Questions Get Too Hard

Hi again.

I’ve decided to copy and paste these comments as a Post because some people do not read the comments section. Rather than repeat myself later I have take the path of least resistance and created a post with the click of a button. Gotta love copy and paste. If you haven’t read the post titled Emotionalism you can click here.

Am I deluded? What I have written seems rational to me  – If I have twisted anything, point it out, if I am wrong tell me why. It is not discussion when one person says you are wrong and then leaves it at that. Unfortunately the only person brave enough to step up to the plate has done exactly that – left.


2 Responses to “Emotionalism”

  1. Wally Schiller says:

    I don’t really have time to answer this – but answer it I must.
    I make one comment on emotions, but nothing like you have described, which I can only conclude is a raving rant because you obviously realise that your argument is going nowhere.
    My comment was simply in relation to this: That you use an example such as in your question about a child: show me where in Romans 1 it talks about a child. Any issue put in the context of child involvement will evoke a stronger emotional response. My accusation is that you have brought in the child context knowing that it pulls more weight. I am not denying any other aspect of emotions – I haven’t talked about anything else!! But, on the basis of your false assumption, you have gone off your tree to the extent of suggesting that the Lutheran Church would not have acknowledged Jesus as the Son of God. How bad can you get? How ever could you arrive at such an unconnected point unless you had some other motive? It is so patently ridiculous that it is pointless me making much further comment.
    It is not my cold heart that is laid out for all to see – I have a warm heart eager to bring the message of the Gospel to every sinner in my hearing, as I will again do in the morning. I suggest it is your heart and your motives that are laid bare – and I think I don’t have to explain what they are because you have done a good job in exposing yourself here. Do some soul searching as to what you are really on about, especially as you add that unhelpful quote at the end. And I make no apologies whatsoever for not hiding behind the anonymous card. I am prepared to stand up for Jesus and for all people whom he loves, regardless of who they are and I am more than willing to call this terrible response for what it is.
    And now, back to my closing preparations for tomorrows worship. Good evening.

    • Tapman says:

      Thankyou for calling my concerns a raving rant. Thank you also for explaining why you thought I was using emotionalism. You are 100% right, the Romans passage does not talk about pre-adolescent children or babies – that is exactly the point. The Romans passage is talking about adult men who are engaged in idolatrous practices, following their lusts and generally behaving like heterosexuals. It is not talking about those that have been born gay like the children I am talking about. You know the rules for exegesis – the most obvious translation is often the right one. Let me explain this – You sent me an article which I haven’t approved/published yet. The writer suggests that Gay people are lustful creatures that hate marriage and family, and you recommend this reading. If you read Romans with this kind of belief in your mind it is no wonder you jump to conclusions. If you read it with the intention of hearing what the text actually says, in its context – historical and within the context of his whole argument, the most obvious conclusion is not a damnation of gay people. The religion of the region that Paul speaks to involved all sorts of orgies, gender swapping, drugs, alcohol, temple prostitution – don’t you think that this is the most likely thing that Paul was writing about?

      Yes, some of the things I said are disturbing. Are they ridiculous and unconnected? I don’t think so. Lets look at the embarrassing history of the church – I wonder how many people were killed in the crusades, I wonder how many Christian people fought against the abolition of slavery, I wonder how many Christian people regarded coloured people as inferior. It is disturbing….but good people were doing evil things, all the while feeling good about it because the scriptures were on their side.

      I have no doubt you have a warm heart for your congregation, but on this issue you are blinded by pre-concieved notions. You know as well as I do this is a difficult topic to talk about. One reason for this is that the church does not understand what it is dealing with and constantly changes its argument to suit. Is homosexuality a sin? Is homosexuality a condition brought on by a strong willed mother and an absent father? Are gay people born/created that way? The church is behaving like that guy talked about in the book of James that looks in the mirror and immediately forgets what he looks like. If homosexuality is a sin then treat it like sin. If it is a psychological problem brought on by abuse or poor parenting then treat it like this. The bottom line is the church jumps freely from opinion to opinion to avoid the obvious – God created them this way. Bottom line is, they are created different, they make us feel uncomfortable, they might even get into relationships and there HAS to be a law against this.

      Unfortunately there is a certain amount of truth to my dig at the Lutheran Church, and I acknowledge it in myself, I do not always recognize Jesus – I think it wise to do an inward search like you advise me to do. There are many things that happen today that we do not recognize as God because we as Lutherans already “know how to do church”. My statement is terrible but no more than Jesus parable about separating the sheep from the goats. Do we recognize Jesus? Do we see Jesus in the LGBTI community?

      Wally Schiller says:

      I think I am going to bow out of this discussion – you are fixed in your ideas and no matter what I say, you either choose to twist it or ignore it. Fine, if you don’t want to print that article – that will only reinforce my view that you are so engrossed in your view that you can see nothing else. I have been around, I have dealt with homosexuals and ministered to them – what you trumpet is not the answer. The article I posted shows that and you clearly don’t like it. What you are doing is pursuing a determination to rip the church apart, just like another blog. Thankfully, your audience is minimal and hopefully it won’t do too much damage. You are clearly quite happy to use all sorts of false accusations and when placed on the mat for it, you simply side-step it. May the Lord have mercy on you and I will continue to pray for you.

      • Tapman says:

        Thanks for dropping in. I will let the readers decide who is twisting and who is side stepping. I seriously do appreciate you having the courage to say your piece, cheers.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: