All Comments (45)

It is unfortunate that words often seem so nice and reasonable and yet still fall so far short of genuine compassion, reason and even common sense. It is true that the Bible says that if God is for us then who can be against us? But biblical Christianity--particularly confessional Lutheran Christianity--understands the Bible as the only norm for faith and life. And as the Word of God the Bible can only be understood by properly differentiating between law and gospel.

The words, "The body of Christ given for you" do not mean that God loves human sin, that Christ’s body is given to us so that we can sin some more, or that we carry Christ's sins on our own body so that He can be freed from our sins. Instead, God hates the sin and loves the sinner. Christ carried our sins on His body so that we might know salvation from sin, death and the devil. Lutherans believe that the law drives us to grace, and then we repent--meaning we turn from our selfishness and surrender ourselves in selfless obedience to the Word of God. Instead, the author has twisted Christian theology all around. God does not turn from His sin to become obedient unto us; rather we turn to God, repent, and are obedient to unto Him.

Unfortunately, Postmodernism tries to rationalize and undermine religious values and behaviors with its own sense of self-righteousness grandiosity. But postmodern ideology is not Lutheran theology. And Lutheran pastor's preach, teach and heal on the basis of scripture, not on the basis of the whims of Postmodernist ideology.

Christianity teaches humility. Martin Luther wrote that "the cross alone is our theology." Unfortunately, the author must have missed his seminary class the day they taught that. You see, it is not the author's cross that we are supposed to carry. Rather, if the author is to follow Christ, the author needs to carry Christ's cross on his shoulders. The author is obviously theologically confused.

Postmodernism revels in grandiosity. The author seems to believe that nowadays we are just so much more sophisticated than all those dumb, dumb and dumber people of Bible times, who actually committed sins like idolatry (worshipping false gods or ideologies) adultery and fornication (i.e. engaging in sexual behavior outside of marriage, which is the uniting one man and one woman as one flesh in humble obedience to the will of God for a lifetime).

But if we are so sophisticated nowadays, then why is it that half of all marriages end in divorce, (two out of three second marriages), three out of every four children are born to a single mother, one out of every three children are fatherless, there are millions of abortions, and self-identified gay men have a 30 year lower life expectancy than heterosexual men? Oh, maybe this is the “brave new world” which the author inferred. That is, the brave new world where anxiety, depression and other human problems have become epidemic and the increasing human cost has resulted in the profound suffering of children and adults.

When people attend church they need to hear that Jesus died and rose from the dead to free them from their sins. That would be compassionate and healing. That is what the people need to hear and that is what a Lutheran pastor is supposed to provide. But instead, even though the author was ordained as a Lutheran clergyman, he wants to focus on his own sexual attractions and offer spiritually hungry people the empty promises of Post-modernistic relativism, rather than the wholesome meal which involves the confession and forgiveness of sin—the church’s basic task. Think about the name “Monica Lewinsky.” Can you honestly think about her without also being reminded about a cigar and stains on a blue dress and other things that most of us prefer to not remember? This is now also true about the author. He intentionally made his private sexual behavior a very public affair. How could anybody just sit in church and listen to his sermons without thinking about his sexual inclinations. The Lutheran Church is a liturgical church. Originally, vestments were worn to take the focus off of the pastor and turn it towards the Word and the sacraments. By being so very intentional and very openly public in his choice of sexual partners, the author has taken the focus off the Word and sacraments and shifted it to his own sexual fulfillment.

Jesus said that if a child asks for bread the heavenly Father certainly would not give that child a stone. Apparently, the author is willing to offer stones to everyone, especially those who wish he would stop trying to rationalize the seriousness of his own sins. But since he is apparently unwilling to be held accountable to Christian teachings either through promises made in his baptism, his confirmation and even his ordination, the author arrogantly seems to feel free to personally nullify church teachings which are clearly supported by scripture, which have been obediently accepted by the church for 2,000 years, and which are not questioned by 99.9999+ % of the world's Christians today.

And so, where did the author's "new revelation" come from? Obviously, from the politically driven, politically correct, and blatantly unscientific decision-making processes of professional associations like the American Psychological Association (APA). These organizations have become outspoken adherents of secular ideologies like Postmodernism and Ultra-feminism. Apparently, the author is saying that the church, particularly the Lutheran Church, which is grounded on the firm foundation of the authority of Scripture, should simply abandon the rock solid authority of scripture for the shifting sands of political decisions made by a labor union for secular humanistic, postmodernist and Ultra-feministic psychologists. The APA is the same group which implies that the sexual abuse of children isn’t really so bad, that fathers are not necessary, and that women never have any guilt or shame after having an abortion. So what do we psychologists do with all the kids and adults who have been harmed by sexual abuse, divorce, absent fathers, or the women who experience those supposedly non-existent feelings even 20, 30 or more years after an abortion? Are we supposed to just tell them they are wrong? Are we just supposed to say: “I’m sorry, but I can’t treat you for that problem because the APA has determined that it is politically incorrect to believe your real feelings exist, and I’ll get in trouble with the APA if I acknowledge your real pain”? I don’t think so. Now maybe the APA can blame some of its particular "new revelations" on its secular humanist, postmodernist and Ultra-feminist members, but the author was ordained to preach and teach the Word of God.

Since I am a practicing licensed psychologist, as well as an ordained Lutheran pastor, I am well aware of the politically correct pressures which Ultra-feminists, secular humanists, Postmodernists and others, including the so-called GLBT (i.e., gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered) lobbies exert on the APA these days. But the APA is not the church. The author is not a psychologist or a member of the APA, so why is he trying to argue that the political pressures being exerted within the APA should be utilized by the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Jesus Christ as some sort of “new revelation”?

I have no intention to judge the moral behavior of the author, but it should be absolutely clear to everyone that the author simply cannot remain on the roster of ordained Lutheran clergy because the author is apparently deficient in his understanding of Lutheran theology and unwilling to serve under standards universally demanded of the church’s clergy. If the author got a traffic ticket for driving 58mph in a 45mph zone he should have to pay the fine associated with the violation and not try to argue that he should be exempt because he sleeps with a man!

Clergy take ordination exams just as psychologists take licensure exams, attorneys take bar exams and physicians need to pass board requirements. All these licenses are based on continuing to adhere to commonly accepted professional standards. The author’s status on the roster of ordained clergy has nothing to do with whatever sexual fantasies pass through his mind or whatever he believes to give him identity. Rather, the author has a seriously deficient understanding of the basic teachings of the scriptures and confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and isn’t willing to comply with the universally accepted standards required of a Lutheran pastor. This is likely why his sacramental theology is all so twisted around too.

It is unfortunate that words often seem so nice and reasonable and yet still fall so far short of genuine compassion, reason and even common sense. It is true that the Bible says that if God is for us then who can be against us? But biblical Christianity--particularly confessional Lutheran Christianity--understands the Bible as the only norm for faith and life. And as the Word of God the Bible can only be understood by properly differentiating between law and gospel.

The words, "The body of Christ given for you" do not mean that God loves human sin, that Christ’s body is given to us so that we can sin some more, or that we carry Christ's sins on our own body so that He can be freed from our sins. Instead, God hates the sin and loves the sinner. Christ carried our sins on His body so that we might know salvation from sin, death and the devil. Lutherans believe that the law drives us to grace, and then we repent--meaning we turn from our selfishness and surrender ourselves in selfless obedience to the Word of God. Instead, the author has twisted Christian theology all around. God does not turn from His sin to become obedient unto us; rather we turn to God, repent, and are obedient to unto Him.

Unfortunately, Postmodernism tries to rationalize and undermine religious values and behaviors with its own sense of self-righteousness grandiosity. But postmodern ideology is not Lutheran theology. And Lutheran pastor's preach, teach and heal on the basis of scripture, not on the basis of the whims of Postmodernist ideology.

Christianity teaches humility. Martin Luther wrote that "the cross alone is our theology." Unfortunately, the author must have missed his seminary class the day they taught that. You see, it is not the author's cross that we are supposed to carry. Rather, if the author is to follow Christ, the author needs to carry Christ's cross on his shoulders. The author is obviously theologically confused.

Postmodernism revels in grandiosity. The author seems to believe that nowadays we are just so much more sophisticated than all those dumb, dumb and dumber people of Bible times, who actually committed sins like idolatry (worshipping false gods or ideologies) adultery and fornication (i.e. engaging in sexual behavior outside of marriage, which is the uniting one man and one woman as one flesh in humble obedience to the will of God for a lifetime).

But if we are so sophisticated nowadays, then why is it that half of all marriages end in divorce, (two out of three second marriages), three out of every four children are born to a single mother, one out of every three children are fatherless, there are millions of abortions, and self-identified gay men have a 30 year lower life expectancy than heterosexual men? Oh, maybe this is the “brave new world” which the author inferred. That is, the brave new world where anxiety, depression and other human problems have become epidemic and the increasing human cost has resulted in the profound suffering of children and adults.

When people attend church they need to hear that Jesus died and rose from the dead to free them from their sins. That would be compassionate and healing. That is what the people need to hear and that is what a Lutheran pastor is supposed to provide. But instead, even though the author was ordained as a Lutheran clergyman, he wants to focus on his own sexual attractions and offer spiritually hungry people the empty promises of Post-modernistic relativism, rather than the wholesome meal which involves the confession and forgiveness of sin—the church’s basic task. Think about the name “Monica Lewinsky.” Can you honestly think about her without also being reminded about a cigar and stains on a blue dress and other things that most of us prefer to not remember? This is now also true about the author. He intentionally made his private sexual behavior a very public affair. How could anybody just sit in church and listen to his sermons without thinking about his sexual inclinations. The Lutheran Church is a liturgical church. Originally, vestments were worn to take the focus off of the pastor and turn it towards the Word and the sacraments. By being so very intentional and very openly public in his choice of sexual partners, the author has taken the focus off the Word and sacraments and shifted it to his own sexual fulfillment.

Jesus said that if a child asks for bread the heavenly Father certainly would not give that child a stone. Apparently, the author is willing to offer stones to everyone, especially those who wish he would stop trying to rationalize the seriousness of his own sins. But since he is apparently unwilling to be held accountable to Christian teachings either through promises made in his baptism, his confirmation and even his ordination, the author arrogantly seems to feel free to personally nullify church teachings which are clearly supported by scripture, which have been obediently accepted by the church for 2,000 years, and which are not questioned by 99.9999+ % of the world's Christians today.

And so, where did the author's "new revelation" come from? Obviously, from the politically driven, politically correct, and blatantly unscientific decision-making processes of professional associations like the American Psychological Association (APA). These organizations have become outspoken adherents of secular ideologies like Postmodernism and Ultra-feminism. Apparently, the author is saying that the church, particularly the Lutheran Church, which is grounded on the firm foundation of the authority of Scripture, should simply abandon the rock solid authority of scripture for the shifting sands of political decisions made by a labor union for secular humanistic, postmodernist and Ultra-feministic psychologists. The APA is the same group which implies that the sexual abuse of children isn’t really so bad, that fathers are not necessary, and that women never have any guilt or shame after having an abortion. So what do we psychologists do with all the kids and adults who have been harmed by sexual abuse, divorce, absent fathers, or the women who experience those supposedly non-existent feelings even 20, 30 or more years after an abortion? Are we supposed to just tell them they are wrong? Are we just supposed to say: “I’m sorry, but I can’t treat you for that problem because the APA has determined that it is politically incorrect to believe your real feelings exist, and I’ll get in trouble with the APA if I acknowledge your real pain”? I don’t think so. Now maybe the APA can blame some of its particular "new revelations" on its secular humanist, postmodernist and Ultra-feminist members, but the author was ordained to preach and teach the Word of God.

Since I am a practicing licensed psychologist, as well as an ordained Lutheran pastor, I am well aware of the politically correct pressures which Ultra-feminists, secular humanists, Postmodernists and others, including the so-called GLBT (i.e., gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered) lobbies exert on the APA these days. But the APA is not the church. The author is not a psychologist or a member of the APA, so why is he trying to argue that the political pressures being exerted within the APA should be utilized by the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Jesus Christ as some sort of “new revelation”?

I have no intention to judge the moral behavior of the author, but it should be absolutely clear to everyone that the author simply cannot remain on the roster of ordained Lutheran clergy because the author is apparently deficient in his understanding of Lutheran theology and unwilling to serve under standards universally demanded of the church’s clergy. If the author got a traffic ticket for driving 58mph in a 45mph zone he should have to pay the fine associated with the violation and not try to argue that he should be exempt because he sleeps with a man!

Clergy take ordination exams just as psychologists take licensure exams, attorneys take bar exams and physicians need to pass board requirements. All these licenses are based on continuing to adhere to commonly accepted professional standards. The author’s status on the roster of ordained clergy has nothing to do with whatever sexual fantasies pass through his mind or whatever he believes to give him identity. Rather, the author has a seriously deficient understanding of the basic teachings of the scriptures and confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and isn’t willing to comply with the universally accepted standards required of a Lutheran pastor. This is likely why his sacramental theology is all so twisted around too.

It is unfortunate that words often seem so nice and reasonable and yet still fall so far short of genuine compassion, reason and even common sense. It is true that the Bible says that if God is for us then who can be against us? But biblical Christianity--particularly confessional Lutheran Christianity--understands the Bible as the only norm for faith and life. And as the Word of God the Bible can only be understood by properly differentiating between law and gospel.

The words, "The body of Christ given for you" do not mean that God loves human sin, that Christ’s body is given to us so that we can sin some more, or that we carry Christ's sins on our own body so that He can be freed from our sins. Instead, God hates the sin and loves the sinner. Christ carried our sins on His body so that we might know salvation from sin, death and the devil. Lutherans believe that the law drives us to grace, and then we repent--meaning we turn from our selfishness and surrender ourselves in selfless obedience to the Word of God. Instead, the author has twisted Christian theology all around. God does not turn from His sin to become obedient unto us; rather we turn to God, repent, and are obedient to unto Him.

Unfortunately, Postmodernism tries to rationalize and undermine religious values and behaviors with its own sense of self-righteousness grandiosity. But postmodern ideology is not Lutheran theology. And Lutheran pastor's preach, teach and heal on the basis of scripture, not on the basis of the whims of Postmodernist ideology.

Christianity teaches humility. Martin Luther wrote that "the cross alone is our theology." Unfortunately, the author must have missed his seminary class the day they taught that. You see, it is not the author's cross that we are supposed to carry. Rather, if the author is to follow Christ, the author needs to carry Christ's cross on his shoulders. The author is obviously theologically confused.

Postmodernism revels in grandiosity. The author seems to believe that nowadays we are just so much more sophisticated than all those dumb, dumb and dumber people of Bible times, who actually committed sins like idolatry (worshipping false gods or ideologies) adultery and fornication (i.e. engaging in sexual behavior outside of marriage, which is the uniting one man and one woman as one flesh in humble obedience to the will of God for a lifetime).

But if we are so sophisticated nowadays, then why is it that half of all marriages end in divorce, (two out of three second marriages), three out of every four children are born to a single mother, one out of every three children are fatherless, there are millions of abortions, and self-identified gay men have a 30 year lower life expectancy than heterosexual men? Oh, maybe this is the “brave new world” which the author inferred. That is, the brave new world where anxiety, depression and other human problems have become epidemic and the increasing human cost has resulted in the profound suffering of children and adults.

When people attend church they need to hear that Jesus died and rose from the dead to free them from their sins. That would be compassionate and healing. That is what the people need to hear and that is what a Lutheran pastor is supposed to provide. But instead, even though the author was ordained as a Lutheran clergyman, he wants to focus on his own sexual attractions and offer spiritually hungry people the empty promises of Post-modernistic relativism, rather than the wholesome meal which involves the confession and forgiveness of sin—the church’s basic task. Think about the name “Monica Lewinsky.” Can you honestly think about her without also being reminded about a cigar and stains on a blue dress and other things that most of us prefer to not remember? This is now also true about the author. He intentionally made his private sexual behavior a very public affair. How could anybody just sit in church and listen to his sermons without thinking about his sexual inclinations. The Lutheran Church is a liturgical church. Originally, vestments were worn to take the focus off of the pastor and turn it towards the Word and the sacraments. By being so very intentional and very openly public in his choice of sexual partners, the author has taken the focus off the Word and sacraments and shifted it to his own sexual fulfillment.

Jesus said that if a child asks for bread the heavenly Father certainly would not give that child a stone. Apparently, the author is willing to offer stones to everyone, especially those who wish he would stop trying to rationalize the seriousness of his own sins. But since he is apparently unwilling to be held accountable to Christian teachings either through promises made in his baptism, his confirmation and even his ordination, the author arrogantly seems to feel free to personally nullify church teachings which are clearly supported by scripture, which have been obediently accepted by the church for 2,000 years, and which are not questioned by 99.9999+ % of the world's Christians today.

And so, where did the author's "new revelation" come from? Obviously, from the politically driven, politically correct, and blatantly unscientific decision-making processes of professional associations like the American Psychological Association (APA). These organizations have become outspoken adherents of secular ideologies like Postmodernism and Ultra-feminism. Apparently, the author is saying that the church, particularly the Lutheran Church, which is grounded on the firm foundation of the authority of Scripture, should simply abandon the rock solid authority of scripture for the shifting sands of political decisions made by a labor union for secular humanistic, postmodernist and Ultra-feministic psychologists. The APA is the same group which implies that the sexual abuse of children isn’t really so bad, that fathers are not necessary, and that women never have any guilt or shame after having an abortion. So what do we psychologists do with all the kids and adults who have been harmed by sexual abuse, divorce, absent fathers, or the women who experience those supposedly non-existent feelings even 20, 30 or more years after an abortion? Are we supposed to just tell them they are wrong? Are we just supposed to say: “I’m sorry, but I can’t treat you for that problem because the APA has determined that it is politically incorrect to believe your real feelings exist, and I’ll get in trouble with the APA if I acknowledge your real pain”? I don’t think so. Now maybe the APA can blame some of its particular "new revelations" on its secular humanist, postmodernist and Ultra-feminist members, but the author was ordained to preach and teach the Word of God.

Since I am a practicing licensed psychologist, as well as an ordained Lutheran pastor, I am well aware of the politically correct pressures which Ultra-feminists, secular humanists, Postmodernists and others, including the so-called GLBT (i.e., gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered) lobbies exert on the APA these days. But the APA is not the church. The author is not a psychologist or a member of the APA, so why is he trying to argue that the political pressures being exerted within the APA should be utilized by the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Jesus Christ as some sort of “new revelation”?

I have no intention to judge the moral behavior of the author, but it should be absolutely clear to everyone that the author simply cannot remain on the roster of ordained Lutheran clergy because the author is apparently deficient in his understanding of Lutheran theology and unwilling to serve under standards universally demanded of the church’s clergy. If the author got a traffic ticket for driving 58mph in a 45mph zone he should have to pay the fine associated with the violation and not try to argue that he should be exempt because he sleeps with a man!

Clergy take ordination exams just as psychologists take licensure exams, attorneys take bar exams and physicians need to pass board requirements. All these licenses are based on continuing to adhere to commonly accepted professional standards. The author’s status on the roster of ordained clergy has nothing to do with whatever sexual fantasies pass through his mind or whatever he believes to give him identity. Rather, the author has a seriously deficient understanding of the basic teachings of the scriptures and confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and isn’t willing to comply with the universally accepted standards required of a Lutheran pastor. This is likely why his sacramental theology is all so twisted around too.

http://moreaboutmen.com/abc/h/

http://moreaboutmen.com/abc/h/

http://moreaboutmen.com/abc/r/

http://moreaboutmen.com/abc/r/

http://moreaboutmen.com/genre/metal-power/g456/

http://moreaboutmen.com/genre/metal-power/g456/

http://moreaboutmen.com/genre/metal-power/g456/

usaftv gojedipxa zaldekb ohbedc hgsuwb zogai nretfkjz

usaftv gojedipxa zaldekb ohbedc hgsuwb zogai nretfkjz

usaftv gojedipxa zaldekb ohbedc hgsuwb zogai nretfkjz

I am just now reading this and I think it is a shame that we are more concerned with whom someone chooses to love than othe rmore pressing issues in the world. I am neither Lutheran nor am I gay but it make sme angry that you are being removed. I think your ministry whether you are gay or not is between you and God. Keep looking. You will find some place somewhere wiyh an open mind.

I am just now reading this and I think it is a shame that we are more concerned with whom someone chooses to love than othe rmore pressing issues in the world. I am neither Lutheran nor am I gay but it make sme angry that you are being removed. I think your ministry whether you are gay or not is between you and God. Keep looking. You will find some place somewhere wiyh an open mind.

"Romans 1: 24-27 it clearly indicates that he does not approve of them"

Not quite so fast, Mr. Fleming. I think you need to apologize to all of us, and repent.

See, you took this passage out of context, and more than that, assumed we were all too unintelligent to see the huge error.

Verse 24, depending on translation, begins with a statement of continuation 'therefore', or 'wherefore' - a word linking what follows to what has come before. I feel sinned against by your assumption that I wouldn't notice that, so please, though I do foregive, repent.

See, that connection to comes before, the 'for this reason' in verse 26, makes it very clear that this entire passage, which begins at least as early as verse, is about idolatry.

We know from multiple sources, that the in Rome and Corinth, there were religions that practiced fertility cults - which fit the description Paul gave, and included sex as a part of their worship practice.

You cheated everyone, for verses 22 and 23 say:
"Professing to be wise, they became fools, and (AQ)exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [d]crawling creatures. "

That is not a description of all homosexuals, or most, or even many. Further, Paul's remarks include the concept of 'exchanged' and 'abandoned' - which requires those that he writes off to be originally heterosexual. Again, it does fit the description of certain fertility rituals, but not the lives of GLBTQ people.

Most importantly of all, though, is that cut off Paul's remarks far, far too soon:
28: "God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are (AZ)gossips, slanderers, (BA)haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, (BB)disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, (BC)unloving, unmerciful; "

The sad thing is how much so much of the above sounds exactly like those conservative Christians who condemn homosexuality. Look at your own first post here - malicious, arrogant, unmerciful, laced with slander.

And continuing on to Romans 2:
1Therefore you have (A)no excuse, (B)everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which (C)you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

Your interpretation is full of nasty and hideous assumptions about the lives of GLBTQ people, including my life. There is nothing indecent or degrading about my physical unitive intimacy with my partner - and I should know, I'm the one having it. You cannot know, you are not sharing our bed, nor would you ever be welcome to.

You've sinned against me directly and publicly. Though I forgive you, I must still publicly ask you to repent.

You too, Canyon Shearer. You owe both Rev. Schmeling and myself, as well as every other GLBTQ person a huge apology for comparing our loving relationships to robbery. I forgive you as well, but pray that you will repent as publicly as you sinned against us.

My head hurts...and worse yet, my heart hurts.

They hurt at the anger of a fundamentalist misdirected towards a person instead of sin; the blindness of a religous leader about their own sin; the false hope in the self-created god of the new-ager; and they hurt at the godless logic of an atheist.

What would Jesus say? I don't know if he would say anything in this post. But the verse that might apply is, "Jesus wept..."

None of us can work our way into Heaven. It is only by the mercy of God that we are allowed into His Presence through Faith. "He that believeth on me shall never die." Trying to conform to every "do" and "don"t" in Scripture will not get anyone a gate pass into Heaven. "By the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified." I'm happy to know that God alone is the One to grant me admission and welcome me into His Presence. No human being has the responsibility or power to determine my "qualifications" for Afterlife in Heaven. It's comforting to know no one has power either over me or to cousel God about who is and who is not qualified to enter Heaven after human life on earth. Hope everyone reading this winds up in Heaven with me so we can behold Him Face to face.

Reverend Schmeling, this is a beautiful statement. It doesn't get me any closer to believing in God, but it helps me understand why people need God.

Ronald Fleming:

"Another thing I would like to point out for you is the never ending concept of hell."

Did you know that Christianity was the first religion to have the concept of never-ending Hell? The pagans found this belief horrifying. Typical pagan belief was that evildoers were punished for a period in Hell, then released back into the cycle of life and death.

I think preaching never-ending Hell is evil, and has destroyed many, many lives. It's been two thousand years, for God's sake. How about a little enlightenment here?

James 2: 14 & 17 renders "faith without works are dead." Why don't you rape, rob or kill someone and find out without a doub't whether God saves everyone or not.
Its mankind that doesn't care about moral issues, not God.

Wolves in sheeps clothing!
We are saved by grace through faith and not works right? Therefore it doesn't matter if you rape or kill, rob people at the corner or through corperations such as Enron. God doesn't care about moral issues, he saves everyone right?

It's Grace in faith through works!

No Mike, I'm not a person who believes the world is coming to an end, not at all, you are the person who is believing the world is coming to an end, after-all, you said it. Never once have I ever said the world is coming to an end, check it out?
Its not the world that is coming to an end, its the system of things that is coming to an end, you know, the corruption, wars, greed, immorality, hatred, strife, sufferings, all the good things that are detestable to Jehovah God, or if you like... "God Almighty!"
The problem with you, is you know nothing about JW's and I do. Further, I'm not too keen on their submissive rules and it doesn't coincide with my selfish ways, which I'm sure you would equally agree with that. Far as theology is concerned, religion has the tendency to relate scriptures after their ideaologies, you may recall Jesus pointed out religious leaders teaching doctrines of men.
Well, unfortunately JW's follow the doctrines of the true God and that's why Christ could accurately say during our times today, that "if they persecuted me, they'll persecute you also," John 15: 20. You may go one step further and understand what Jesus commanded them "to be no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world." John 17: 16.
That's why the world invented so many religions when the Bible clearly states there is only one.
They can enjoy the fruits of their corruption and selfishness and still believe in their hearts that they will be acceptable to God and be rewarded in heaven. During the coming tribulation those same blamless righteous souls will get a very rude awakening and yes, it is in scripture, but according to you Mike, a dellusioned intelligent conversation is not feasable to your liking.
I understand, best to coverse to ones who agree with you, don't blame you!

I know enough about the JWs to know there is no point in continuing this conversation. You are a person who thinks the world is coming to an end. A person that seriously delusional isn't capable of an intelligent conversation about theology. I wish you the best of luck.

Mike, heaven forbid, have you ever given the thought, just once, perhaps maybe the JW's might just be correct, even though a huge percentage of the population on earth rebuke them as being an occult. Jesus clearly brought out that survivors in the coming tribulation will not be a large quanity.
You must have a very vivid sense of humour, because not once did I ever assume you were an inactive JW at all. Where you got that from must be a conscientious guilt trip on your part.
Having family members active at the Kingdom Hall and with that influence you still call it a church. Damned this worldly recognition huh?

While this system of things carries on in the fashion that it does and allows immorality to flourish unrelentless, of course follow the advice of Mr. Schmeling and enjoy your independence from accountability, yes...be not afraid.
But when the great tribulation is upon you like a thief in the night and and you are surrounded by gapping holes in the earth swallowing up what is left of man's civilized world and hail and sulphur plummet down from the heavens all around, realize you are not in Jehovah's protective custody, then...be afraid, be very afraid!

Ronald,

No, I just honestly find it interesting that you clearly espouse JW theology on this political discussion forum. That is a clear violation of JW rules. JWs are to have no part in politics, or discussions about political issues.

I also find it HILARIOUS you automatically assume that I am an inactive JW unfamiliar with the theology. I am not a member of the church, but my father continues to be a circuit overseer and all of my family are heavily in the church.

Mike, why do you call me a Jehovah's Witness, because I use God's name, the name that derived from the Nation of Israel from the Hebrew text as "Yahweh."
His name appears as the tetragrammaton four letter vowels as YHWH and also from the Greek Septuagint as YHVH copied from the original scrolls.
I am not affiliated with any religious organization or church at all, neither do I call myself a Christian because my current lifestyle would be hypocritical to what is interpeted in scripture.
But that does not mean a person can't be skilled in understanding and interpeting the holy writings of God accurately.
Have you any idea at all what it takes to become a Jehovah's Witness? Do you think because you go to their meetings once in awhile makes you qualified to be one of them?
They are by far the only faith that actually adheres to the Bible as their source of education and life and even though I started studying Biblical history 45 years ago, I had no idea who they were until 1984 when I realized their teachings were similiar to what I had been learning about scriptures prior.
They do follow Christ words seriously about being no part of the world.
Amazing how the Bible is so easy to understand when you get your answers directly from the author.

Pastor,

I believe that jesus preached understanding and love. I believe that we each have a soul and if you are happy in your soul and at peace, then that connection to the sacred divine is at peace with you. I cannot see the Creator of Universes much worrying about who is loving who...only that there is love. Too many like to make God petty...a little narrow mind that is more worried about Thou Shalt not, rather then blessed is he...a reflection of man's bigotries.

oh an Concerned Christian...cover your mouth...a cough also speads germs.
Sheesh, so many are so hung up on sex.

Who are we to judge your virtue? Seems to me the old saying about "If you are seeing to the spike in your own eye, you can not worry about the mote in mine" is very true. What is it with these folks that just love to point out their views on another's life?

Another saying comes to mind...looking down on others does not make you taller.

Pastor, if you have found the face of God...who is anyone to put blinders on you.

For me the face of God is a faceted jewel...

Goddess Bless,
terra

A number of these posts have reinforced my belief, arrived at before my tenth birthday, that Christianity-in-practice is largely a religion of hate.

Ronald Fleming,

I'm curious. Why, as an apparent Jehovah's Witness, are you concerned about the Lutherans at all? Aren't ALL Lutherans, straight or gay, missing out on "Jehovah God's" salvation?

Pastor Schmeling says: We are saved by grace through faith, not by our moral opinions. Well, not exactly!! He is quoting Paul, but has it wrong. The correct quote: We are saved by grace through faith, not by works, lest anyone should boast.

Our moral opinions are just that opinions! Pastor, you must have "opined" to cut out Romans 1:27!

Every Christian has their own interpretation of the Word of God. Four different books, at least five auxiliary books/epistles, competing theologians/sects/protests, and competing stories just in the original set followed by translations and embellishments followed by countless interpretations, hidden codes and raptures. IMHO, God needs to have another visit to a mountain top to get the mess cleaned up.

Of course, there are the other religions that have the same God but different authentic Words. Very strange that our God could create such confusion don't you think? The whole cacophony smells of politics and economics.

I will stick with Mark's Gospel, the seven authentic epistles of Paul and the twelve Commandments along with the evaluation of these by modern biblical scholars to get some semblance of what God is trying to communicate realizing that good people of other faiths or no faiths are also God's chosen ones.

When I clicked on the link for this blog, I thought, "I'll bet that no-where in this post does he mention repentance, regeneration, propitiation, atonement, confession, humbleness, or any combination of these."

Sadly, I was right. In the Bible, the Greek word for confess, as in, "Confess your sins", is homologeo, which means loosely, "agree with the word", so when you confess, you say, "God, you're right, I'm wrong."

Imagine you get caught cheating on your wife, what do you need to do to correct the situation, if your wife is willing to listen? You need to confess to her, "What I did was wrong." and then you need to REPENT and say, "I'll never do it again." Without these, your wife will not forgive you.

What our christianist pastor has said to God is, "God, I'm right, you're wrong." and continued in his adulterous, sinful relationship. Would your wife forgive you if you said, "It's my right to cheat on you, but I'm glad you still love me anyways."

It would be the saddest thing in the world to stand before God and hear, "Depart from me, you worker of iniquity, I never knew you." But if you won't confess that God is right, that our transgression from Him is wrong, yet you count on Christ to save you anyways, prepare for those words;

Imagine a courtroom where a bankrobber stands on trial. The prosecuting attorney stands up and says, "Here are ten undeniable proofs of guilt, a surveilance camera, a voice recording, perfectly matched fingerprints, a photo of the license plate on the getaway car, serial numbers on the bills found in his pocket match the stolen ones, no alibi, and four witnesses from inside the bank; this man is guilty."

The judge says, "Mr. Bankrobber, you are undeniably guilty, the punishment for your crime is life in prison. But there is good news, someone you don't know, don't love, can't do anything for, has offered to pay your fine, IF you'll promise never to rob another bank."

Pastor Schmeling stands up and says, "I'll take the payment, but I intend fully to continue robbing banks."

It doesn't work that way, full repetance and confession must precede the gift, otherwise the gift will not be given.

Without even considering the crime in question, there are 10 other reasons a criminal will stand before the Judge of the Universe, in brief these are Hating Righteousness, creating a god to suit yourself, using the name of God in vain, the endless pursuit of success without taking time out for your family, profaning your parents, hatred, lust, stealing, lying, and coveting. These crimes are against an infinite God and require infinite retribution. Jesus Christ waits to pay your fine, all that He's waiting on is your repentance.

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."
-James 2:10

i agree with Ronald Fleming.
James 2:26 says faith without deeds is dead.
Pastor Schmeling, i'm sure that as a pastor you read the bible everyday. don't you have any conviction as you read the Bible?
the things that make you feel right is not necessarily the indication that it is not wrong. ask GOD to give you the strength to live the life approved by Him. He will understand but you need to repent. i'm sorry if this sounds harsh.

Ayla Dunlap, for 60 years you have been hiding your shame and now because of Mr Schmeling, he has convinced you that peace and love will prevail in God's love.
It would be advisable for you to seek God and ask him for forgiveness and help to counteract such unatural desires before the tribulation begins, because (as you should know) the day of Jehovah is rapidly approaching and he won't tolerate any excuse from the both of you for violating his creation standards.
You've lived through the time of transition during the late 60's and 70's just as I have, don't let Satan's trickery distract you of God's true intentions.

Thanks for your concern Robin, but I even saw a couple well qualified shrinks and explained my situation to them in detail and they found no fault in me, but they did suggest that I could get some negative feedback from ones who cannot, or (will not), comprehend perfectly sound logics

Ronald,

I thnk you need to see a doctor about that problem your having about not being able to make any sense.

First of all E Favourite, you must understand what God's correct view on homosexuality is and in Romans 1: 24-27 it clearly indicates that he does not approve of them, therebye giving strict reasoning on those verses that he would be equally displeased with such a person preaching his sacred word to others if he was involved in such a practise.
Another thing I would like to point out for you is the never ending concept of hell. The Bible does not give any clarification of such a tormenting firey place where one goes for eternal suffering, mainly because God never had such an ideaology come up into his heart, Jeremiah 7: 31.
There is no such place as hell, churches teach these lies to the members of their congregation and what does God say about lying?
These churches are responsible for many lives and those members will share the plaques and the sins of their leaders. Revelation 18:4.
The punishment for such men will be in humility when God reveals to their members their lies which will lead to much wailing and nashing of teeth because the people will be condemned for following their deceptive teachings.

Hello, Ronald Fleming,

You say, "If you continue to distort his holy writings you will face consequences more serious than an unbeliever."

Are you saying there's a special place in Hell for homosexual Christian ministers living in a committed same-sex relationship? That they will suffer in eternity more than atheists will? If so, please direct me to where it says this in the Bible. If not, I'd appreciate it if you'd explain what you mean.

Thanks

To: Ronald Fleming

Gee, Ronald, you are rather hateful and nasty, and I thought all fundamentalists were sweet, kind, and loving? Gosh, I guess I thought wrong.
I'll bet that loving God you worship and those sweet bible passages you love with all your heart really make a difference to you. You know, Ronald, most people really don't care what the Scriptures say anymore than they care what Thucydides said about Greek history. But, of course, people like you still carry a torch.

Mr Schmeling, you serve the church well in preaching such hypocritical lies to people of your gender who has a serious flaw in their faculties also.
If you understand the holy scriptures you would find that Jehovah God does not approve of the homosexual lifestyle anymore than he approves you as a gay person of preaching his sacred words to deceived souls.
If you continue to distort his holy writings you will face consequences more serious than an unbeliever. "WHY?"
Because God knows the people you teach with untterances and teachings of demons will make you blood guilty of all the souls you condemn from your lies.

Pastor Schmeling,

Thank you for your informative and enlightened statement. May blessings and peace be upon you and your partner.

Many years ago when I was in college, a Finnish Lutheran classmate and friend (who later became a Lutheran pastor) told me that Martin Luther had said: "Love God and do as you please."

It's a shame that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America doesn't follow Martin Luther and consider his statement in relation to you and your friend.

May you both enjoy happiness, and may the Lutheran Church come to repent of its erroneous and un-Christian ways.

Dear Pastor Schmeling:

Same-sex marriage seems a frightening thought to many who envision an idea of marriage that seems to them to be fast disappearing, but which, in fact, is already long gone.

With the introduction of same-sex marriage in Canada, opposite-sex marriage has not disappeared. The sky has not fallen. The country has not been plunged into anarchy. If marriage has been trivialized, it has not been because of same-sex marriage, but by divorce. Divorce was a subject about which Jesus spoke explicitly.

Marriage as it was practiced in biblical times has long since vanished. At least in the west, parents no longer arrange marriages for their children. Wives are no longer the chattel of their husband and are "real" people before the law.

Marriage underwent a radical shift a couple of hundred years ago. It became thinkable to enter into marriage on the basis of love. This was a big change from Bible times, but today we would never return to the biblical idea. That was the last major change through which marriage passed, and no Christian questions it today.

With privilege comes responsability. Vows made before God are sacred no matter to whom they are made.

Thank you, sir, for your interesting thoughts.

Sincerely,
Andrew Dykstra
Toronto, Canada

For 60 years I lived in shame as as sinner because of the way I felt and society dictated.

Thank you and God bless. I am now learning how to live in freedom and peace with God's love.

I assume you have a life partner thereby not risking the spread of STDs via one night stands. The same holds if you were heterosexual.