that might be closer to what she believed.

A church is just a bunch of religious people with the same ideology and doctrine. If you don't agree with the church don't join it, or leave it if you find out it teaches something different.

Blueboyd

Up here people do not choose - except to leave or resign. They get babtised at age of only weeks old if their parents so see. It is mostly the culture which makes them to be Luherans - I suppose that is also why in Saudi-Arabia they most are muslims and not catholic or budhists.

Anyways. The members make up the organization. So if there has been 1000 years ago rules for the organizazion that Playstation should be held in a bucket while it is not turned on and then the members 1000 years later think that this is not right and vote for a new Playstation board that decides differently that the Playstation while it is not turned on should be kept under the bed I see no problem why it was not still a Playstation organization.

And what would become of it if everone left an organization everytime one disagrees with the policies of the organization. Should people leave their country if a party that they voted for did not win the elction.


But one could argue that the reason why all this happening up here s because the Lutheran church has adopted demoracy for their principals more than most churches. I'd say they still have much road ahead in this too. But you must have heard it before that democracy do not come in one night - it is a process.

Any church is not just a bunch of religious people with the same ideology and doctrine. There are lots of different views. Is this some sort of unified church nonsense. The majority can change church policies. Dictators try to sell the idea that you can not cos only they know God.

Seaneh

You seem to be of the opinion that Christianity is a democratic organisation and that people can dictate their will to God and the Bible.

It is not in any way, shape or form democratic. God dictates to us through the Bible. If our beliefs do not line up with the word of God (the Bible) they they are not Christian beliefs. It is that simple.

The second we start imposing human ideals of what is and isn't sin on the Church and start ignoring the word of God, we lose the right to call ourselves Christians.

Blueboyd

Seaneh wrote: »

You seem to be of the opinion that Christianity is a democratic organisation and that people can dictate their will to God and the Bible.

It is not in any way, shape or form democratic. God dictates to us through the Bible. If our beliefs do not line up with the word of God (the Bible) they they are not Christian beliefs. It is that simple.

The second we start imposing human ideals of what is and isn't sin on the Church and start ignoring the word of God, we lose the right to call ourselves Christians.

Christianity is not an organization - churches are. The Lutheran Church is called the People's Church - and has adopted quite a lot democracy in its procedures. It is not an opinion it is a fact.

philologos

Indeed, but what you fail to do is distinguish the Gospel, from institutions such as churches.

It's a key reason why this thread is becoming increasingly tedious to say the least!

Seaneh

Blueboyd wrote: »

Christianity is not an organization

You're damned right Christianity is not an organisation.

Blueboyd wrote: »

churches are.

They shouldn't be. They should be communities of people who follow the teachings of Christ as expressed in the Bible

Blueboyd wrote: »

The Lutheran Church is called the People's Church - and has adopted quite a lot democracy in its procedures. It is not an opinion it is a fact.

The day the church takes it's doctrine from the will of the people rather than from the teachings of Christ it no longer a Christian church.

Zombrex

Blueboyd wrote: »

Anyways. The members make up the organization. So if there has been 1000 years ago rules for the organizazion that Playstation should be held in a bucket while it is not turned on and then the members 1000 years later think that this is not right and vote for a new Playstation board that decides differently that the Playstation while it is not turned on should be kept under the bed I see no problem why it was not still a Playstation organization.

What do you mean the members decide it is not right? Why are they members of an organization they don't agree with?

I understand what you are saying about baptism but if you don't agree with the group that baptised you then leave.

Blueboyd wrote: »

And what would become of it if everone left an organization everytime one disagrees with the policies of the organization.

One would imagine it would only be left with people who actually agree with the teachings of that particular church.

Blueboyd wrote: »

Should people leave their country if a party that they voted for did not win the elction.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why are you equating a religious organisation with a country, as if people have no choice as to what church they are a member of and have to fight to get the church they belong to to reflect their position.

Just because you are born into a church doesn't mean you have to stay a member to it.

Blueboyd wrote: »

But one could argue that the reason why all this happening up here s because the Lutheran church has adopted demoracy for their principals more than most churches. I'd say they still have much road ahead in this too. But you must have heard it before that democracy do not come in one night - it is a process.

Saying the Lutheran church has adopted democracy is like saying that New Labour England has adopted democracy. There is no such thing as New Labour England, there is just England and government is what ever is democratically elected at the time. Countries are not defined by an ideology. Churches are.

Once the Lutheran church adopts democracy it is no longer the Lutheran church. It is the X church where X is what ever the members of the church at that particular moment have decided is going to be the doctrine of the church.

Which is why this is so ridiculous.

The Lutheran church is the Lutheran church because it is based on the principles of Luther and the Augsburg Confession.

If the members don't they aren't Lutherans so what the heck are they doing in the Lutheran church.

Blueboyd wrote: »

Any church is not just a bunch of religious people with the same ideology and doctrine.

That is exactly what they are. The Lutheran Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church etc.

What do you think those names refer to? It is the ideology of the church.

It is to let people know that this church here subscribes to this doctrine and this church over there subscribes to that doctrine, join the one that agrees with what you believe.

philologos

I wouldn't use the Anglican church as a key example, as there are different blocs within it which makes it suitably confusing, and in some cases fluffy and indecisive.

For example, the diocese in Sydney (conservative Evangelical) in the Anglican Church of Australia is going to be very different from the diocese in California in the Episcopal Church of the USA (liberal and largely Anglo-Catholic), largely due to the democratic nature of Anglicanism which is becoming more and more difficult to keep intact.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I wouldn't use the Anglican church as a key example, as there are different blocs within it which makes it suitably confusing, and in some cases fluffy and indecisive.

For example, the diocese in Sydney (conservative Evangelical) in the Anglican Church of Australia is going to be very different from the diocese in California in the Episcopal Church of the USA (liberal and largely Anglo-Catholic), largely due to the democratic nature of Anglicanism which is becoming more and more difficult to keep intact.

Fair enough but even then there is a description in the name as to what the church believe in.

My point was a church is not like a country, shifting views based on what ever the mood of the congregation is at the moment in time. You join the church you believe in, the church doesn't shift to reflect its members.

Such an idea wouldn't make sense to start with. A country has a geographic boundary that decides if you are a country man or not. A church as no such thing, it has the people who joined it because of its ideology.

I wonder how the OP would feel about a group of Jews or Muslims joining the Lutheran church and voting that they no longer take this Jesus was God thing all that seriously :pac:

philologos

In Anglicanism there is such a thing due to allowing individual provinces to make decisions at the General Synod, and even Dioceses can make individual decisions at the Diocesan Synod. Such initiatives can and do cause a lot of friction and are not good for a cohesive church.

^^ This is my view as an Anglican, not as an outsider.

I think your point is largely valid though.

I think God doesn't care whether or not you are an Anglican, or a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland. Rather He cares whether or not you believe in Him through Jesus Christ.

Wicknight wrote: »

I wonder how the OP would feel about a group of Jews or Muslims joining the Lutheran church and voting that they no longer take this Jesus was God thing all that seriously

It's a bit outdated, y'know? :pac: (It's pretty much the argument in this case)

Blueboyd

I would have no problem with muslims joining the church. I do not belong to the Lutheran Church. And I don't believe in segregation or Apartheid.

I find Labeling things - is for morons. I think the suggestion that because it is the Lutheran church they could not have different opinion from Luther is a bit silly. I think they worship Christ - not Luther. Even though they got the name from Luther.

But on the other hand I bought some meatballs from the store but now I read they are mostly made of chicken meat and skin and the meat is less than 40 %. Yeah I agree it could be a good idea to change their name to "People's church for Jesus Christ" or something. But I think it is their business what they call themselves - not ours.

Peronally I don't feel I need any church. I don't give a flying **ck how anyone would label me - Christian, Jew, Muslim what ever - and IMHO I think most of the churches are full of themselves and of their doctrines which they all claim to be from God. It did not surprise me that guys who flew with jets into the WTC thought they were acting as instruments of God. And the justification came directly from Koran.

And so many other fools on this earth 2. What is comes to the Christian churches it is sort of funny and sad in the same time that they have made sort of an artfrom out of the worshiping of Jesus instead of worshipping of what he taught.

Anyways this thread was not about my beliefs but the phenomenon that is taking place here. I see great potetial if democracy would spread like birdflu to all religions. I think we then could get back to the main thing - namely God - and maybe there would not be so many conflicts either.

Finally - the work week starting soon - no time to post more. Watch your step. That brown goldish substance you might have stepped into might not be actually gold.

and finally finally - if there is any Christian or non Christian gay person out there who happen to read this. Remember this what Gandhi taught - in the end through out history all tyrants have eventually fallen. Stay strong and be proud of yourself. Thank you for reading. Byeeeeee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLpfHNuhZbk

Seaneh

I can't decide of you're a Troll or genuinely this clueless...

lmaopml

I have a gay bil Blueboyd, I love him deeply! He is probably one of the most real and lovely people I know - religious too, but not in a 'revolutionary' way...I'm quite sure God knows him better than I do. I'm not my brothers judge, but my brothers keeper when the opportunity allows..

I wish you luck with your journey, and I hope that ultimately you may understand that Christianity never 'teaches' hatred or judgement! Gosh, anything but! ...We are told they are pretty much our arch enemies...A lot of good has come from this 'way of life..' and alot of people think only on the minor details and make 'monsters' of them ignoring the rest! It's 'your' journey..

We find our way in light of those things, remembering those things, but holding fast to God, his word and his church...knowing full well that everybody, no matter whom is struggling with something....some people struggling more than others, a fascinating and grounding reality.

Zombrex

Blueboyd wrote: »

I think the suggestion that because it is the Lutheran church they could not have different opinion from Luther is a bit silly.

Are you having a laugh?

In other news the Vegetarian Society of Ireland recently released a statement saying that they will not long be oppressing their members by holding that vegetarian is someone who doesn't eat meat. The chairman said that in a democracy it is important to recognize the will of the people and clearly a lot of members of the VSI wanted to eat meat. The VSI should reflect the current mood of their members. "Who are we to exclude our members just because they want to eat meat, that is unfair on them. The Vegetarian Society of Ireland is not dictatorship" the organisation said. When asked would the group be changing its name the chairman replied "No, that would be daft, why would we do that? We represent all vegetarians in Ireland, including the ones who eat meat"

PDN

Seaneh wrote: »

I can't decide of you're a Troll or genuinely this clueless...

He's probably a clueless troll. And it's time to stop feeding him.