Beliefs Culture Faith Institutions News Politics

Top Catholic bishops criticize Biden for officiating at gay marriage

Vice President Joe Biden talks with Pope Francis at the Vatican on April 29, 2016. Courtesy of REUTERS/Max Rossi *Editors: This photo may only be republished with RNS-BIDEN-BISHOPS, originally transmitted on August 8, 2016.

(RNS) When Vice President Joe Biden last week tweeted a photo of himself proudly officiating at the same-sex civil wedding of two White House staffers, it quickly became fodder for news stories and commentary both pro and con — the latter by religious conservatives who thought Biden was betraying his Catholic faith and deserved a rebuke.

The Catholic hierarchy was notably quiet, however, until Friday (Aug. 5) when three leaders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops posted a statement clearly directed at Biden and criticizing him for presenting “a counter witness, instead of a faithful one founded in the truth.”

“When a prominent Catholic politician publicly and voluntarily officiates at a ceremony to solemnize the relationship of two people of the same-sex, confusion arises regarding Catholic teaching on marriage and the corresponding moral obligations of Catholics,” wrote Louisville Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, president of the USCCB, who was joined by Bishop Richard Malone of Buffalo, N.Y., and Miami Archbishop Thomas Wenski.

Malone is chair of the bishop’s Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life, and Youth and Wenski is chair of the bishop’s Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development.

Biden, the first Catholic vice president of the U.S., came out in support of civil marriage for gays in 2012. President Barack Obama followed suit a few days later.

Though Biden seemed to be the obvious focus of Friday’s USCCB statement, the three bishops were rather circumspect in their criticism.

Their statement was posted on Friday on the USCCB’s blog, and they did not mention the vice president by name. Five of the six paragraphs of the statement focused generally on church teachings against gay marriage and on the responsibilities of Catholics in public life to, in the words of Pope Francis, “defend and preserve the dignity of fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common good.”

The three bishops cited Francis, who has been hailed for his welcoming approach to gays, highlighting the pontiff’s support for traditional Catholic teaching that marriage is a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman.

One reason for the relatively muted response is that Biden lives in the Archdiocese of Washington, which is led by Cardinal Donald Wuerl, and bishops are supposed to leave decisions on how to deal with wayward members of the flock to the bishop in charge of each diocese.

It could be seen as a breach of church practice for other bishops or the USCCB as a whole to appear to be telling another bishop how to run his ministry.

As of Sunday (Aug. 7) Wuerl had not made a statement regarding Biden’s action. Several conservative Catholics and organizations have been pressuring Wuerl to take some sort of public action.

On the other hand, Wuerl — like previous Washington archbishops — would normally leave pastoral decisions on a government official to the bishop in that official’s home diocese.

Biden is from Delaware and while he worships in Washington he is still technically under the jurisdiction of Wilmington Bishop Francis Malooly.

After Kurtz and the others published their blog post,  Malooly sent the link to all of his priests saying: “I have spoken to and consulted with the leaders of our conference and completely concur with this statement.”

Another possible reason for the low-key tone of the USCCB blog post is that church law does not necessarily provide for the kind of penalties that some of Biden’s critics might want.

In a column following the news of Biden’s action, Edward Peters, a canon lawyer at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, wrote that the vice president “went out of his way to act with contempt” for church teaching and “is daring the church to do anything about it.”

But Peters noted that presiding at a same-sex marriage does not incur excommunication under current canon law; he said it would be up to Wuerl or the pope to issue legislation “making such officiating an excommunicable crime.”

He also wrote that Biden’s action was not necessarily heresy, either, nor would it clearly violate other canon laws.

Peters said that in his view the most appropriate response would be to deny Communion to Biden, who regularly attends Mass. Such an action is provided for under Canon 915, which directs ministers to withhold that sacrament from those who are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.”

Some Catholics have frequently argued that Catholic politicians who support abortion rights as well as gay rights should be denied Communion under Canon 915, but bishops have been reluctant to take what is viewed as a drastic step.

Most bishops — and Wuerl would be among them — also prefer to deal with these matters privately with the public figure in question, and they note that the responsibility for making such a call is up to the bishop, not the USCCB or outside groups.

Biden reportedly secured the authority from a Washington, D.C., court to conduct the marriage of staffers Brian Mosteller and Joe Mahshie. He conducted the ceremony at the vice president’s official residence, the Naval Observatory, on Monday afternoon.

About the author

David Gibson

David Gibson is a national reporter for RNS and an award-winning religion journalist, author and filmmaker. He has written several books on Catholic topics. His latest book is on biblical artifacts: "Finding Jesus: Faith. Fact. Forgery," which was also the basis of a popular CNN series.

855 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Way too little, way too late. And on top of that, **way too scared** to even say Biden’s name out loud.

    Re-read Biden’s joyful twitter again, folks. That’s called a TAUNT — on steroids.

    It’s a direct slap in the face of the US bishops, and it’s also a public, **national-level** repudiation of the clear statements of the Official Catechism of the Catholic Church.

    Honestly? Nobody’s got the guts to stand up against Biden. Pope Francis didn’t even say one word about the mess.

  • What the bishops don’t appear to comprehend is that the gay marriage ship has already sailed. It’s the law of the land, whether they want it to be or not, and they have no power to change that. Sure, they do have the authority to prevent priests — who’ve taken vows to obey them — to marry gays, but they have no such power over lay Catholics like Biden. Pitching fits over it is juvenile.

    As for “the responsibilities of Catholics in public life to, in the words of Pope Francis, ‘defend and preserve the dignity of fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common good’,” arguably Biden did exactly this by marrying the couple. This directive can be interpreted in more than one way. The bishops have their interpretation, but others, including Biden, have their own.

    Time for the bishops to grow the heck up, for the first time in their lives, quit sniveling that they’re not getting their way any more, and start acting like the mature adults they ought to be. Boo hoo hoo, little babies. Boo hoo.

  • Those top Catholic bishops should then have been criticized by Biden for not remembering their place concerning his officiating at a gay [civil] marriage that did not take place in a Catholic club house.

  • They may even have doubts that “standing up to Biden” is the right way forward, so they are walking a metaphorical tightrope, trying to appease all. This year and the last couple of years have seen such a shift in public opinion, both within the body of Christ and in non-church goers.

    Legal changes, huge numbers of same sex couples committing to each other (many in Christian ceremonies), an apology in the UK from a Church of England Archbishop to “yhe gays” (my quotes/slang)

    Young people in particular do not agree with the idea that same sex love is sinful, despite the way many conservatives (with a small c) see it. They also know that Jesus of Nazareth had nothing to say about homosexuality, and never said two men cannot marry, even if he did state the traditional marriage requirement of the time as being one man one woman.

    Times change and the lens some have is different. It doesn’t make them wrong because they disagree with us (I believe)

    Blessings

  • Several years ago, in an effort to find out what Catholics really believe or not-believe, I purchased a copy of their “Official Catechism”, and read it.

    It’s an interesting book; I liked it.
    But what’s the point of calling yourself a Catholic — whether young or old — if you’re just going to publicly spit on (actually, another bodily function comes to mind) the clear teachings of the Official Catechism, in front of the entire nation?

    And then “Catholic” Biden tweets and taunts his brazen-dog repudiation to all of America?? That’s ALL messed up !!

  • Whether Jesus spoke on the issue of homosexual marriage or activity is not the point, his chosen and carefully selected disciples did, and recorded their admonitions which are now enshrined in the New Testament, the text of which is the basic instructional guide for all Christians.

  • There IS a proper process, though, that Jesus set out for dealing with a brother who is in sin. Private confrontation first, then in a group, and only then before the church with disfellowship being the last resort.

  • I do believe in “the process” as spelled out in the Bible, but in this case the Catholics have been given more than one issue to address.

    First, Biden himself. That is where “the process” comes in, and as per the article, maybe Biden’s bishop (Wuerl) wants to deal with it on that level. If so, no complaints here.

    But that still leaves the horrific message that Biden preached in word and deed to the entire nation. A strong, no-nonsense **national-level** corrective response, neither hateful nor fearful, was (and still is) needed now, to counter Biden’s evil message.

  • I am tempted to agree with that, but Shawnie5 has a point about following the New Testament process first. Excommunication should always be the last resort.

    Let’s just hope that Biden’s bishop is a man of courage who will actually hold Biden accountable via “the process”, instead of just giving Biden a liberal wink-nudge free-pass on all his mess.

  • In other news, top Catholic bishops cover up pedophile scandals in the church, pay out billions in reparations, and transfer pedophile priests to other parishes to molest again, all the while trying to pin their sins on gay men who are actually horrified at the abuse, rather than titllated.

  • And which so many so called Christian ignore, whether for divorce, female ministers, slandering and reviling, or drunks.

    Or a whole other list of things I am too bored to repeat because I am constantly having to,

  • Because there is nothing so Christian as a bunch of unrepentant–or at least, uncaught– sinners, standing in judgment of someone else, despite a boatload of logs in their own eyes.

  • You’re absolutely right that they’re diverting the public’s attention from “priestly pedophilia” by vilifying gays. In the process, they’re violating Jesus’ own instructions:

    “Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.” (Mt 7:3-5)

    “How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me remove that splinter in your eye,’ when you do not even notice the wooden beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! Remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter in your brother’s eye.” (Lk 6:42)

    In other words, Jesus himself had ordered his followers to look after their own affairs before they go around telling everyone else what they should or shouldn’t do. The bishops clearly are the very sort of hypocrites their own Jesus had condemned during his putative ministry on earth.

  • I think we’d best follow His instructions, Ben, not yours. Feel free, though, to go tell other atheists how to be atheists.

  • Performing a civil marriage is grounds for excommunication but sexual abuse, covering it up and attacking victims in public gets a pass. Some set of priorities you guys have.

  • If the Catholic church kicked out everyone who ignored it’s policy and teaching, 99% of its members would be gone.

  • Did you even bother to read the article?

    “But (Edward) Peters noted that presiding at a same-sex marriage does not incur excommunication under current canon law; he said it would be up to Wuerl or the pope to issue legislation “making such officiating an excommunicable crime.””

    A conservative canon lawyer says there are no grounds for excommunication, but you with your lack of a canon law background make the bold and uninformed claim anyway. Biden performed the ceremony according to civil law, witnessing the civil marriage of a couple. He did not impersonate a priest, and he did perform a Catholic liturgy as a Catholic lay minister in a church setting. He made no claims of the sacramentality of the marriage. In other words, he was not representing the Church in any way and did not make any attempt to do so. Any judge or civil official who is Catholic does as much on any given day.

    I would hope the pope or any bishop would not pass legislation that would prevent Catholics from serving in civil office.

  • Agree. Biden has been publicly flouting his church’s teachings on multiple counts for a long time.

  • Dear Galileo, sorry we imprisoned you, dear women, sorry we subjugated you, dear jews, sorry we collectively charged you with deicide, dear children, sorry we raped you. OK, we’re ready to be infallible again…

  • No doubt this kind of action merits excommunication as does his support of abortion. This would be a golden opportunity for the Catholic to make an example of him so that others will not support such wicked sins.

  • No it doesn’t. It is a legal process according to Canon Law. It is not imposed because you don’t like someone or you don’t agree with them. It is not a process of making an example of someone. Your sense of justice is appalling.

  • How could he not be guilty of wicked sin in these cases when the catechism is clear?
    The Catholic Church thus teaches: “Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).

  • “Several conservative Catholics and organizations have been pressuring Wuerl to take some sort of public action”. What are they thinking? Excommunication? Denying Communion? Threaten the Vice President with damnation/ I think the latter is against the law and may provoke the Secret Service.

  • Oh…but…but…but….Remember any member of their flock is under their “control”, Some of these conservatives are just becoming unhinged. Sort of the like the little boy with his fingers and toes in the levee. They are running out of digits.

  • Golden opportunity? I think you might want to be careful suggesting excommunication. What would be next? Burning him at the stake? Be careful the Secret Service looks down on things like that.

  • I’m sure we agree on that, however my emphasis in my Christian life and duty is first on what Jesus did speak about. To do the things He said, because Him saying them made the words important. That’s my priority. The wonder and the story of his disciples then is the icing on the cake!

  • One of the benefits of excommunication is that it shows that the church is serious about sin and it serves as a warning to others not to do so.When wicked sin is not dealt with then others will think its no big deal.

  • Sorry…maybe a few still believe in hocus pocus issues. The people I am referring to most also believe in exorcisms and self flagellation.

  • Biden is a national figure participating in an act that is gravely contrary to church teaching. It is the bishop’s duty to let him know of his sin. (Which he may have done privately.) But, by not publicly criticizing his participation, some might see it as condoning the so-called wedding.

  • Mr. Davy, to say there is no rational argument against so-called same-sex marriage is to be blind to thousands of years of tradition and to neglect natural law. The harm done is subtle in that the basic framework of our culture, marriage between a man and a woman, is eroding and may be broken beyond repair. More babies are born out of wedlock and in. How is that affecting society?

  • Tradition is not a valid reason for discrimination and natural law is not on your side either as there are plenty of species besides humans that have homosexual relationships. Homosexual humans have been in relationships for thousands of years too, the only difference it makes now is that they now have legal protections.

  • The Catholic Church isn’t going to kick anyone out of the church that has a high powered political position. They need those folks for PR purposes and influence. If they start excommunicating politicians that go against Catholic “law” there would be zero Catholic politicians. If they excommunicated every Catholic that didn’t follow Catholic “law” (like using birth control for example) the pews would be completely empty. The pews are emptying of their own accord the church doesn’t want to accelerate that action.

  • This is the problem with proof texting. You conveniently left out CCC 2358, which follows and tempers what you quoted:

    “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”

    You have to read them together, not separate them out so they say what you want it to say. Let me also add that CCC 2359 is a call to chastity, which is a whole other conversation.

    Of course, if the gentlemen who were married are not Catholic then the CCC has no relevance for them. Vice President Biden is under no obligation to impose Catholic teachings on anyone, let alone non-Catholics. He is obligated to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I will point out again, he has broken no laws, civil or canonical. Therefore, there is no grounds for excommunication. Even if he did break a law, that is not necessarily grounds for excommunication. This is a matter of justice, of which you appear to know very little.

    Church laws and teachings are not weapons used to bludgeon the people we disagree with. They exist to form us and guide us. When we fail, we reconcile with God and the Church. Your position makes the Church look less and less relevant, and no longer worthy of anyone’s attention. In fact, the Church of your imagining appears to be an ugly place that is self-serving. And that is truly tragic, indeed.

  • The problem for you is, Christ said that homosexuality is a sin, so that in God’s eyes, these people are not married, just sinning, and you have no power to change that. Jesus said that He would forgive and cleanse them of their sin so they could go to Heaven if they so choose though.

  • Except, you don’t understand. If Christ did not endorse, or accept the relationship, He still won’t when one tries to call it “marriage”. He will help these people in that He will cleanse them of their sin, but well, he will not recognize some silly marriage idea.

  • We had a federal member of Parliament sanctioned in his church a few years back for endorsing a homosexual pride parade. I was quite proud of the RCC at that time for doing such.

  • Catholic exorcists are rare but they do exist. Biden could probably use three or four of them, along with 10 good gallons of holy water.

    (And don’t just sprinkle the water on him; make him drink it straight from the jug!! Every last drop, baby !! )

  • No he didn’t. Show me the passage where Jesus, in his own words said so, in a manner which unambiguously discusses gays (and not some other kind of vague pronouncement). You won’t find it. You have 6-7 passages taken out of context, stated by people long after Jesus’s passing, to claim it is a sin.

    But you also have a lot more passages why such things are not your business and not in accordance to notions of Christian love of thy neighbor as expounded by Jesus himself.

    But then again there really isn’t any point to your form of Christianity if you can’t use Scripture to justify treating others badly and pretending to carry authority for all people of the faith. So we can all just simply chalk up your statements to your own sectarian beliefs and nothing more.

  • There is an interesting section in this about homosexuals who “marry”:

    (LifeSiteNews.com) – Homosexuals who “marry” each other are almost three times more likely to commit suicide than their heterosexual counterparts, even in very gay-friendly Sweden, according to a study published in the May issue of the European Journal of Epidemiology.

    The authors of the study noted that social intolerance of homosexual behavior could not so easily be blamed for increased suicide risk, given that Sweden is known for its accepting attitude towards same-sex relationships.

    “Even in a country with a comparatively tolerant climate regarding homosexuality such as Sweden, same-sex married individuals evidence a higher risk for suicide than other married individuals,” the authors note.

    The study, “Suicide in married couples in Sweden: Is the risk greater in same-sex couples?” used the government of Sweden’s detailed databases to compare a population of over six thousand homosexual “married” couples to the larger population of heterosexual couples who married during the period between 1996 and 2009, following them until 2011.

    The study found that participants in homosexual marriages had an overall 2.7 times greater chance of suicide than participants in heterosexual marriages, with the true value having a 95% probability of falling somewhere between 1.5 and 4.8.

    Homosexual men in same-sex “marriages” were found to have a higher elevated risk (2.9) than women (2.5).

    The study’s results are similar to numerous other studies in recent years that have found a strong relationship between homosexual behavior and a variety of negative psychological outcomes, even in countries that are very accepting of homosexual behavior.

    Studies done of homosexuals in the Netherlands, which is the country most accepting of homosexual behavior in the world, have found that homosexuals suffer from significantly higher rates of mood disorders, anxiety disorders, substance abuse disorders, suicide attempts, eating disorders, and panic attacks.

    The behavior of homosexuals, which often involves high levels of promiscuity and instability in their interpersonal relationships, results in rates of 10-20% HIV infection of homosexuals living in urban areas, as well as elevated incidence of herpes and the cancer-causing Epstein-Barr virus, syphilis, anal cancer, and other diseases.

  • Spud, I’m not going to continue to argue with you. You have been shown credible scripture countless times. I’m sorry if you cannot understand it.

  • “Mr. Davy, to say there is no rational argument against so-called
    same-sex marriage is to be blind to thousands of years of tradition and
    to neglect natural law.”

    Neither tradition nor natural law are rational arguments. They are both merely begging the questions. Tradition doesn’t have any meaning or purpose for being upheld unless there is a rational purpose behind it. Natural law is a nonsense term used when someone does not want to subject their statements to criticism or analysis. People were calling it out as a lazy form of discussion in Aristotle’s day. It still represents nonsense argument by stipulation.

    “The harm done is subtle in that the basic framework of our culture,
    marriage between a man and a woman, is eroding and may be broken beyond
    repair. More babies are born out of wedlock and in.”

    None of that is remotely related to gays getting married. Banning gay marriage does not do anything to resolve that issue.

    If there were rational and secular arguments for banning gay marriage, the anti-gay crowd would not have lost so badly in the courts.

  • No you didn’t. He said nothing on the subject. Bearing false witness is a sin Sandi. Keep it up and you will be right at Satan’s side.

  • Same sex marriage is legal in civil law in the US, a secular republic. Jesus has no bearing here which means you have the problem. I know you think you have the answers and will have a joyful afterlife and that should make you feel good and happy but it doesn’t. You have to get on a public forum to rub other peoples noses in your myth.

  • So do you think the catechism approves of homosexual relationships after it calls them “”Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”?

    There is nothing in the Constitution that supports homosexual “marriage”. In fact these are fake marriages because they fail to meet a key requirement for a relationship to be a marriage and that is husband and wife. Only a man can be a husband and woman a wife. Without this you don’t have a marriage. Not even the supreme or any court can change this fact. Those that try to show they are liars and deceivers.

  • Since when the RC bishops have a say on matters of civil law ?..they should be reminded of the concept of separation between the state and the church…and the fact that they are tax-exempted

  • Historically, since at least the 16th century, excommunication of public officials, has not been a particularly successful tactic for the Catholic Church. The cases of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I come immediately to mind.

  • Just because something is legal doesn’t mean its right or moral. In fact, Homosexual “marriages” are fakes because they fail to meet the requirement that a husband can only be a man and woman a wife. A woman cannot be a husband nor a man a wife. Its impossible. Without a husband and wife you don’t have a marriage.

  • Except you can’t point to any kind of moral wrong with gay marriage. You can point to some arbitrary prejudicial condemnation of gays. But you can’t show anything inherently harmful, malicious or destructive associated with gay marriage.

    Just because you claim your religion sanctions or condemns something doesn’t mean morality has anything to do with it. Religious morality is a slippery thing. Any atrocious act is condoned if done “in God’s Name”. Beneficent acts are condemned if they “violate God’s law”.

  • LifeSiteNews is about as credible as a Focus on Family citation. None whatsoever. The authors are a mouthpiece for extreme reactionary Christian beliefs. So we can take your hearsay one step removed article and ignore it.

  • Scripture considers the practices of homosexuality sin. Its never spoken positively in Scripture.

    There is all kinds of medical data that shows how unhealthy homosexual sex practices are. Just check out the CDC.

    As for problems in homosexual “marriages” consider:
    “People in homosexual ‘marriages’ almost 3 times more likely to commit suicide: study”
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/people-in-homosexual-marriages-almost-3-times-more-likely-to-commit-suicide

  • The article references a study in a study published in the May issue of the European Journal of Epidemiology. Go check it out.

  • Something Biden should think of: Galatians 1:8-10 – Galatians 1:8-10 English Standard Version (ESV)

    8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

    10 For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant[a] of Christ.

  • Jesus certainly did speak against homosexuality in Mark 7:20-21 where He uses the word “unchastity”, “immorality” and “fornications which includes adultery, incest, premarital infidelity, homosexuality, beastiality and any other sexual conduct condemned in the OT.

  • Of course Jesus certainly spoke against homosexuality in Mark 7:20-21 where He uses the word “unchastity”, “immorality” and “fornications which includes adultery, incest, premarital infidelity, homosexuality, beastiality and any other sexual conduct condemned in the OT.

  • Thousands of years of tradition also said that slavery was okay. I don’t think natural law cared. We now know better. The Holy Spirit at work.

  • Christ spoke about homosexuality from Genesis to the Book of Revelation. Jesus is God, and the Bible is the Word of God.

  • He did not speak against homosexuality. He is interpreted that way – but that is a human interpretation based on knowledge and customs of the times in which that interpretation was made.

  • Even though in the case of Elizabeth 1 it condemned English Catholics to two centuries of persecution? Regnans in excelsis (1570) was one of the worst political blunders in the history of the Papacy.

  • Indeed. Biden did seek to “defend and preserve the dignity of fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common good.” He recognized the love between two fellow citizens, two human beings beloved of God, and he gave his fellow citizens the means to participate in the legal benefits of marriage.

    I am not in the least confused about what the bishop say about marriage. Agreement is another issue. Most Catholics are also not confused and most also do not agree. Catholics overwhelmingly support legal gay marriage in this country and in quite a few other countries.

  • No, my job is to tell Christians where they fail to measure up as Christians. (And in a number of cases, as decent human beings, but that’s another story, right, Doc?). As I have said to you many, many times, you spend so much of your time trying to get your holy book to say what you need it to, when it doesn’t.

    Jesus was unequivocal about the whole specks and beams thing. I have Christians on these various pages, including you, telling me how we are all of us sinners, everyone of us born in to it, wallowing in it, doing the Sinner’s foxtrot down Sin street do the rollicking sounds of Sinner Steve and his Band o’ Sinners, none better than any other.

    Except for the ones who have taken it upon themselves, as Righteous Christians, to sit in judgment of other people and tell them to get right with God. These Catholic bishops are certainly among the worst of the judgmental, hypocritical Christians of that sort, given at least 1000 years of Catholic pederasty covered up by Catholic prelates in the name of the Catholic Church– erm, preventing a scandal in the church.

    What you will not get through YOUR head is your own self righteousness, just as bad as these others, but better informed and more intelligent than most. But you will still sit in your seat of judgment. If God is unhappy with Mr. Biden– your assertion, since the Big Guy is curiously absent from these proceedings, it being neither a Catholic or a a religious ceremony, but a civil one to celebrate a civil marriage– then God can just stand up and make his current opinions known. A little smiting would do wonders for his image– and yours.

    All of us may be sinners, Shawnie, but only some of us are throwing stones.

    And my job, MY PERSONAL JOB, as you have stated many times, is to lead the gullible, the uninformed, and the easily led, along the pretty path to perdition. Of course, being who I am, I see it more as pointing out the hypocrisy of those who presume to speak for God to those who are just trying to be decent, kind, thoughtful, caring, intelligent and respectful human beings.

  • So you want to make two gay men’s marriage responsible for what heterosexuals have been doing to their most sacred institution.

    You must be a republican, the party of responsibility.

  • Go tell your bishop. Insist that he do something. Start a political campaign. Otherwise you will be damned to hell for promoting sin.

  • Interesting. You accuse Shawnie5 of judging and then you turn around do it yourself. Mind numbing.

  • JP is the kind of Catholic that thinks Frank is an heretic. He is appalling on so many levels.

  • So we shouldn’t eat shell fish or pork and we should stone people to death for some kinds of offenses against God. Yeah. Right. Uhuh.

    Everything that is written in the Bible and everything we think Jesus said was written by human beings, who lived in a particular time, spoke a particular language, filtered all that they heard through their own experience and culture and the knowledge available to them.

    The thing we all must do is to find God in the midst of what the humans said He said or did.

  • That study can be found here: ncbi dot nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27168192.

    They did a study a few years ago in the Netherlands with similar results, only it studied the LGBT in general: ncbi dot nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16799841.

    These are countries, mind you, where ministers have been arrested (though later acquitted) for teaching that homosexual behavior is wrong.

  • And yet you still refuse to look in a mirror, in order to see how your hatred of gay people– and hatred it is– fosters Antigay attitudes which in turn lead to lower health outcomes for gay people.

  • Don’t know about that. What we have is what is remembered decades later by those who heard Jesus speak, has been interpreted many times and translated into many different languages. Much gets lost and much gets added. More, those who traveled with Jesus and heard what He said had a purpose in writing what they did and as they did – to convey what they got out of what Jesus said and did. Everything we have is necessarily limited.

  • About those babies born out of wedlock?

    I can assure you, my husband and I aren’t doing it. Perhaps you ought to learn about Adam and Eve?

  • What nonsense. No one is forcing anyone to engage in homosexual sex. When you engage in it you are putting your life in a very significant health risk. The haters of homosexuals are the ones who refuse to look at the facts and pretend they don’t exist.

  • Maybe we can get the church to get serious about sin and stop moving pedophile priests around.

  • Doesn’t change the fact you just did the very thing you accused Shawnie5 of doing. That is a hypocrite.

  • Thousands of years of human civilization said it was OK. Hundreds of years of Christianity in Europe said no, followed by a western slavery renaissance during the (you guessed it!) Renaissance justified by (you guessed it!) enlightenment thinkers all enamored of classical pagan ideas of natural law…followed by another Christian repudiation of it deplored as always by the cosmopolitan and sophisticated. Indeed, the Holy Spirit has been at work through all the storms of civilization.

  • That pretty much sums it up.

    The spiritual arrogance and spiritual narcissism of theUber Saved.

  • So I would suggest you start flinging the theo-poo at SDA, Mormons and Christian scientists.

    Or you could just recognize that Paul was protecting his business model.

  • Since Larry doesn’t read actual books, he can’t be expected to open a greek lexicon to find out what “porneia” is.

  • No, I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN. I DO NOT SUBSCIBE TO CHRISTIAN BELIEFS. I think judgment is perfectly appropriate in Some circumstances. But those circumstances do not include the imaginary offenses against the imaginary edicts of some imaginary divine being.

    But you are free to think whatever you like.

  • An ambiguous quote and subject to what is clearly your interpretive guesswork. By claiming “it includes homosexuality”, you are merely putting your own spin on it. Adding words and meanings Jesus did not address directly.

  • It doesn’t matter how you “see” it, Ben. According to Jesus, you can not even “see” the kingdom of heaven.

    We Christians are all sinful of course, but then again we’ve all been on the receiving end of admonishment, and we give it and receive it in love, even when it’s difficult. It’s part of our walk, being accountable to one another.

    Discernment of good and evil was mandated by Jesus. Vigilance against deception was mandated by Jesus. Mutual admonishment and accountability was mandated by Jesus. And He was “unequivocal” about all of it. Sorry but your “pointing out” falls flat.

    But FWIW, I would direct you to Rev.12:10: “Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah. For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down.”

    Have a nice day.

  • At 66, I can assure you I have had that dangerous gay sex some tens of thousands of times, and yet, at 66, I still run 6 minute miles and don’t even breathe hard. I have no health issues other than those that come with aging.

    Some gay men are less healthy than the bulk of gay men, because the problem is not homosexuality, but promiscuity, poor self esteem, and similar issues.

    But if you want to blame homosexuality, please feel free.

  • I guess referring to your own scripture to support a claim as to what Jesus said was too hard for you. You lost here. Plain and simple there.

  • Nice God you have there. Too bad centuries of Christianity didn’t heed your advice.

    Witches and heretics and gays! OH my!

  • Not at all, doc. I’m glad you caught the personal reference.

    Someday, you’ll apply Corinthians to yourself.

  • Lying for the lord is a problem for you. First you make claims about what Jesus said that you can’t support, then you use a source which has zero credibility.

  • References second hand. Better off citing the actual journal. Something I severely doubt is being done accurately by Lifesitenews. They are notorious for skewing stories towards reactionary religious positions.

  • Re: “The problem for you is, Christ said that homosexuality is a sin …”

    That’s a lie. Your Jesus said nothing at all about homosexuality. Not one single word.

    Re: “… these people are not married, just sinning, and you have no power to change that.”

    They may be “sinning” according to your — and the bishops’ — subjective definition of “sin,” but others disagree. Since there is no single, compelling, objective definition of what exactly is or isn’t “sin,” then the word has no significance. If anything, all it means is that some sanctimonious religionists doesn’t like something — so s/he rails and fumes against it with the label of “sin.” Call me unimpressed with such irrational and childish tactics.

    Really, the powerless ones here are the bishops and their supporters (like you). Sure, you can bluster and rage all day long about stuff you think is “sin,” but you are the ones who have no power to force anyone else to abide by your self-righteous caterwauling.

    Re: “Jesus said that He would forgive and cleanse them of their sin so they could go to Heaven if they so choose though.”

    OK, then, so what does it matter if they’re “sinning”? You just said they’ll end up in heaven anyway. Why should the bishops — or you — care if they “sin” or not … because as you say, ultimately, it doesn’t matter. No?

  • Who cares what three old bishops in black skirts think? Not me. Not Biden. And not the Pope. But I do look forward to the day Pope Francis finally loses his patience and starts firing people right and left. I’m just thankful that the Pope understands the difference between civil marriage and religious matrimony–a difference nutwing Christians need to learn.

  • “Scripture says” is not the same as claiming a moral right or wrong. Divine mandate is not the same as showing where harm exists or why something is wrong. Scripture also approves of genocide, rape, slavery, and burning witches. All you are saying is your point is entirely arbitrary in nature and has nothing to do with morals.

    “There is all kinds of medical data that shows how unhealthy homosexual sex practices are. Just check out the CDC.”

    There is all kinds of medical data which show how unhealthy ALL sex practices are. Plus you have zero concern for such things. Gay marriage has zero effect on any of that as well.

  • But he doesn’t use any word which directly relates to homosexuality. Only words you have stretched to include such things. If a set of words can be interpreted to mean a wide range of subjects, it is not addressing a subject in a direct manner.

  • Henry was doing what was expected of monarchs who needed an heir.

    What the ignorant Catholic apologists like to gloss over is that at the time divorce in of itself was not a sin. Hence the request from Henry VIII was made in the first place.

    The Church denied the request because the Pope was being held hostage by Henry’s nephew on his wife’s side. Charles V, aka the Holy Roman Emperor, aka the most powerful man in Continental Europe. Charles did not like the idea of losing his connection to the British throne through his aunt.

    There were no actual moral considerations involved at the time. Only a political one. It was only centuries after the fact that people like More were lionized by the Church as allegedly moral figures.

  • How many diseases have you gotten by doing this?

    Lets look at the population of the US from the CDC:
    “HIV in the United States: At A Glance
    Fast Facts
    • More than 1.2 million people in the United States are living with HIV infection, and almost 1 in 7 (14%) are unaware of their infection.
    • Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSMa), particularly young black/African American MSM, are most seriously affected by HIV.
    • By race, blacks/African Americans face the most severe burden of HIV.
    CDC estimates that 1,201,100 persons aged 13 years and older are living with HIV infection, including 168,300 (14%) who are unaware of their infection1. Over the past decade, the number of people living with HIV has increased, while the annual number of new HIV infections has remained relatively stable. Still, the pace of new infections continues at far too high a level— particularly among certain groups.
    HIV Incidence (new infections): The estimated incidence of HIV has remained stable overall in recent years, at about 50,000 new HIV infections per year2. Within the overall estimates, however, some groups are affected more than others. MSM continue to bear the greatest burden of HIV infection, and among races/ethnicities, African Americans continue to be disproportionately affected.
    HIV Diagnoses (new diagnoses, regardless of when infection occurred or stage of disease at diagnosis): In 2012, an estimated 47,989 people were diagnosed with HIV infection in the United States. In that same year, an estimated 27,928 people were diagnosed with AIDS. Overall, an estimated 1,170,989 people in the United States have been diagnosed with AIDS
    .
    Deaths: An estimated 13,834 people with an AIDS diagnosis died in 2011, and approximately 648,459 people in the United States with an AIDS diagnosis have overall3. The deaths of persons with an AIDS diagnosis can be due to any cause—that is, the death may or may not be related to AIDS.”

    Now tell me how healthy this is?

  • Do you have some document from the RCC that shows “at the time divorce in of itself was not a sin”?

  • The Vice President’s counter-witness is welcome, because the hierarchy’s position is wrong – contrary to the theology of marriage which states that the couple marries each other (the officiant is merely a witness) and that fecundity is not a requirement for Catholic marriage, only functionality. Marriage forms families. Gays have the right to do so (would you rather the two staffers sleep around or act in a sexual manner with women that would violate their personhood?). As for the authority questions, if Biden had been a Catholic deacon, there would be a discipline problem – or if he had performed a religious marriage through online ordination. Civil marriages can be performed by Catholic judges and officials. That some are gay and some are straight is a detail and that the Bishops oppose to just performing gay ones is BIGOTRY. They lost the civil debate. They need to grow up about it and celebrate these marriages themselves.

  • Actually Henry was originally requesting for an annulment which was for all intents and purposes a divorce in a practical sense. Something not uncommon for nobles. It was not until the captive Pope refused the request it was an outright divorce in word. The “sin” was going over the head of the Pope and getting rid of Catherine of Aragon anyway.

  • Homosexual “marriages” are fake marriages. They fail to meet the requirement that a husband can only be a man and woman a wife. A woman cannot be a husband nor a man a wife. Its impossible. Without a husband and wife you don’t have a marriage.

  • You are welcome to such opinions in the realm of what is accepted in your church. But for all intents and purposes, under the laws of the land, it is a marriage in every sense of the word with all the rights, privileges and obligations it entails.

  • RE: “Top Catholic bishops criticize Biden for officiating at gay marriage”

    May I just point out that they get PAID to do that?

  • Fortunately, Amerrica is not a theocracy or a Bible-ocracy of any sort.

    Biden was following the secular, civil laws of the land and not imposing his beliefs onto two of his constituents, so GOOD on him.

  • Christ said no such thing. Paul did, as did some goatherds that wrote Leviticus, but not Jesus.

    Odd that in America, we let every OTHER ‘sinner’ marry.

    I don’t view marriage as something to be ‘forgiven’ FOR.

  • IOW, you want to require OTHER people to abide by YOUR tenets instead of their own.

    Got it.

    But why you hate the 1st Amendment is a mystery.

  • I never said that the catechism approves of homosexual relationships. I said you cannot proof text. You have to read the three paragraphs in that section together, not separate from each other. While the church does not approve of such relationships, and calls for homosexuals to live chaste lives, it equally does not approve of unjust discrimination against homosexual people. You don’t get to choose the parts you like and ignore the rest.

    The US Constitution does not define marriage as being between one man and one woman. What the Constitution does have is an equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment, and the Supreme Court of the United States found that there was no rational basis for discrimination by any state or the federal government. Part of the court’s responsibilities is to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

    You can maintain your definition of marriage and abide by it. The Catholic Church can do the same. Civil authorities have never moved against the Church for its restrictive teachings and laws in regard to marriage. I pray it never will, as it has no interest. Being Catholic is not a civil requirement. But neither you nor the Church are the determining factor in regard to civil law, and civil marriage. Society defines its institutions, and its definitions have a tendency to change over time.

  • Um, in same-sex marriages, the husbands are both still … men.

    Gaymen are not trying to BE “wives”, and lesbians are not trying to BE “husbands”.

    You sound very confused. I guess religion can do that to you.

    Your concluding statement is not true, and hasn’t been for 12 years now.

    And, rational people don’t see 2 folks committing to one another in marriage as ‘immoral’, either.

    But, thanks for your ‘contribution’.

  • For the 3rd time today, you must not know who Jesus is. He is God. The Bible is the Word of God. Sure there is evidence – Jesus said that homosexuality is a sin.
    We have more power than you even understand, Psi. You will understand that one day.
    If they don’t repent of their sin, they will not end up in Heaven. I suggest you learn something of Christianity before you try to discuss it further.

  • No no no….don’t try to turn it on me, now. lol. That’s just another diversion.
    You don’t know what you are discussing Spud, and I’ve told you countless times, I will help you to learn

  • Citing a website that is knkown as ‘LIEsite’ doesn’t help your ’cause’.

    But your opening statement is not accurate.

    Scripture does condemn homosexual lust, homosexual rape and homosexual temple prostitution. But none of those are what WE are discussing when we speak of two consenting adults marrying.

    Eating shrimp is similarly “never spoken positively in Scripture”, either. But America isn;t governed by (your particular) Scripture. It is governed by the Constitution.

    Re: “There is all kinds of medical data that shows how unhealthy homosexual sex practices are. Just check out the CDC.”

    No more so than heterosexual acts can be.

    And, for that matter, the CDC tells us that 45% of heterosexuals engage in a n a l sex, and it doesn’t seem to be a barrier to marriage for them.

    IOW, get a point and a little consistency in your ‘arguments’.

    (And a better reference than Liesite.)

  • Honey, the word “homosexual” was only coined about 150 yers ago. So, if you’re finding it in the Bible today, it’s a revision of a revision of a revision of a revision .

    P.S. The topic’s not sex with animals, either.

  • another one who doesn’t know the Bible, yet wants to argue it with people. Jews don’t eat pork or shellfish – if that one is correct – Christians can. Yes, that wisdom is available to them, and to you. Christ said: Jeremiah 29:13 New International Version

    You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.”
    Have you ever thought of doing such?

  • Yes He did. More proof that you don’t know Who Christ is. Would you like some help with this?

  • If America were a theocracy, your version of “credible scripture” [sic} might be relevant to the secular, civil laws governing the civil right of civil marriage.

    Time for y’all to ‘render unto Caesar [the State] the things that are Caesar’s.”

    I’m sorry if you cannot understand this.

  • I feel neither way about the 1st amendment. I want to see people at peace with Jesus. What about you?

  • sigh….Christ spoke from the Book of Genesis to the book of Revelation. Can I help you to learn what you don’t understand?
    Homosexuality is not marriage.

  • “I yam what I yam.” – Popeye 24:7

    America is NOT a Christocracy, no matter how desperately you’d like it to be.

  • Marrying someone is hardly something to “repent” OF.

    I really didn’t believe me when they told me American Christians were so obnoxious, but you’ve succeeded in changing my mind with such a harassing ‘witness’.

  • Discrimination is good when its done right and for good purposes. Men should be discriminated against going into the girls bathrooms etc. Same sex or any other kind of relationship configuration that does not meet the requirements of a marriage should never be called or allowed as a marriage. These are all cases of fraud.

    Never allow the state or anyone to dupe on these issues.

  • Um, ‘Biblical’ “tradition” was, largely, polygamy. Women back then were (legally-speaking) “chattel” – literally, objects that could be bought, sold and traded at whim (as in,”A pig and two goats for your daughter,sir?”), thus rendering marriage down to a business transaction between two men.

    It’s not really a “tradition” worht supporting.

    When other people get married, it doesn’t affect yours. It doesn’t :break” your marriage OR your “tradition”.

    Babies are not the topic – in or OUT of wedlock.

  • I’m not confused but those who assert that homosexual “marriages” are real marriages are confused. I suppose you believe there is such a thing as a square circle.

  • well thank you for the complement. I’m glad to be pushing reality on these pages for people. I pray that I can help you also. BTW – I’m not american.

  • In the time of Christ and earlier a man laying with another man is what we call homosexuality. Its a still a rose by any other name.

  • I am totally at peace with Him. He knows the contents of my heart, whereas sanctimonious strangers on the ‘Net know me not at all. Go fetch a mirror and you’ll see a perfect example of one.

    I was married in my Christian church.

    Other people’s marriages are frankly none of your business.

  • they’re all pretty much the same – a word here, a word there unless you are trying to read the Queen James Bible, but then, that is apostate, so I don’t recommend that.

  • As none of us never know when we are going to meet Jesus, I’d start preparing, if I were you.

  • Marriage is marriage. And homosexuals can now marry under the secular, civil laws that govern a non-theocracy like America.

    Cope.

  • unfortunately, I do understand you enough to know that you need Jesus. I can help you with that.

  • What a childish response. Pretty much the same kind of nonsense segregationists were belting out years after the Civil Rights Act was passed.

    I can’t help it if you are beholden to a position which cannot be defended in the courts with any kind of reasonable rational argument.

  • Then you need to read Galatians 1:8-10 with how you’re going hon. Being married in a church does in no manner, help one to go to Heaven.

  • I am fine with that, because He knows my heart and He gets to do the judging.

    YOU aren’t ‘qualified’.

  • Re: “Without a husband and wife you don’t have a marriage.”

    That is not a true statement. It may be what your church believes/teaches, but Biden didn’t perform a religious ceremony.

  • Jesus in his own words said nothing on the subject. You are simply interpolating. Trying to stretch every bit of scriptural guesswork to fit your view.

    Of course your argument would have merit if not for the fact that Christians are supposed to forgo all those Levitical rules where they conflict with notions of humanity and doing good deeds for the Lord. Christians really can’t cite to the Old Testament without sounding like complete hypocrites. But then again, its not about making rational well supported arguments. Its about just trying to get your way and claiming divine sanction for your behavior.

  • Civil rights have nothing with this. Its the irrational arguments that people fall for. You can’t have a marriage without a man (husband) or a wife (woman).

  • The “reality” is that America is not a theocracy, and that civil marriage is not the purview of the church.

  • “The law of the land” does NOT force any Catholic, or even any Atheist, to officiate at a gay wedding.

    Sewers legally exist, but the Supreme Court cannot force you to drink from them.

    So this doggie mess is strictly on Biden himself. He totally did this all on his own. His current demon-possession is 100 percent his own voluntary choice.

  • This is ABOUT the civil right that civil marriage under the civiil law is in non-theocratic America.

    Your concluding statement is no longer accurate under that law. You’re perfectly free to beleive otherwise, but you cannot require others to abide by YOUR beliefs instead of their own.

  • The reality is that a lot of people liek myself have been perfectly, legally married.

    And the other reality is that you hate that fact.

    Frankly, tough.

  • Actually, there’s lots of proof around that same-sex marriages have also been performed (and recognized inthe Church) for a similar time. It’s just not as widely know. There would be a reason it’s not widely known. It’s called protecting the ‘brand’, and the church seems to be vested in doing just that.

  • Unchasity, sexual immorality includes any sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman.
    I have yet to see one rational argument for homosexual “marriage”. We know such relationships are unhealthy to the body, cannot model a balanced parenting model for children, can’t procreate naturally.

  • Its not in the Constitution or any other legal documents that our country is founded on. It came about by 5 corrupt judges on only their opinions and nothing more.

  • Just because something is legal doesn’t mean its not immoral or good for society. A good example of this is abortion.

  • What IS “in the Constitution” is a promise that NO citizen can be deprived of the equal protections of the law. That would be the secualr, sivil law, not Catholic ‘law’.

    I love it when you type “5 corrupt judges” – it reveals your bitterness at not having a logical, rational, legal argument as to why same-sex couples ought not be allowed to have a civil marriage.

    Thanks.

  • That is not true. You won’t find any documents in any church for the past 1900 years that affirms homosexual “marriages”.

  • Too bad the topic isn’t abortion or you might have had a relevant ‘point’.

    Most sane folks don’t view 2 people committing to one another in marriage as “immoral”. And frankly, it’s sad to see that you do.

  • Of course it does, civil marriage being a legal contract.

    Legal means concerning the law. (Civil law, not ‘church law’.)

  • It is immoral and unhealthy to the body and soul. Have you looked at the health stats from the CDC?

  • Are you saying that heterosexuals don’t get STDs? Or are you saying that having an STD should be/is a barrier to marriage in America?

    It is only your belief system that ‘teaches’ you that it is “immmoral”, and we don’t all go to your church.

  • John Boswell already got debunked on that false claim. It’s been dead at the scholarly level for at least a decade or two. Might as well leave that mess in the cemetery !!

  • And that is why you guys lost in court. Too much question begging. Not enough rational thinking.

  • Nope. The wording is NOT marriage vows, nor does it have any affirmation of two guys marrying — and that’s the verdict of scholarship, folks — and that’s why gay Boswell’s phony claim faded away and died.

  • Obviously, you are not paying attention.

    I attended a Unitarian wedding 40 years ago, plus ones by Quakers and even a Methodist.

    Not to mention that Catholic priest who did it without his bishop,SS knowledge.

  • If they can’t have sex–at least out in the open– sexual obsession is all of the sex that they will have.

  • you never asked to be helped. I would have gladly helped you, but you prefer to remain with the pack and hate Jesus, seems to me. I’ll help you, and help you to understand how Mormonism is a cult.

  • I’m glad you have come to that understanding. Now, how can I help you….I would suggest that you begin reading in the book of John.

  • You are right. You don’t hate us. My apologies for not being accurate.

    I should have used the word bigotry.

    Not all bigotry is hate. So much of it is the completely unwarranted belief in your own whole iamginarysuperiority as a Christian and a human being.

  • And world wide, the biggest sufferers from HIV are heterosexuals.

    Sure is an unlhealthy lifestyle.

  • Judges applying the law and requiring rational well supported arguments to rule for a given position. You are so whiny

  • There you go. YOu just couldn’t wait to fling the theo-poo.

    For the record….

    No never mind. You just keep claiming that other Christians aren’t real Christians like you.

  • Gosh, we all wonder why your little Judas Catholic Priest there, failed to notify his own supervisor that he was fully betraying him (and betraying his Catholic faith too) behind the supervisor’s back.

  • Ben, if one is not following Jesus and what He taught, why would one want to call themselves a Christian?

  • You know Ben, we’ve seemed to have talked long enough. I know I’m not perfect. You know I’m not perfect. I’m just forgiven by Jesus who I gave my heart, soul and mind to because I love Him and want to serve Him. In serving Him, we need to tell people the truth, and I aspire to do that to the best of my ability – which is why I tell people when they are wrong and usually, am able to back my comments with scripture. I don’t want to see anyone die because the majority says something wrong is ok.

  • Also, if he reads Romans 1, it’s pretty well described there – no “title” necessary

  • Please tell me….why did He rain burning sulphur on Sodom and Gomorrah? What was He talking about in Romans 1? Was He not clear enough for you in Timothy 1:9-11?

  • The RC bishops need to be reminded that their theological and dogmatic musings have no place in in civil law… the US is not a theocracy, where civil laws must comply with ancient and often outdated religious precepts, the US is neither saudi Arabia nor Iran, let alone a Roman Catholic version of those countries…capisce?

  • You shouldn’t worry about laws of the present day but the sin that determines your eternity. B1Jetmetch

  • On the contrary. Jesus said marrying a woman divorced from her husband is adultery. Oops, Joey did that too!

  • I am a Pastafrian… I´ll stand in front of a huge bowl of lasagna with plenty of meat and mozzarella

  • “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law and the Prophets. I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Matt.5:17

  • Some legislatures and some people. Not most. But that is neither here nor there wrt this issue. This is intrachurch.

  • “You have been shown credible scripture countless times.”

    The term, “credible scripture,” is an oxymoron.

  • Beat me to it, Doc. I’d feel sorry for poor Boswell (for a sadder case there never was) if he hadn’t encouraged so many people to fall into sin.

  • They were made brothers in Christ (adelphopoesis – part of the root of the name of the city of Philadelphia – city of brotherly love), not spouses (matrimonium). Even Boswell’s main source for that claim had to write an essay demonstrating how wrong Boswell got it.

  • Funny that your anti-Christian attitudes aren’t affecting my health or happiness in the slightest.

    Do you really want to argue that you guys can’t stay alive unless you get a pat on the head from everybody?

  • What you evidently can’t understand is that mutual admonishment and accountability is an ongoing process within the church. One brother with admonish another on one occasion and be admonished on another. It’s how the kingdom of God operates. Something in which, one would think, you would have small interest.

  • True, marriage was corrupted along with everything else by the Fall. But Jesus said to go back to the beginning and look at God’s original creation model of marriage– if you really want to see God’s will and plan.

  • No wonder you hate the Constitution so much, Lare. Natural law is part and parcel of constitutional theory.

  • In the spirit with which Pope Francis has led the Church, we need to demand an in depth and transparent study as well as a dialogue in the form of local and Universal synod on the subject of human sexuality & the Natural Law! Hopefully through an interdisciplinary (genetics, theology, psychology, philosophy, scriptural analysis, etc) study and dialogue , this important human issue will be given the focus and attention it deserves ! We may then be able to provide a reality based solution to the question of human sexuality as it pertains to homosexuality & gay marriage!

  • This has nothing to do with civil law. Biden is a professing Catholic and this is an intrachurch matter.

  • Check the study published by and commissioned by the American Theological Society called “Human Sexuality,Pastoral Study” by Kosnik!

  • This is a news site about religion, Zap. If you think your “nose is being rubbed” in anything, feel free to retreat to an atheist site. There is precious little Christian presence to be found there.

  • “Gaymen are not trying to BE “wives”, and lesbians are not trying to BE “husbands”.”

    Well maybe they should be, because Jesus said the male/female duality God created, and its potential for producing life, is the very reason for marriage.

  • Sorry, my last comment did not give the complete information needed!
    The title of the study was ” Human Sexuality: New Directions in Catholic Thought by Anthony Kosnik! It was published in 1977 but canned by the Bishops’ Conference!
    It provides an interesting and forward looking approach to the question of human sexuality from an interdisciplinary perspective! The study of the biblical texts is especially eye opening! Check it out!

  • Re: “What you evidently can’t understand is that mutual admonishment and accountability is an ongoing process within the church.”

    Gee, that sounds all nice and crap. Unfortunately for you, Jesus’ instructions said nothing — and I do mean absolutely nothing about any kind of “mutual admonishment.” If you need reinforcement of his instructions, I direct you to this passage:

    But early in the morning he [i.e. Jesus] arrived again in the temple area, and all the people started coming to him, and he sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand in the middle. They said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger. But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he bent down and wrote on the ground. And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him. Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, [and] from now on do not sin any more.”] (John 8:2-11)

    What part of “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone” do you — and the bishops — not comprehend? Why do you insist on rewriting your Jesus’ own clear instructions to you in a way that (you think) allows you to do what he obviously told you never to do? Elsewhere in scripture you’re ordered not to do any such thing:

    I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book. (Rev 22:18-19)

    It’s not my holy book, it’s yours. How dare you and the bishops run around, claiming to revere it and demanding everyone else revere it too, when you yourself fiercely refuse to obey its contents? Hypocrite!

  • You are being disingenuous, Shawnie5. The primary reason, if not the only reason, that organized religions exist is to forcefully control people’s thinking process, beliefs, and behavior. And the comments on this thread certainly reinforce my point. So, there is a darn good reason why rational thinking people are here.

  • This is exactly how these discussions go with the pro homosexual crowd. No substance and personal attacks.

  • Oh, come on. Slavery, according to your Bible, is just fine, and it only mentions a few minor directives to make sure that slavery remains respectable.

    If your religion still exists many decades from now, I’m absolutely sure that Christians following in your footsteps will be claiming that Christianity was the driving force in ending society’s persecution of gay people.

  • Nobody said they weren’t welcome, but it’s ridiculous to come here and complain about having your nose rubbed in religion. If you’re that dainty a snowflake you probably need a more sheltered environment.

  • Re: “For the 3rd time today, you must not know who Jesus is.”

    That’s OK, because clearly you’ve never known who he is. On the other hand, I do happen to know what’s been reported about him in the gospels.

    Re: “Sure there is evidence – Jesus said that homosexuality is a sin.”

    Chapter and verse from one of the gospels, please, or you’re still a liar.

    Re: “We have more power than you even understand, Psi.”

    Sure, if ignorance is power, then yeah, you’ve got plenty.

    Re: “If they don’t repent of their sin, they will not end up in Heaven.

    But that’s not what you said previously. You said, flat out — without any “repenting” caveat — they’d go to heaven. So which is it? Pick one, and admit that you were wrong about the other.

    Re: “I suggest you learn something of Christianity before you try to discuss it further.”

    I know FAR more about Christianity than you ever will. I’ve studied it thoroughly. I was once a fundamentalist Christian myself. I learned κοινη (koiné) Greek so that I could read the original New Testament and the Old Testament in the form of the Septuagint (which is how the majority of the first Christians knew it). I can quote some of it from memory in that language. I know Christianity’s history from its earliest times to the present day. I know how it progressed, originally from being a form of apocalyptic Judaism, through a number of forms which ranged from messianic Judaism to Hellenic mysticism, into a cascade of iterations that branched off from one another and occasionally flamed out or merged back into others. I know how it went from a small and rather personal movement in which variations were accepted, to a bureaucratic one in which “heresies” were ruthlessly stamped out (sometimes by killing the “heretics”). I know how it went from being a little-noticed or even underground movement, to getting the state’s stamp of approval, to a political entity in its own right, to a state which was able to influence other states. I know how it fractured catastrophically and often violently over differences in doctrine, ritual, scripture, and even organization. I know how it militantly imposed itself on everything it touched, including the New World once European Christians were able to reach it.

    Yes, I know plenty about it. Plenty enough to want nothing to do with it … and to be proud (yes, proud!) of admitting I was wrong to have been a part of such a monstrous (yes, monstrous) philosophy (if one can call it that). What’s most ironic about Christianity is that a lot of Christians are quick to condemn other religions (e.g. Islam) which they call militant and violent, yet they themselves are blissfully unaware that their own faith is ultimately little different in its militancy. Yes, there really is such a thing as “the Christian Taliban.”

    Oh, and yes, I’m aware you’re going to tell me I’m wrong about that. It’s all in the past. Gone and forgotten, deep in the dustbin of history. Except … that’s simply not true! There are Christians who’ve shot up or bombed clinics and killed doctors, for example. These folk exist. They’re real, whether or not you’re mature enough to accept that. So go ahead and tell me I’m wrong about Christianity … all it will do is confirm that I’m even more right than I already was (because one of Christianity’s prime faults is its own followers’ fierce and sanctimonious refusal to acknowledge its own excesses).

    At any rate … I will repeat: Your Jesus never said a single word about homosexuality. Not one. Prove me wrong by producing chapter and verse from one of the 4 gospels that contradicts me. Go ahead. I dare you. Have you the guts to try? Why do I doubt it? (Cowardice and an unwillingness to admit error is yet another common Christian fault.)

  • I don’t think there is anything quite like the subject of homosexuality to bring out the TrueChristians en-mass screeching about SIN, SIN, SIN, and SIN. But, after we deal with restricting human conduct that causes verifiable tangible harm to others, the remaining religious notion of SIN is nothing but Sanctimonious Ignorant Nonsense. God’s list of SIN is driven mostly by ignorance and bigotry . . . but, of course, the obvious reason is that god was created in the image of the people who invented him.

  • Be used he was far more humane than his bishop could ever be? Because his bishop was well known as a kiddy diddler? You tell me.

  • “Unfortunately for you, Jesus’ instructions said nothing — and I do mean absolutely nothing about any kind of “mutual admonishment.””

    “…your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish. If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” Matt.14-17.

    Paul repeats the same principle when he instructs: “Brothers, even if a man is caught in some fault, you who are spiritual must restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; looking to yourself so that you also aren’t tempted. Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.” Gal.6:1-2

    And of course you can source Christ’s teachings all the way back to the OT (which He authored as well, for He is the Word of God): “Open rebuke is better than secret love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.” Prov. 27:5-6

    Why do you God-haters insist on humiliating yourselves by making wild claims about scriptures you have never studied — that invariably get refuted?

    As for stones…I don’t think I’ve thrown a stone of any kind since I was a child skipping rocks at the lake. This is an internet forum where throwing stones is a literal impossibility. What do “stones” have to do with any of this?

  • It wasn’t fine, just somewhat in the same category as divorce — tolerated temporarily for fallen man, with restrictions, but certainly not part of the original creation design which Jesus came to restore.

    And the only compelling rationale that civilization ever came up with for abolishing it happened to come from “our Bible.”

  • Rev. Pat, I can save you a whole bunch of thought on this. Here is the only reality based “solution” required.

    Some people are gay. Most are not. We have always existed, we always will exist. Some heterosexuals, many religious people, and far too many people who desperately wish they were heterosexual but never will be, should just get over it.

  • So you keep saying.

    But it was a civil ceremony, under civil law.

    Maybe the church should get over it,

  • No one (but you) is saying any one was forced to do anything.

    “demon-possession” – that explains a lot.

    Thanx 4 your ‘input’.

  • As I have said repeatedly…

    All of us may be sinners. Only some of us are throwing stones.

  • Though you continue to deny it, Christianity was as responsible for slavery as it was for anti slavery.

  • Well, then, there is no problem.

    I can assure we do nothing of the sort. I lie with mankind– well, a man– just like he is a man. Which he is.

  • Threat of rape AND in hospitality AND lusting after angelic flesh.

    Idolatry.

    Back to Angelic flesh AGAIN.

  • Then tell the church to but out of our lives and civil law.

    Tell JR to stop insisting that his understanding of marriage is what should concern civil lAw.

  • No. It is most assuredly not. Whatever it was, the understanding of 2000 years ago is not our understanding now.

  • I doubt that anyone is “confused” about the official Catholic teaching on gay marriage. They’re agin it.

    The bishops might be confused on the difference between civil marriage and sacramental marriage. Vice President Biden obviously isn’t.

  • That would only apply to people who believe as you do. Apparently, the couple involved believe differently than you do. (As do I.) Your beliefs do not impinge on their right to their beliefs.

    The ceremony that Biden performed was not a religious one. It was a civil marriage ceremony, which requires no belief in Jesus (nor even a belief in any of the words you put in His mouth that there’s no record of Him ever saying).

    IOW, despite your beliefs, civil marriage is a “Caesar” thing. And producing life is not a requirement for it either.

  • Re: “The bishops might be confused on the difference between civil marriage and sacramental marriage.”

    As are quite a few posters here, apparently.

  • The problem, richard, is that they solved the conundrum of whether God wants hymn #666 sung in Latin or FRench some years ago, and discussing heterosexual divorce– other than a resounding but holy tsk-tsk– would seriously inconvenience heterosexuals.

    Homosexuality it is.

  • Re: “The problem for you is, Christ said that homosexuality is a sin, so that in God’s eyes, these people are not married”

    Well, for starters, that isn’t true. He said not one recorded word on the topic.

    But, that only seems to be a “problem” for … you, and for people who believe as you do. But, since this was a civil marriage, what Christ has to say about homosexuality is as immaterial to them getting married as what L. Ron Hubbard might have had to say about it.

    You’re not a very good preacher, I’m afraid. All this “Jesus said …” but you ignore what He said you were to do about the things that are Caesar’s.

  • Nawww. I think I’ll give it a pass. It really does sound like a bit of a bore, but the topic WE are discussing here is civil marriage – for which the Bible and theological thought is immaterial.

    We DO let non-believers marry. Sometimes, even the ones you don’t like.

    It’s a ‘Caesar thing’.

  • Biden did not perform a religious ceremony. Heck, he’s not even a clergyperson.

    He did not marry them under the auspices of the Catholic church but under America’s civil laws. It seems you want to be above that law, and you simply are not.

  • That may be “necessary” in your faith, but this couple was not married under the auspices of your faith.

    The civil law under which they were actually married has no such “test”.

    Please stop bearing false witness. It’s a sin.

  • Actually, since you are a Methodist and Biden is Catholic, I would say you are meddling every bit as much as you accuse us. Perhaps more, since Catholicism is the one true church, and yours is…not.

  • Ben, you’re right on a practical level! But the Catholic Church needs to base it’s official teaching on the basis of a sound theology of human sexuality. For over 800yrs it has based it’s teaching of what is natural on mideval philosophy & and theology thus backing itself into a corner by not incorporating the insights of contemporary science eg.genetics, psychology, biblical studies, views of contemporary theologians etc. Only when it does this can it offer a truly pastoral and compassionate hand to the LBGT community! You’re right on the common sense & practical level, but as I said, the Church must make it’s position credible through a sound theological foundation that makes sense to most people!

  • Fair enough up to a point, except that unlike you I do not come from a position of complete lack of knowledge. I actually went to Catholic school for many years and learned the catechism and the prayers and the rituals right along with them. But the fact remains that people are interjecting church/state arguments which are completely irrelevant to what the article is about.

  • The church absolutely IS above that law, for its citizenship is in heaven. A Christian’s walk is not confined to religious settings only. It’s a way of life. It quite literally changes everything

  • Everyone has a right to their beliefs, but there is no inalienable right to be a Catholic if you repudiate the church’s teachings. It is a Catholic’s responsibility to live out the faith in every setting, not just religious ones. Actually it is not even that — it’s a responsibility to allow Jesus to live and work through us, and that is a 24/7 process. “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God.” Gal. 2:20.

    What words did I put in Jesus’ mouth that He never said? Are you arguing that He DIDN’T say male/female duality is the reason for marriage?

  • Oh, my! Thoroughly learned Shawnie made a mistake!

    I suggest you google midianites.

    Or maybe read your bible and Quran, since midianite is mentioned there.

  • Nice try, but heard that one before. That’s nothing but willful ignorance. Anyone with a higher IQ than an ocean perch knows what the Torah was talking about there. I and every one of my friends had homosexuality explained to us exactly the same way as children (“It’s like a man and a woman, only it’s a man and a man”) and we all understood it perfectly.

    And of course, we know how the Jews of Jesus’ day understood it too. The writings still exist — many of them.

  • I should say, you made half of mistake. Midianite was ALSO a son of Abraham, thereby arguing that the bible isn’t as much a story of individuals as of tribes send nations.

  • As were the religionists and the anti marriage campains, don’t ask don’t tell, and sodomy laws.

  • There was no such person as “Midianite,” Ben. They were descendants of Midian.

    The point is, of course, the Midianites did not come before Abraham, as did Jesus.

    I think you need a little sleep.

  • It was a civil ceremony involving a professing Catholic who has the responsibility of living the church’s teachings 24/7 (you don’t get civil exemptions). Maybe you should get over that — which should be easy as nobody is asking you to do anything.

  • Slavery predated Christianity by 3000 years, in every culture on the face of the earth.

    One culture came up with a reason to repudiate it.

    Why are facts so hard to face?

  • JR is a citizen equal to you and has as much right as you have to advocate for laws reflecting his values.

    You are not part of the church. You have no right to ask that church practice reflect your values.

  • See my previous reply. The “religionists” are citizens with every right to support laws that reflect their values. However, those who hate God have no legitimate voice on church doctrine and practice. As appropriately might Kim Jong-un purport to advise the United States on domestic law and policy.

  • Re: Matt.14-17

    Actually, that would be Matthew 18:14-17, but that’s not relevant. What is relevant is that this situation is not one of “mutuality” where two of Jesus’ followers are trading admonitions with each other, which is what you claimed. Also, the notion that one Christian is permitted to judge another, directly, clearly and absolutely contradicts what he’s reported to have said in Mt 7:3-5, Lk 6:42, and Jn 8:2-11, all of which essentially outlaw any form of his followers judging one another.

    I get which one you’ve chosen to do … i.e. to judge others. That, however, does not relieve you of the problem that you happen also to be disobeying other explicit teachings of Jesus.

    Re: “Why do you God-haters …”

    I don’t “hate” your deity. I’m not even sure he exists. How could I “hate” him? I simply don’t think much of his followers, who tend to be infantile and simple-minded.

    Re: “… insist on humiliating yourselves by making wild claims about scriptures you have never studied …”

    Oh, I’ve studied your scriptures. Much more than you have. I can quote some of them from memory in their original language (i.e. the κοινη or koiné Greek of the New Testament). Can you say the same? If not, then you can’t claim to have studied it more than I have … because that would be a lie.

    Re: … that invariably get refuted?”

    Except you didn’t “refute” anything. Jesus was, in fact, reported to have said the things I quoted. They’re his teachings, not mine, and they are what they are. Why are you pitching fits over them? Why do you deny their existence? What do you have against your own Jesus?

    Re: “What do ‘stones’ have to do with any of this?”

    I merely quoted your own Jesus. Obviously you have a problem, it appears, with how he chose to express his teaching. If you don’t like it, I suggest you take it up with him. But your beef isn’t with me, so put away your sanctimonious bellyaching and fiercely fundamentalist readings. You’ve managed to live down to all my expectations of a fundamentalist Christian. So congratulations on your achievement!

  • Absolutely they have the right to harm their fellow citizens In Any way they like in order to force their purely theological concerns on people who don’t share them. They have to right to make criminals of people who are not in order to pretend that they are not expressing an ancient prejudice, but simply their moral concerns, hey have the right to tell any lies they like in order to make that happen. They can slander, revile to their hearts content, despite what their holy books say, or use the slanders and revilings of other people to justify it. They have the right to misuse the democratic process in any way they like in ordertoaccomplish their goals. They even have to right to be defended by people who claim they have no animus, and who defend those malicious attacks on others.

    I don’t hate God. I just don’t believe in your version of him.

  • It’s exactly the same, Ben. “But then, what are our laws about marriage? That law owns no other mixture of sexes but that which nature hath appointed, of a man with his wife, and that this be used for the procreation of children. But it abhors the mixture of a male with a male…” — Flavius Josephus, Against Apion (2.199).

    “Now the greatest part of offenses with us are capital, as if anyone be guilty of adultery; if anyone force a virgin; if anyone be so impudent as to bring and attempt upon a male; of, if upon another’s making an attempt upon him, he submits to be used.” (2:30)

    “And why do not the Eleans and Thebans abolish that unnatural and impudent lust, which makes them lie with males? For they will not show sufficient sign of their repentance of what they of old thought to be very excellent, and very advantageous in their practices, unless they entirely avoid all such actions for the time to come: nay, such things are inserted into the body of their laws, and had once such a power among the Greeks, that they ascribed these sodomitical practices to the gods themselves, as part of their good character; and indeed it was according to the same manner that the gods married their own sisters. This the Greeks contrived as an apology for their own absurd and unnatural pleasures.” (2:273-275)

    There is literally NOTHING new here.

  • You’re part and parcel of the world. Jesus said the world hated Him because He testified that its works were evil. And they still are. And ya’ll still do. And He’s already overcome the world so none of its hate ultimately amounts to any more than a spit in the ocean.

  • It’s cute the Catholic church thinks it can bully Joe Biden on marriage equality of all people. But it seems disturbingly to be a violation of the separation of church and state that the Catholic church is trying to control the personal political views of the vice president of the United States through what essentially amounts to spiritual blackmail. The Catholic church tried to pull this stunt before on John Kerry over abortion several years ago. The bishops should remember Pope Francis’ famous “who am I to judge?” position before they start casting stones.

  • “What is relevant is that this situation is not one of “mutuality” where two of Jesus’ followers are trading admonitions with each other, which is what you claimed.” Irrelevant. You claimed that there was nothing in Jesus’ teachings about such admonishment, which is clearly not the case. Jesus was, in fact, reported to have said the things I quoted. They’re His teachings, not mine, and they are what they are. Why are you pitching fits over them? Why do you deny their existence? What do you have against Jesus? Obviously you have a problem, it appears, with how He chose to express his teaching. If you don’t like it, I suggest you take it up with Him. But your beef isn’t with me, so put away your sanctimonious bellyaching and fiercely atheistic readings.

    “Oh, I’ve studied your scriptures. Much more than you have.” I seriously doubt it, otherwise you would not have made the above referenced statement. I’ve found that atheists who claim to be “well-versed” in the bible are mostly “well-versed” in select passages found in atheist cyber-feedlots but are completely helpless when required to synthesize multiple themes and concepts from the entirety of scripture.

    “Also, the notion that one Christian is permitted to judge another, directly, clearly and absolutely contradicts what he’s reported to have said in Mt 7:3-5, Lk 6:42, and Jn 8:2-11, all of which essentially outlaw any form of his followers judging one another.” Which is a good example of what I just mentioned. If Jesus appears to forbid judgment in one passage, and mandate it in another, then clearly He is not talking about the same thing in both passages. In John 7:24, Jesus said “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” So what is righteous judgment? Jesus told us in John 5:30: “I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.” That’s the key right there — not fault-finding in order to exalt ourselves but earnestly seeking and loving the will of God, which is found in His word. He absolutely expects us to make difficult stands and decisions in order to not be deceived to allow others to be deceived, but not to have a petty and fault-finding spirit.

    “I don’t “hate” your deity. I’m not even sure he exists. How could I “hate” him? I simply don’t think much of his followers, who tend to be infantile and simple-minded.” Jesus said that if you are not for Him you’re against Him. And He didn’t give you the option of despising His followers but not Him:
    “If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.” John 15:19
    “Whoever listens to you listens to Me; whoever rejects you rejects Me; and whoever rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” Luke 10:16

    “I merely quoted your own Jesus.” Yes, but you didn’t demonstrate any stone-throwing going on. Try the middle east, perhaps.

  • No, Shawnie, I do not hate Jesus. I don’t hate Julius Caesar. I don’t even hate Cesare Borgia, as much as he deserved it. I even doubt that the world hated Jesus, seeing as the world most likely never heard of him until long after he was dead. The Pharisee establishment may have hated him, as he was a threat to the power. Herod may have hated him for the same reason, but we don’t know that,

    You have some very strange ideas about me..

  • The marriage was performed under civil law, since the RCC does not allow rites for same-sex couples, and Biden was acting as a secular celebrant, following civil law… get over it, you lost the battle and same-sex marriages are the law of the land

  • You’re right. As I always have said, it is a very ancient prejudice.

    Some people were enlightened enough not to share it.

  • Absolutely he does. He’s a very good example of what I was talking about.

    When the church stops trying to force me and mine to practice it’s values, you might have a point.

  • I haven’t seen professing Christians in general living their church’s teachings. Why should this be different than 1900 years of murders, tortures, wars, executions, and fatold men getting richer and richer?

  • I guess all of those scholars were wrong.

    There is not the slightest evidence that Abraham ever existed, outside of the bible. We know more so but the midianite a than we do about Abraham.

  • They’re not even asking that. You can sit by or not sit by, but there is no reason why anyone should pay any attention either way.

    When the God-haters are approving, then THAT is something to worry about.

  • Yeah yeah yeah…Belshazzar never existed because Herodotus never mentioned him, until Babylon was excavated. King David never existed, until the Tel Dan stela. Even the Israelite kingdom never existed, until the Moabite Stone. Ho hum and big yawn.

  • I haven’t the slightest interest in same-sex marriage as the “law of the land.” The law allows many reprehensible things. This is about the responsibility of a christian to his church. Jesus claims all of our lives, not merely the “religious” portion of it. So get over THAT.

  • I believe the subject was Abraham and the midianites.

    As far as Tel Dan goes, a mention of the house of David on one stone is not proof that there ever was a particular David, and more than the existence of an emperor in Japan proves the existence of the first Emperor, Jimmu. Or the divine right of kings claimed by Christian monarchs proves that God wanted them to be Kings.

  • From your excessive use of stereotypes, I surmise that you really don’t know a great many Christians. Phonies in the pews have certainly been a plague upon the church ever since Constantine, and Jesus told us it would be so. But be honest, Ben — do you really want to go back to the state of the pre-christian world, where it had never occurred to anyone that there was anything particularly wrong with murders (as long as its not your tribe) and tortures and wars and executions and people getting richer and richer while the poor and sick literally starved and died in the streets and unwanted baby girls slowly died of dehydration on refuse heaps and slaves dropped dead while building the ancient wonders that tourists gawk over today without reflecting? Where it never occurred to anyone that men owed their wives anything in the way of sexual fidelity? Where mercy was a character weakness, and equality was “only for equals” and Caesar was Lord?

    Think about some of these things.

  • It wasn’t a metaphor to Jesus. Those guys were holding actual stones.

    He said He would not condemn (execute) her, but told her to go and sin no more. Acknowledging and reproving sin is not condemnation — it attempts to avert ultimate condemnation.

  • I already have a point but you keep missing it. You can advocate in the civil arena just as he can. You can not, however, enter the church’s arena.

  • You’re a horrible example of a Catholic.
    Worry about your own sins – Biden is a far better person than you.

  • Oh brother…Ben, He was talking about the world in a spiritual sense. The world that operates under the influence of the “prince of this world.”

    But you can not despise His followers AND His word and not despise Him as well. If you’re not for Him you’re against Him.

  • I don’t despise his followers OR his words. I’ll leave that up to his followers.

    You can believe in the prince of this world. I’ll believe in Darwin. I don’t share your pessimism about mankind, but I do understand the reasons for it.

    I do have to say though, that I admire the reference. Few people know that term.

  • I have thought about them. But then, I believe that (some) people progress. I also don’t believe that religion is what ennobled us, but is what frequently– but to be fair, not always– prevents us from advancing as a species. But then, I’ll choose a Unitarian over a baptist any day.

    I do know Christians, it I prefer nice people, so I avoid people like Franklin Graham and every single one of his money grubbing fellow traveler.

  • Something I wrote a while ago seems quite apropos here.

    “How you read Scripture has everything to do with who you are. God does not make you a bigot, you’re just a bigot.” — Reza Aslan

    I watched jon stewart last night. He had reza aslan as a guest. I don’t have exactly what he said, but it was essentially this: one’s statement about one’s religion is a statement about identity, not a statement of faith. I notice that people who identify themselves as “Christian” are usually of the ultra-fundelibangelist variety, while people of a less conservative bent identify themselves by their denomination.

    Aslan went a little further and said the religion is the means by which someone expresses who he is and how he approaches the world, and not the other way around.

  • According to the Ten Commandments, “bearing false witness” is a sin. And that’s what you just did: “to quote Him, and Christ said that homosexuality is a sin”.

  • If there’s no homosexual orientation, there’s no homosexuality. “In the time of Christ and earlier”, there was no knowledge of homosexual orientation.

  • Please. “The Greek lexicon”: which one? Whose? You Christianists and your utter OBLIVIOUSNESS to your own agendas and biases!

  • Re: “You claimed that there was nothing in Jesus’ teachings about such admonishment …”

    In the passage I cited, there is none, so that statement was true. You then said there was “mutual admonishment,” and used another passage to support it, yet no “mutuality” is present there, either. So nice try, but you failed.

    Re: “I seriously doubt it, otherwise you would not have made the above referenced statement. I’ve found that atheists who claim to be “well-versed” in the bible are mostly ‘well-versed’ in select passages found in atheist cyber-feedlots but are completely helpless when required to synthesize multiple themes and concepts from the entirety of scripture.”

    First, I’m not an atheist, so calling me one isn’t going to help you. Second, I’ve found that it’s actually Christians who love to cherry-pick their Bibles, picking through it, selecting which parts of obsess over and which ones to ignore. You know, like the passages about rejecting wealth and never fighting anyone, not even to defend themselves.

    Re: “Jesus said that if you are not for Him you’re against Him. And He didn’t give you the option of despising His followers but not Him:”

    You’re imposing Jesus’ supposed words on me. That isn’t going to work, not unless you can: 1) Demonstrate, using objective, verifiable evidence that he exists; 2) demonstrate, using objective, verifiable evidence that he said what you claim he said; and 3) demonstrate, using objective, verifiable evidence that he has the power to force his will upon me. Until then, I reject your commandments that you’ve put into Jesus’ mouth.

    Re: “‘I merely quoted your own Jesus.’ Yes, but you didn’t demonstrate any stone-throwing going on.”

    Look up the word “figurative” in a dictionary and you’ll see it. Oh, but wait … you’re a fundamentalist, and far too literal a thinker to comprehend that. Silly me, actually thinking that a fundie Christian might actually be able to think in metaphorical or figurative ways! I keep forgetting your brains are too primitive for that. I apologize for my mistake.

  • Romans 1 refers to idolatry. Something one would know if they read it through Romans 2. Sandi doesn’t read the whole Bible. Only bits for proof texting.

  • Inhospitality, the worst sin in the ancient world to others for S and G, idolatry and temple rites on the NT parts.

  • Jimmu’s grave exists to the present day. It is a tourist attraction and Shinto shrine in Nara prefecture.I’ve been there. My wife lived half an hour drive from it for much of her life

    David’s tomb also exists and is a tourist attraction. However its authenticity is questionable due to ancient accounts of looting and various invasions. Something which does not mar Jimmu’s grave.

  • So you say, but it’s not in the text. It doesn’t make any clear reference. You are interpolating.

    As for gay marriage, procreation is not the purpose for legal marriage. Your statements about gay parents is false. As for unhealthy to the body, also not a real issue. No rational cause for banning gay marriage existed. That is why you bigots lost in court so badly.

  • “In the passage I cited, there is none, so that statement was true.” Nice dodge, but not buying it. I’ve seen far too many God-haters try to bluff their way through discussions about scriptures they know next to nothing about. They stick out like a sore thumb. I really don’t know why they bother.

    “You’re imposing Jesus’ supposed words on me. ” No I’m not. His words don’t affect you at all. They only guide how your words and actions are to be taken by us.

    “Demonstrate, using objective, verifiable evidence that he exists” God doesn’t fit in the little boxes you order Him into, my friend. God is Spirit, and if He hasn’t revealed Himself to you yet then I’m afraid I can’t help you with that: “The wind blows where it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot see where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” John 3:8.

    “demonstrate, using objective, verifiable evidence that he said what you claim he said” In the absence of some credible source from antiquity (not johnny-come-latelies 2000 years later) rebutting the witnesses’ testimony about Jesus’ teachings recorded in the gospels there is no reason not to accept them as authentic.

    BTW, What do you have against Jesus? Obviously you have a problem, it appears, with how He chose to express his teaching. If you don’t like it, I suggest you take it up with Him. But your beef isn’t with me, so put away your pretentious bellyaching and fiercely self-serving readings.

    “Look up the word “figurative” in a dictionary and you’ll see it.”

    The stones Jesus was talking about here were not “figurative.” They actually had them in their hands. “Figurative” was your own spin on the incident, in which I’m not interested in the slightest.

    “I keep forgetting your brains are too primitive for that. I apologize for my mistake.” Don’t apologize on my account. I love it when you guys demonstrate your “civility.”

  • Well….whether you have an interest or not it is the law of the land and it’s not going to change…so my unrequested advice is that you deal with…get some therapy, grief counselling, do whatever you need to get used to the idea of two people of the same gender getting married in civil ceremony and probably church ceremonies as well, since some denominations are already performing rites for same sex couples

  • Yes…and there is another angel for fettucine Alfredo and another one with a huge basket of garlic bread

  • No, you actually haven’t, Ben. You’re talking but you have no legitimate voice there and can not be taken seriously. If a foreigner somehow got into the Capitol building while Congress was in session and started bloviating on the house floor it wouldn’t be a legitimate forum for him — he’d just be an intruder.

  • Not talking to you, and don’t care. Larry has demonstrated hatred of the Constitution before.

  • Thanks for the demonstration of atheist civility. There’s been a good showing of that today.

  • I’m not a Catholic, and if I were your evaluation of my example would mean exactly nothing. We’re responsible to Christ, not to you.

  • “I notice that people who identify themselves as “Christian” are usually of the ultra-fundelibangelist variety, while people of a less conservative bent identify themselves by their denomination” Well, gosh, Ben, I’m sure glad you’re not “bigoted” or anything.

    We identify ourselves primarily with HIM, and only secondarily with the mere MEN who started the various denominations. Because we are who we are by virtue of HIM, not them, living through us. “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. Gal.2:20

    Not to mention: “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven.But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.” Matt.10:32-33

  • No He didn’t. He simply urged them to reflect on their own sins, as He usually did — because He wants everyone to come to repentance and receive the forgiveness He came to provide. You can’t come to repentance if you don’t see your own sin.

  • We know what unchasity and sexual immorality meant in that culture. It included homosexuality.

    The reason the govt wants marriages is for procreation and the raising of the next generation. The reason the courts ruled in favor of homosexual “marriage” is because the judges wanted it. Its not based on any laws or rights.

  • “We know” meaning I am stretching text to fit a given meaning. You are going too many steps removed from the actual text to say with a straight face it means exactly as you say and is unambiguous in such meaning.

    “The reason the govt wants marriages is for procreation and the raising of the next generation.”

    Wrong. Otherwise infertile couples could not marry, parental rights would not exist for unmarried couples and contraceptives illegal for married couples. Your argument is not really well thought out. As for judges, it is natural that a ban on something which lacks rational justification cannot stand. Your knowledge of law and rights are non existent. You believe the rights of others can be restricted based on your religious beliefs. It is mistaken.

  • Scholars have been working on the meanings of the words of Scripture for at least a century. We know what these words meant in their original contexts.

    You have no argument for homosexual “marriage”.
    The state has had a vested interest in marriage because it is by marriage between a man and a woman where the next generation is created and raised best. Homosexual “marriages” cannot procreate and offer no value to society that a marriage between a man and a woman cannot provide.

  • There is no support for homosexuality from the Scriptures and the negative health ramifications for it is enough for us to exhort not to engage in homosexual sex.

  • Scholar interpretation does not mean the text says so in a clear and unambiguous manner. It means it is debatable and open to interpretation. You think you know what it means in the original context and add your own take on it to claim what is actually being said. At no point is the statement “Jesus condemned gays” one which is proven by the text in even it’s plainest meaning. You add layers of interpretive nonsense to support such claims.

    The argument for gay marriage is that gays form families and the bonds as adult couples where legal recognition is possible and beneficial.

    Biological procreation is not the basis of marriage. Procreation without marriage and marriage without procreation are both common and perfectly legal.

    Your take on the value of heterosexual marriage is undefined and simply a declaration without support. I am sure one can find more value in the marriage of many years of someone like Ben from Oakland in comparison to Newt Gingrich’s dalliances or Donald Trumps various trophy wives.

    You lost the fight already. Trying to reargue something already in existence and unlikely to go away is a waste of time. Get over it and stop being such a crybaby.

  • Its not debatable. Scholars are clear on what the words means.Jesus put homosexuality, bestiality and all kinds of sexual practices outside of a marriage between a man and a woman as sin and that which defiles a person.

    You don’t need marriage to bond adults or anyone for that matter.

    Biological procreation is why the govt wants to encourage marriage. It is only heterosexual couples that can procreate. Been this way for thousands of years.

  • It’s not debatable to you because you need an outlet for personal prejudice and seek social validation through religion. Jesus said nothing on the subject. You stretched meaning to include things you wanted it to say. The fact you bring up unrelated things such as bestiality shows how much you have filled in the blanks here.

    “You don’t need marriage to bond adults or anyone for that matter.TV
    .
    Except for all the legal rights and obligations civil marriage entails. Your ignorance on the subject is apparent. Suddenly marriage goes from something requiring protection by god to unnecessary at all. You can’t even keep an argument straight. More proof of a position based more on bigotry than sense.

    “Biological procreation is why the govt wants to encourage marriage”

    No it isn’t. It wasn’t true the first time you said nor after you repeated it twice. Otherwise infertility would be grounds for annulment and old people couldn’t marry. You don’t even bother to make sense here and just repeat obvious nonsense.

  • You assume a lot, Sandi. I’ve been “preparing” for almost 65 years now. I’ve already “met Jesus”. He and I are ‘BFFs’. He knows the contents of my heart … already.

    You certainly do not. That makes you unqualified to judge me (and others, all of whom are total strangers to you).

    Have a nice (if judgmental) lifestyle.

  • It’s all she does Frank… check out her profile. She thinks Jesus has said to her, “Go and make up words that I have said about homosexuality, and spend your time on the internet telling people your stories”

    She literally does this all the time. On this subject of human sexuality alone. The fact that Jesus of Nazareth never actually spoke about homosexuality at all is beside the point. The fact that every story of Jesus’ life points to love and compassion and doing things to help the poor, sick and needy… Well, that seems to have escaped her too.
    She has a GoodReads account. The only book she has read and reviewed is about Human Sexuality. This all points to a problem she has got and she needs help with it but she has convinced herself this is a mission from God and the Son she is on.

    It looks like you don’t pray (that may be an understatement) but if you do have a moment, a prayer for Sandi to find balance in her life and a broader focus could help her.

  • Well, you do listen to Him I think, but rather selectively. A charge you would no doubt throw at me also!

  • As you know Sandi, the Christ never said that. Not once. He never, ever, said that homosexuality was/is a sin. You are attempting to put words into His mouth and that is wrong Sandi (false witness)

    Never said it. Nada. Nee. Não. Niet. Nein. Nahi. Voch. Hapana. Lo לא.

  • Yes, but that doesn’t bother Sandi. She needs to shore up her imagined words of Jesus evidence. Sandi trolls the internet saying, “Jesus said homosexuality is a sin.”

    She is regularly challenged on it and can never actually show where/when these words came from the Christ. So she reverts to misdirection and citing of the 6 or 7 clobber passages.
    She never gets tired of it because she believes this is what Jesus has told her to do (rather than go out and do something to help the poor, sick, needy…)

  • Either you don’t know scripture, or you are lying.
    Leviticus 18:22 – You shall not sleep with a man, as with a woman. It is an abomination.” Are you telling me that you don’t know scripture is the Word of God as identified in 2 Timothy 3:16? You mean, you don’t know more than me? lol

  • I’m having a wonderful day, thank you. If you don’t know homosexuality is a sin, and you teach otherwise, you don’t know Jesus.

  • Oh, it’s an argument:
    An exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one?*

    Or an argument:
    A reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory*

    Must be the first definition of argument above because the second one requires reason in support of her claim that Jesus said what she says he said.

    So if we assume Sandi means argue per the first definition, why does she not want to continue? Her whole time using the “Sandi Luckins” user ID is spent on the subject of arguing about Human Sexuality. Even outside of her Disqus account. For example she has a Good Reads account and “cries” in her review about how difficult it was to read a book on human sexuality… And guess what? It is the only book she has read and the only book she has reviewed.

    Sandi actually needs prayers. I am concerned about her.

    (*from the Oxford English Dictionary)

  • I see you know so much about Christianity that you don’t even know Jesus is God? Yet, you try to argue Christianity? lol

  • Lord, you are unschooled! I suggest you do some reading, starting with the book of John – specifically for your problem – verses 1-10.

  • rofl…..read a Bible for Heaven’s sake and learn what you are arguing about so you can speak with some knowledge…..lol

  • Re: “It is a Catholic’s responsibility to live out the faith in every setting”

    You’re free to “believe” that, too.

  • You know nothing about me….lol……but, if Christ didn’t approve of the relationship, He isn’t going to approve when they try to call it “marriage”.

  • You type as if hetereosexuals do not engage in either oral sex or anal sex – and of course, nothing could be farther from the truth.

    As if having STDs is a barrier to marriage. You’re funny, but not in the ‘Ha-ha’ sense.

    If you’re experiencing “negative health ramifications”, then you’re not doing it right.

  • What a load of sancitmonious hooey.

    You holier-than-thou types sure are a bunch of blather-spreaders.

  • You and your side know all ABOUT the “excessive use of stereotypes”.

    Why not ‘think on’ the fact that civil marriage isn’t a ‘God-thing’?

  • “But that’s not what you said previously. You said, flat out — without any “repenting” caveat — ” Show me where I said such.
    You say you know Christianity and you don’t even know Jesus is God? lol
    Yawn. Try reading a Bible.”Here is the fundamental difference between the man of faith and the man of unbelief. The unbeliever is “of the world” and judges everything by worldy standards, views life from the standpoint of time and sense, and weighs everything in the balances of his own carnal making. But the man of faith brings in God, looks at everything from His standpoint, estimates values by spiritual standards, and views life in the light of eternity. Doing this, he receives whatever comes as from the hand of God. Doing this, his heart is calm in the midst of the storm. Doing this, he rejoices in hope of the glory of God.” ~ Arthur Pink, “The Sovereignty of God”

  • Sorry JP but that is not true.

    Have you ever visited Pompeii??? I recommend it if you can. Go on the walking tour of the ancient city and see what was going on there. It might serve to give you just a flavor of what Paul was writing about in that region, in antiquity. You’ll see the “Menu” of services drawn on the walls of the sex trade houses.

    Two people (such as I and my other half) meeting on a night out with different groups of friends, exchanging phone numbers like a man and woman might, then not daring to call each other… then bumping into each other in a grocery store and then going for dinner and, 10 years later when the law changed, getting married… Hardly the same as what Paul wrote about and certainly not what Jesus ever spoke about.

    Even putting aside the marriage and the fact that we made a covenant in front of God, our family, our friends… Even that aside… A 12 year committed loving relationship… A relationship I commit to in the same way as a heterosexual couple do (not cultic, not above God)

    You can try and call my relationship equivalent to “a man lying with another man” but that is very thin and my spouse is my equal. I am not his Roman servant, and he is not mine. I am not his “one night stand fling” and he is not mine. I love him and I love Him.

    My relationship with him, strengthens my relationship with Him, through the body of Christ (the church) where I attend and my spouse who is less strong in faith also attends and helps. Far from ‘Destroying the church’ (as I have been told online I do, more than once) my fellow members of the church notice and thank my spouse for our contribution of effort, gifts and presence.
    These arguments will continue with both sides claiming moral standing based on scripture. They will subside over time because younger people don’t share the bigotry of their ancestors. You only need to speak with the young in church or indeed outside it to see this. Or even see church leadership reacting now (an Arch Bishop in the UK apologizing to gay people for the hurt and pain earlier this year for example)
    It’s a shame, but those set against our very existence in loving relationships with others of the same sexuality will be seen by the young as on the wrong side of history. Those with the strong views will believe until they die they are following God’s Word and nobody will actually know who was right. We might all be right which would be a scary situation after all the effort we put into telling others they are wrong!
    Peace & Love.

  • That’s a bit strong!

    Sandi is wrong (she spends hours repeating the same thing because she believes it)
    But we are ALL loved including me and you Rudy 😀

  • No…He loves me.” (Sandi Luckins)

    What you really should be saying is that he loves us ALL Sandi.

    Sorry you missed the opportunity to do that. Again.

  • “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.”

    And this does not refer to idolatry how? Oh right, you are unable to read in context of a passage

    “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and
    depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice.
    They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy”

    That seems more of a description of people like yourself and JP than those you are attacking.

  • lol….I’m not attacking anyone….guilty conscience Spud?
    An idol is anything you put before Jesus. People who choose to believe that something is true that Christ said is not, have created an idol. They may call their idol “Jesus”, but it is still an idol because it is not the real Jesus. Does that help you?

  • I do not find it a laughing matter Sandi. I make not any jest of the Word. He knows our hearts.

    I know scripture. We can quote it all day long, but it doesn’t change the fact (absolute, concrete) that Jesus did not say homosexuality is a sin.

    You have not shown us where Jesus said that homosexuality is a sin. You have been offered the platform to do it, and repeatedly you provide a false teacher’s response…

  • lol….showing you that you need some education and helping you to get it is not judging. lol

  • When you spend hours, literally hours, on the internet instead of working to help the poor, sick, needy… Things Jesus did speak about, does that mean you have made an idol out of the internet? Does that mean you have made an idol out of spending your time on something Jesus never uttered a word about?

  • I gave you scripture. 2 Corinthians 4: 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. ” Is this your problem?

  • And you know nothing about Christianity” (Sandi Luckins)

    Sandy seems to like to judge others…

  • English much?

    lol

    Sandi, it doesn’t appear that you’ve given much thought to the quality of your ‘witness’. Haranguing others, mocking others, harassing others, being pompously, purposely, smarmily holier-than-thou turns far many more away from Christ that draws them to Him, if the Great Commission is your ‘goal’ here.

    And now back to our regularly scheduled discussion of civil marriage in a non-theocratic country called America…

  • My faith teaches me that Christ does approve of my marriage.

    That’s the thing about freedom of religious beliefs – EVERYONE gets to have them, not just you.

  • If you are a homosexual, no, Christ does not approve of your marriage, my friend. He loves you. He will forgive you. He will take you into His arms, but, He does not approve of what you have done.

  • I don’t need to judge – you’ve made my comment very apparent,and I’ve tried to help you.

  • Again, I’ve shown you one example of Christ’s stand on homosexuality. I am helping the poor, sick, needy. I’m helping you. You have no knowledge of Christianity and I am helping you. blessings.

  • Riiight. You are simply “showing people the error of their sins”. The sort of thing you like to dish out, but are so reluctant to accept from others.

    Being Fundamentalist Christian means never having to say your sorry. Because God says I am always right 🙂

  • You’ve never assumed I know anything (‘anything’ is one word), but that’s ok. Your pronounced judgements upon me are not important, only His matter!

    Peace.

  • lol. Another example of lack of knowledge for us to?” (Sandi Luckins)

    That should be “too” rather than “to” (maybe even “two”). Are these mistakes typo’s, or do you lack knowledge in how to write correctly using the English language?

  • Romans 1 is quite clear about what homosexuality is without the word. You’re doing a good job here!

  • That’s nothing more, less or other than your beliefs.

    Why do you hate other people’s freedom of belief so very, very much? It’s quite un-American.

    Jesus told me to tell you to STFU about the things He said. ‘Cuz He didn’t say one recorded word about ‘the gays’.

  • I have been doing it constantly. You are just coming up empty with lame excuses, wild interpretations and fibbery. As I said, proof texting is something you use against others, but don’t accept yourself.

    As I clearly and unambiguously showed, Romans 1 referred to idolatry and those who behave badly to others as a matter of course. The text itself in a plain reading. Not “scholars say it really means …” or “it is implied because the culture at the time thought ….”.

    Plus Romans is not the words of Jesus either. Being long dead when Paul wrote the letters. Paul who never met Jesus personally.

    But then again, there is absolutely no reason to think religious beliefs are based on rational thought, intellectual honesty or consistent thoughts.

  • Nobody can really. Yours is a very… unique reality. It’s kinda, “Planet Sandi” where the only topic of discussion is “Human Sexuality”. Every day. All waking hours. And much of it, wrong!

  • Exactly – and homosexuals – used as an example, chose to behave badly. See – you can learn.
    Now we just need you to read John 1:1-10 and learn Who Jesus is.

  • Nope. Just an observation.

    As for the rest, “believe or burn” doesn’t constitute love in my mind. I’m sure it does in yours.

  • In your view and in antiquity, but not now 😀

    My marriage certificate is the same as that of my straight friends. All the same words. Exactly the same. It gives me and my spouse all the equal rights of other married couples (in civil law).

    Such things as the price of car insurance. The day the law changed in the US state I live in, the price came down $30 a month for my spouse to be insured. He was no longer my “Friend” – he was my married partner, my spouse.

    Praise God!

    It also means he can join me as my spouse in church as a member of the body of Christ. And he does. It’s a good thing, for Him and him. Praise God!

  • Blessed be they.

    Best plate of carbonara in the entire world: I Leone d’abruzzo near the train station in Rome.

  • I help people to see they need Jesus. I’m sorry you have difficulty with that. My guess is you think it is wrong because you don’t know the Bible, and I’ve offered to help you with that, so you need to insult me? lol….that just makes my case stronger….blessings Paul

  • Scripture condemns all forms of homosexuality. It is never affirmed in Scripture. Do you know that those who practice it will not inherit the Kingdom of God? This is not bigotry but the teaching of Scripture.

  • Any sex outside of a marriage between a married man and a woman is very dangerous and unhealthy. The CDC stats prove this.

  • Well I would agree if your “case” was founded on love but it is not. If you think it is, you have it wrong Sandi.

    You’ve really lost the plot. Your priorities, if you believe them to be Christian, all seem messed up. I’ve been watching your diatribe for a couple of days. You’ve been at it for how long…?! And who have you actually transformed the life of? Nobody.

    You are apparently a single issue Christian, with one priority based on very little scripture. So thin are the foundations for your mission in life, you resort to making it up and claims that Christ said things that He plainly did not.

    Imagine what you could do with the time, and actually transform the lives of people… Now that would be something. Love for others that actually changes their lives. Like Jesus did. Like He would be doing if He were man here today. Now that would be something to praise God for!

    I have the Tuesday Missions meeting shortly and I’ll leave you to either dismiss or consider the above.

  • Nope. Not my beliefs, Jesus words, to. If they aren’t important to you today, they will be one day. I would prefer that you go to Heaven, and know the truth that will get you there, my friend. Hon, He spoke oodles about relationships and homosexuality and I will gladly add that scripture at the end. He loves you and does not wish for you to perish, and that is the road that you are on.
    Here’s the scripture:

    – Read John 1:1 and Genesis 3:22 with the understanding of who wrote the Bible from the point of view that it is the inspired Word of God.

    Matthew 5:17New King James Version (NKJV)

    17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

    Genesis 2:24 – Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. –

    Deuteronomy 25:5 “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 6 And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. (It is always male and female)

    Leviticus 18:22 – 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

    Leviticus 20:13 – If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

    Matthew 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

    Acts 15:19-20New International Version (NIV)

    19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.

    1 Kings 14:24 New International Version (NIV)

    24 There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites. – what do male prostitutes do? Abominations.

    Acts 15:19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

    1 Corinthians 6:9-11English Standard Version (ESV)

    9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

    New International Version

    Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.

    1 Corinthians 10:8English Standard Version (ESV)

    8 We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day.

    Jude 1:7 – In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire

    1 Timothy 1: 9-11 “ …. understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers,a liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.”

    1 Corinthians7 – Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.”

    Romans 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

    1 Corinthians 11:9 -neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

    1 Thessalonians 4:3-8New International Version (NIV)

    3 It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should learn to control your own body[a] in a way that is holy and honorable, 5 not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God; 6 and that in this matter no one should wrong or take advantage of a brother or sister.[b] The Lord will punish all those who commit such sins, as we told you and warned you before. 7 For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. 8 Therefore, anyone who rejects this instruction does not reject a human being but God, the very God who gives you his Holy Spirit.

    Galatians 5:19-21

    New International Version (NIV)

    19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

    Ephesians 5:31

    New Living Translation (NLT)

    31 As the Scriptures say, “A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.”

    Colossians 3:5

    New Living Translation (NLT)

    5 So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you. Have nothing to do with sexual immorality, impurity, lust, and evil desires.

    2 Peter 2:6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked 8 (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard);

    Ephesians 5:24-25 New International Version (NIV)

    24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

    25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

    Ephesians 5:3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.

    Matthew 15:19 For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, all sexual immorality, theft, lying, and slander.20 These are what defile you.

    Revelation 2:20 International Standard Version (ISV)

    20 But I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet and who teaches and leads my servants to practice immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.

    Revelation 22: 14 Blessed are those who do His commandments,[g] that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into thecity. 15 But[h] outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.

    My favourite: 1 Corinthians 11:11New King James Version (NKJV) 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.

    BIBLICAL SUMMARY OF HOMOSEXUALITY

    • A wicked act (Gen 19:7; Judges 19:23)

    • An abomination (Lev 18:22; Lev. 18:26; Lev. 18:27; Lev. 18:29; Lev. 18:30; Lev. 20:13)

    • Folly (Judges 19:23)

    • A vile act (Judges 19:24)

    blessings, to

    • A vile affection (Rom 1:26)

    • An act against nature (Rom 1:26)

    • An abusive act (1 Cor 6:9)

    • A sin against one’s own body (1 Cor 6:18)

    • An act that defiles (Lev. 18:24; Lev. 18:25; Lev. 18:27; Lev. 18:28; Lev. 18:30; 1 Tim 1:9)

    • Those that practice it shall not inherit the Kingdom of God (I Cor 6:9-10; Jude 1:7; Jude 1:13; Rev. 21:8; Rev. 21:27)

    (many thanks to Adam in Christ for this excellent summary)

  • This info doesn’t surprise me at all. The obsession of somechristians over what others are doing with their dangly bits is something i have observed over and over. No other subject gets them going, though Sandi did once comment on poor children in Brasil while the olympics are going on.

  • A seed planted here, a seed planted there. – one sows, another reaps. You may not like the scripture, but Jesus loves you and you need to know the truth, Paul.

  • Jesus told me that you weren’t told anything by him at all, except to mind your own business and look after your own sins.

  • Frankly, it it’s populated by sancitmonious, holier-than-thou types like you, I’d say ‘No thanks’.

  • Yep she commented on the poor children, but did she actually “do” anything… Current evidence suggests not. Full of wind. Maybe she is from Chicago.

  • Being like Jesus is great in theory, but like the whole judge not thingy, is way to difficult for so many people. But it does point to the problem of so many religionists: they over-identify with God and Jesus.

  • You don’t come across as wanting to “help” me so much as wanting to change me.

    Haranguing others with sanctimonious claptrap is of no “help”.

    So, it’s not working.

  • Of course. I don’t need your reassurance, but you should be giving it to others when you claim to know Him better…

  • Not your version of “Truth” thanks. I’ll leave you here to continue your poor discipleship…

  • Yet, he still loves me. There’s a chance for you too.” (Sandi Luckins)

    The pious self righteousness is vomit inducing.

    Rudy He loves you, not by chance but just because!

  • Sandi makes this her mission. She has a library of posts to copy/paste!!

    She could instead actually “do” something, like Jesus of Nazareth would, but instead she prefers to waste time on boards like this.

  • Scripture condemns all forms of homosexuality” (JP)

    No it does not.

    It is never affirmed in Scripture” (JP)

    True. Scripture does not affirm the use of “The Internet” either.

    Do you know that those who practice it will not inherit the Kingdom of God?” (JP)

    Not true. It does not say this anywhere in scripture.

    This is not bigotry but the teaching of Scripture” (JP)

    Actually, since none of what you said is stated in Scripture, the likely difficulty you have is that your views are founded upon bigotry.

    Bigotry (late 17th century, from “Bigot” and the French “Bigoterie”)

    The state of feeling, or the act of expressing, strong, unreasonable beliefs or opinions.

    Sorry JP, but I cannot agree with anything you wrote. It all seems to be wrong.

  • But you do judge.

    Your help is not needed.

    There are poor people, sick and needy people who do need your help, but you prefer to walk by them and spend your time here and other places on something Jesus never spoke of… Just saying.

  • No you have not. You showed Christ did not have anything to say about homosexuality. He did not. Simples. The judgement on whether you are helping or not will come. By their fruits Sandi. He knows our hearts!

  • Of course Scripture condemns homosexuality. “9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” I Corinthians 6

  • You’ve shown me nothing, except that I did not realize the extent to which one individual can devote themselves to something.
    Something Jesus never spoke of, while likely missing the opportunity to do the things He did speak about a lot!

  • Tell that to the hundreds of thousands who are suffering for having sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman.

  • He made one simple point, which is accurate. You ignore it.
    Ignoring it now is one thing. Make sure you put that right before you have to account for it Sandi…

  • No it doesn’t. The word did not even exist at the time the words were God breathed. That is one alleged translation which many do not accept.

    If you refuse to draw any moral distinction between homosexual gang rape in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, orgies Paul refers in his letter to the Romans, wild sexual abandon Paul writes about in 1 Corinthians, and consensual homosexual sex between loving and committed homosexual partners… Well I can’t help you now, but I’ll make a point to drop by and remind you in heaven!

  • Lunacy Sandi.
    Now, show us the chapter and verse where Christ’s words say that. I won’t hold my breath!

  • Christ never said that homosexuality is a sin. You cannot show that. You can claim he did, bearing false witness, but it never happened (it is not Written)

  • Oh that’s hilarious! I once had a secularized SNL Church Lady who used to follow me around HuffPo and she LOVED stereotypes as long as she was the only one who got to use them. She made the exact same excuse — she was only making an “observation.” Is this part of the official liberal Cliff Notes or something?

    For the rest, why does love necessitate that God maintain you in a perpetual state of existence within Himself that you do not desire? Where else is there for you to go?

  • Everything is a “God thing” for a Christian, who Biden professes to be — which is the point of the article.

  • I agree with you in principle, Pat, but not in practicality. Natural law is the basis for authority and theology on sexuality, but natural law is simply another any of saying “seems good to me.” “REal” “natural law” (double quotes intentional) would take into account reality: gay people exist, always have, and probably, always will. We are not heterosexual, not even bisexual, and we never will be. And though I recognize bisexuality as a reality, I’ve met very few bisexuals who do not actually lean heavily in one direction or the other, at least over time.

    If you read my comment history, you will find some other factors that I believe also come into play here. 1) a lot of our attitudes towards sexuality come from ancient days, where the need to increase the tribe as a protection outweighed every thing else. 2) there was also a great need to protect bloodlines, property, and women as chattel, that is, to serve the sexual needs of men. 3) we are dealing with an ancient, vicious, and quite durable prejudice, often given the thinnest veneer of respectability by claiming its god’s word. See numbers 1and 2 above. 4) conservative religion is obsessed with sex. Why, I don’t know. Except that 5) I am convinced that the bulk of our religious opposition comes from religious people who are not heterosexual and never will be, but who are desperate to appease their God and deflect attention from themselves, and who 6) exercise their own demons around sex by pretending to exorcise what they believe to be mine. And that includes both heterosexu and homosex.

    I am certain that this is one of the reasons the Catholic Church attracts such a high percentage of men who obsess about sexual morality (including old Thorn-in-my-side), so many child molesters, men who are willing to look the other way when it happens because although their impulse control is better, they still need to deflect attention, and men who are probably homosexual but hate themselves for it. God will save all of them from themselves. And isn’t that just too sad?

    As for the church getting a sound theology from studying the science of the matter? No, it will not happen. They already know that homosexuality is intrinsic, inherent, and not subject to change, despite the lies and frauds that prayer will cure anything. and they say so in the catechism. They don’t care. They also know that over population is strangling the planet, and that virtually every single global problem we face can be traced directly back to one single variable: over-population. they also don’t care.

    It would be nice if the church were to offer a truly pastoral and compassionate hand to gay people, but they also don’t really care about that. BY telling us we are wrong and had better change, or wrong a Condemned to suffering in this life and the next, as far as they are concerned, they are extending that compassionate pastoral hand. Like love the sinner and hate the sin, it’s isn’t love, it’s narcissism, and spiritual arrogance of the worst sort.

  • Where does Paul making any reference to any kind of “wild sexual abandon or consensual homosexual sex between loving and committed homosexual partners” in any of his letters? Where does he approve of “consensual homosexual sex between loving and committed homosexual partners”?

  • Where else to go?

    I go to my church. Sometimes my spouse joins me. I make a few cakes for the charity bake sale. He stands, serving the hundreds from the congregations who want to buy and enjoy them (members of the traditional, the modern and the non-English language service)

    Or sometimes after service I help the Men’s Ministry with their work. Transporting ice, water, food etc. for kiddies sports day, cooking up snacks etc.

    Helping the Missions team, or leading service with scripture or in the music ministry…

    Growing the body of Christ!

    Beats arguing over whether I am going to hell or not with people who don’t seem to have anything better to do…

  • Why do I need grief counseling over something I care not at all about?

    There are self-titled “churches” who do not even believe in the resurrection. Why should I be more bothered that some condone sin? When the Spirit departs from the leadership it’s simply time to depart along with it, not get upset about it. Jesus warned us all ahead of time.

  • Sandi, how about yoi remember the part of the Bible where Jesus says to render unto Ceasar what is Caesars.

    The civillage laws of this country don’t answer to the Bible, sandi. This is not a theocracy where you get to force people to obey your religious beliefa

  • Leviticus is old testament, child. Thst isn’t Christ speaking there.

    Like I said before..the laws of the United States don’t answer to the Bible.

    So why are you acting like the Ayatollahs?

  • I suspect you have not succeeded in bringing Ben closer to Jesus (or anyone viewing this thread closer to Jesus)… Your brand of Christianity limits the capability to grow and bring those who need love most, sadly.

    The greatest sorrow of all is that you do not even realize it.
    Try watch this to its conclusion…
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ntauVWRUY
    (Get the Kleenex first because everyone seems to need them!)

  • Sandi, Jesus Christ did say “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and render unto the Lord what is the Lord’s.”

    The civil laws of this country belong to “Caesar” they do not answer to anyone’s religious beliefs.

    If you want to live in a theocracy…find the damn door

  • I did. I was just answering where I go. I’m a gay married Christian who goes to church. Hooray for me lol… Praise God.

  • Sabdi, God also said to not eat shellfush, pork, to not have tattoos, for men to not shave their beards, for women to not go outside of the home when they are having their period.

    Do you obey those things?

  • Jesus said nothing about “Gay Marriage”. Just to be clear for anyone reading this and thinking He did.

    And it is not a sin. Gay marriage isn’t and homosexuality isn’t.

    Loving same sex relationships, non cultic, faithful… All very acceptable for those who cannot do “straight” partnerships like me.

    (All the quotes from scripture that could be used have been used, and all the arguments why they are wrong have been used – we just don’t agree)

  • Ok, now that you’ve given yourself a nice pharisaical pat on the back, and been duly congratulated, perhaps Ben would like to answer the completely different question I posed to him..:

  • So, child my aunt and uncle who have been married 50 years but chose to not have kids aren’t married?

    Marriage is a civillage right in this country, child. Gays were granted the right to marry because of the 14th amendmentry to the US constitution..the same reason the jim crow laws against miscegnatoon were struck down.

    Or are you trying to argue the14th amendment doesn’t exist?

  • If you want to talk marriage, He said the reason for marriage is male/female duality. That doesn’t leave much room for other pairings.

    But I already told you, have it your way for now.

  • It’s God’s word.

    Some
    Liberals are always trying to shrink the word and work of God into the Jesus quotes from the 4 Gospels, and often fewer than that.

  • God’s words aren’t limited to the 4 Gospels.

    Why do people want to shrink the word of God to the Jesus quotes of the 4 Gospels?

    Answer: to shoehorn God’s will for them into their own perverted preferences.

  • I will have it my way, and you can have it yours. We disagree, and that’s ok.

    Love it when a Christian “Told me” how I, another Christian, should live my life to match their beliefs.

    Keep going around “Telling others” – it will really work to grow the body of Christ, not…

  • And the Jews still do those things. Those are not pertaining to Christians. Christ brought the moral laws into the New Testament.

  • Pharisaical? All of what I said is very much with regard to the Spirit. It is about the Spirit. Not really “Pharisaicaless” 😀

    Sorry for butting in on the thread though.

  • You’ve been shown. 1 Corinthians 4:4 New International Version

    The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”
    Keep seeking and you will find Him

  • “You’ve shown me nothing, except that I did not realize the extent to which one individual can devote themselves to something.” then go learn.

  • He knows how wicked our hearts are, yes. I’ve given you the scripture. Go read about it

  • And I am helping a poor sick needy person that I’m writing to. Jesus doesn’t want you to perish, Paul He loves you.

  • Re: “Show me where I said such.”

    In your first reply to me you said: “Jesus said that He would forgive and cleanse them of their sin so they could go to Heaven if they so choose though.” No mention of “repentance.” Not a speck of it.

    Re: “You say you know Christianity and you don’t even know Jesus is God? lol”

    I know what Christians say about him. I don’t know him, personally, though, since he’s never managed to show himself to me. Although at one time I did believe I knew him. I discovered that not to be true.

    Re: “Try reading a Bible.”

    As I’ve explained already, I’ve read your Bible. From front to back and around again. I’ve read multiple English translations, I’ve read translations in other languages (e.g. Martin Luther’s translation into the German of his time), and I learned κοινη or koiné Greek so I could read the New Testament in its original language and the Old Testament as the Septuagint, which is how most of the earliest Christians knew it.

    Have you done any of that? Have you even come close? If not, what kind of audacity could cause you to question whether I’d read your Bible? Just because I’ve arrived at conclusions about it that you subjectively disapprove of, cannot and never will constitute any proof that I have never read it.

    Re: “The unbeliever is ‘of the world’ and judges everything by worldy standards, views life from the standpoint of time and sense, and weighs everything in the balances of his own carnal making.”

    I take it you disapprove of my “worldly” way of reading your Bible. OK, that’s fine. Disapprove all you want. But that’s what I plan to do. And I’ll keep right on doing it, until you — or some other rabid Christianist — tracks me down and forces me to dispense with my “worldliness.” So go right ahead. Do it. I dare you.

    Speaking of dares, you never responded to my earlier dare to you, to produce chapter and verse from the gospels demonstrating that your Jesus said anything about homosexuality. I will conclude, from this, that you can produce no such evidence, so that, when you said your Jesus had condemned homosexuality, that was a lie. Does it make you feel good to lie for your Jesus? Do you think he’d approve of you lying in his name?

  • It was a legal wedding. Calling it “so called” is just malice on your part. Much like how Trump supporters like David Duke refer to interracial marriages. 🙂

  • But not directly nor honestly. LifeSite News is not a reliable source on anything besides what are the given talking points for the reactionary Christian agenda.

  • Re: “Nice dodge, but not buying it.”

    That’s OK. Even if you petulantly refuse to admit you were wrong, you were. I know it, and I demonstrated it, so that’s really all that matters. Whether you’re mature enough to admit it or not, really isn’t relevant.

    Re: “God doesn’t fit in the little boxes you order Him into, my friend.”

    Wow, talk about your standard, hackneyed apologetic attempt to justify the apparent non-existence of Jesus. I don’t really care what sorts of boxes your deity fits into. I only care that I have no idea if there ever was a Jesus and I have no reason to suspect he’s hovering above the earth in a cloud or something waiting to jump down and fix everything in a catastrophic Apocalypse (because, for some reason, he never managed to finish the job he’d started, the first time he’d supposedly come around).

    Re: “In the absence of some credible source from antiquity (not johnny-come-latelies 2000 years later) rebutting the witnesses’ testimony about Jesus’ teachings recorded in the gospels there is no reason not to accept them as authentic.”

    Actually there’s plenty of reason to question those accounts. Your assumption, that the ancients never wrote fiction (or allegory or metaphor) is laughably asinine. They wrote about all sorts of things that never actually occurred … just as people do now. Do you think, just because J.R.R. Tolkien wrote about hobbits, elves and ents, that they all exist? Do you think Tolkien’s literature ceases to have anything to say merely because it deals with fictional creatures? What makes you think the ancients couldn’t possibly have invented a character — or told exaggerated tales about some real person — as an expression of, and explanation for, the things they believed? If that sounds ridiculous to you, then I expect you’ll enjoy roving the planet talking to elves and hobbits and looking for the entwives.

    Re: “The stones Jesus was talking about here were not ‘figurative.’ They actually had them in their hands.”

    Correct. He turned a real event into a figurative lesson for his followers and as a recrimination for his opponents. (Clever fellow, wasn’t he? Almost too clever to have been real, no?)

    Re: “I love it when you guys demonstrate your ‘civility.'”

    And I love it when you guys express your elitism (i.e. your bragging about how somebody’s spirit blew on you but not on me, because you’re just so special and I’m not).

  • Levitt customers was written long before Jesus was born. You promised me quotes from JESUS CHRIST, not someone else. You can’t give me one because, as we both know, Jesus said nothing whatsoever about it.

  • Ben, I agree with much of what you have said , however I ,because of my faith, believe that the Church can change its view on human sexuality because the Spirit is continually at work changing minds & hearts! It is slow work because of pride ,insecurity, clinging to our authority etc. Yet , we have all witnessed in our day a gradual openness and acceptance of gay people! I believe this is the Spirit at work! Church leaders always seem to be the last & hardest to change! I won’t judge their motives for this intransigence! Let God judge their consciences!

    As for the place of Natural Law theory in our discussion, it is important because out of this viewpoint flows either prejudice towards gays ( as you pointed out) that goes back centuries or a new way of looking at what we call NATURAL! From our theory flows either our prejudice towards gays or our acceptance of them as a natural part of God’s creation and our brothers & sisters!
    If the church can change its theory of Natural Law , that underlies its present teaching then out of this new viewpoint will flow a sound rationale for people of all sexual orientations to accept one another !
    Finally, I have come to conclude that the fundamental principle determining what is Natural, is not physiology , but the primary challenge Jesus offered the world, “love one another as I have loved you!” In my view it is LOVE, Covenant Love, ie. Love that is committed to others & faithful to ones partner that is what makes a relationship or relationships NATURAL!

  • 2 Timothy 3:16English Standard Version (ESV)

    16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

  • They are married. Are you confused about that?
    Do you think the intent of marriage is for couples to procreate and have children and raise them or for couples to be on a life long date?

    The 14th amendment to the US constitution has nothing to do with homosexual marriage. Go ahead and read it and see if it says anything about homosexual “marriage”.

  • Here is what Jesus said about marriage and what constitutes as marriage:
    “3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”Matthew 19

    Only a man can be a husband and only a woman can be a wife.

  • If I may butt in here JP…..if God didn’t like the relationship, He won’t approve of it when they play mind games with themselves trying to call it “marriage”. God said that marriage is a man and a woman.

  • You should read the comments from Shawnie, our sola scriptorum girl. People who believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God, or that the church speaks for God, are totally uninterested in anything like “the spirit moving.”

    The church will not change anything until events are horrific enough to force them to. It took 1900 years for the church to admit that maybe the Jews were decides, and should not be persecuted.

  • I usually answer you, but you usually don’t like my answers. So, there you have it. My job isn’t to convince you, remember?

  • Sandi, I am very familiar with the triune nature of the Father. I feel that the Creed beautifully encapsulates my faith; what I believe in. I think anyone reading this thread will have a very clear view of your position. If they have doubts they can always review any posts of yours on the internet (or read your GoodReads profile and a review of the only book you have taken an interest in through that portal!)

    Blessings!

  • I doubt they can be dangerous Frank, they talk about only one subject. Sandi’s internet posts are exclusively on the subject of human sexuality and even her “Good Reads” account has only been used to read one book which is on the same subject.

    Her review is amusing… Apparently the book was a real struggle to get through. I imagine it is difficult to read any GoodReads book when you’ve only read one!

    Here’s her review:
    http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/55365217-sandi-luckins

  • Don’t like ssm because of your religious beliefs? Then don’t marry someone of the same gender as you.

    But that is as far as your rights on the matter go.

    Your rights to your religious beliefs don’t include the right to legislate your religious beliefs

  • Threats in the name of God, child, are the last bastion of the damned.

    And what you said doesn’t prove me wrong, child, the United States is not a theocracy…so while you are free to follow your religious beliefs in your own personal life..you have no right whatsoever to demand that everyone else obey your religious beliefs.

  • No actually you didnt…you just keep on repeating the same threatening tripe.

    The United states is not a theocracy. Don’t like it? Find the door then.

    Your religious beliefs have no bearing on the civil laws of the United States. The US Constitution, not the Bible, is the Supreme Law of the Land

  • Yeah funny, sandi, that is what fundamentalist Muslims say too.

    That they only say and do what they do so people can be brought to God.

  • You may be interested in Hebrews 13: 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

    Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

    10 For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant[b] of Christ.

    Ephesians 5:11

    New International VersionHave nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

    1 Timothy 4:1
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

    Jesus said if you love Him, you will obey His commands. Christ said that homosexuality is unnatural, and a sin.

  • “…premarital infidelity…”
    Perhaps it’s just a typo, but how does one commit infidelity when ‘premarital’ means, not yet married?

  • You might want to read the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..”

    This is a religious statement.

    You would never get the Declaration of Independence from atheism.

  • The truth should bother you that much. We are taking you out of the darkness which is very comfortable for you and trying to bring you into the Light. Belonging to Jesus is a blessing in itself.

  • With the comments above, you have seen scripture opened wide and proven.
    2 Timothy 4:3
    New International Version

    For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

  • Sandy, to correctly interpret the scriptures, you have to first understand the context in which they were written! The passages you cited were written at a time of much conflict within & outside the early Church! These early Christians are being warned to remain faithful to the teaching they have received from Paul & the apostles! These passages don’t contradict what I said about the ongoing guidance and new insights for living a Christian life in our own day and age! The Spirit is always at work in every age to enhance & renew the People of God wherever & whoever they are! Jesus promised He would be with us through the Holy Spirit till the end of the ages!

  • “But it seems disturbingly to be a violation of the separation of church and state that the Catholic church is trying to control the personal political views of the vice president of the United States”

    There is no constitutional right to be a Catholic. Who told you there was?

  • No Pat. Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever and He is not going to change His mind on what He taught. I’m sorry, but you are fooling yourself.

    Numbers 23:19 ESV
    God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

    Malachi 3:6 – 6 “For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed. 7 From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from my statutes and have not kept them.

    29 “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind” (1 Samuel 15:29).

    17 Every good thing bestowed and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow (James 1:17).

    Psalm 119:89English Standard Version (ESV)
    89 Forever, O Lord, your word
    is firmly fixed in the heavens.

    “Where is the sense of distance and difference, then, between believers in Bible time and ourselves? It is excluded. On what grounds? On the grounds that God does not change. Fellowship with Him, trust in His word, living by faith, ‘standing on the promises of God’, are essentially the same realities for us today as they were for Old and New Testament believers. This thought brings comfort as we enter into the perplexities of each day: amid all the changes and uncertainties of life in a nuclear age, God and His Christ remain the same—almighty to save. But the thought brings a searching challenge too. If our God is the same as the God of New Testament believers, how can we justify ourselves in resting content with an experience of communion with Him, and a level of Christian conduct, that falls so far below theirs? If God is the same, this is not an issue that any one of us can evade.”90 J.I. Packer

  • John 14:6 – New International Version

    Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

  • and Christians have just as much right to have their beliefs adhered to – probably more as they are a blessing for those who follow.

  • The entire article that this thread is (supposedly) discussing has nothing to do with the laws of the United States but with Catholicism.

  • No it doesn’t. Josephus described it quite clearly in the 1st century — the mixture of a male with a male.

  • Paul, stalking another person online, and particularly a fellow believer (if you actually are one), is seriously creepy.

    I think you’ve just told us everything we need to know about you.

    Ben, I’ll leave your admirer here to you. Yuck.

  • You said that Jesus said it, when, in fact JESUS did not. The author of Leviticus is not Jesus, as you know full well.

    You do not help your cause by untruths.

  • John. Do you know Jesus is God? Have you ever read John 1:1-10? The Bible is the Word of God, and Jesus is God.

  • “Your assumption, that the ancients never wrote fiction (or allegory or metaphor) is laughably asinine.” The gospels were not written as fiction or allegory. They stated that they were biographies, and they were anchored to very specific people, places and times that are easily identified. There is no indication anywhere in antiquity that they were regarded as fiction. Even those who had the most motivation to explain them away, the Jews, never claimed that they were inauthentic or fictional. They wrote about Jesus in their Talmud, slandering Him instead of claiming He wasn’t real. The late-comers to the game have absolutely nothing to add.

    “…because, for some reason, he never managed to finish the job he’d started, the first time he’d supposedly come around.” Oh, He finished it all right. Those were His next-to-last words: “It is finished.” Paid in full.

    “He turned a real event into a figurative lesson for his followers and as a recrimination for his opponents.” Nope — nothing figurative about any of those stones. He said they could execute her if they were sinless. Of course nobody is, so we have to leave that job to God. But it doesn’t excuse us from the responsibility to exercise discernment (Matt.5:17). Personally, I’d rather take my chances with the stone-carrying crowd than thumb my nose at the call to repentance and encourage others to do the same.

    “And I love it when you guys express your elitism (i.e. your bragging about how somebody’s spirit blew on you but not on me, because you’re just so special and I’m not).” Specialness isn’t required. I believe He calls everyone at some point. Some say yes, some say no. But I certainly didn’t make it up: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws them.” John 6:44. Obviously you have a problem, it appears, with how He chose to express His teaching. If you don’t like it, I suggest you take it up with Him. But your beef isn’t with me, so put away your pretentious belly-aching, etc etc etc.

  • You are trying to blow off the fact that Jesus said nothing whatsoever about homosexuality.

    According to you, it was Jesus who said that dashing the heads of the “little ones” of Babylon against the rocks would bring happiness.– Psalm 137:8-9