United Methodist Bishop Karen Oliveto talks about the denomination's more than 40-year history of struggle with LGBTQ issues during a news conference after arguments before the church's Judicial Council meeting on April 25, 2017, in Newark, N.J. The council heard arguments on whether a gay pastor can serve as a bishop in the United Methodist Church. Oliveto is the denomination’s only openly gay bishop. Photo courtesy of UMNS/Mike DuBose

Bishop Karen Oliveto: ‘My presence changes the conversation’ on LGBTQ people

(RNS) Last week's decision by the United Methodist Church's top court on the consecration of openly gay bishops may have been muddled, but that just shows that the Judicial Council is "a very good representation" of the denomination, said Bishop Karen Oliveto.

"We are not of one mind when it comes to the role of LGBTQI people in the life and ministry of the United Methodist Church," Oliveto said.

The 6-3 decision announced Friday (April 28) found that while the consecration of an openly gay bishop violates church law, Oliveto's consecration is not in question. She remains a bishop "in good standing" until an administrative or judicial process is finished.

Opponents of Oliveto's election and consecration have said the Judicial Council's decision did not go far enough since it did not remove her from office. Among them, Good News — an evangelical ministry within the United Methodist Church — released a statement calling it "convoluted and ultimately unsatisfactory."

"By allowing Oliveto’s election and assignment to stand, the decision has sown further confusion across the connection," it said.

The second-largest Protestant denomination in the United States has debated the role of LGBTQ people in the church at least since its global decision-making body, the General Conference, first deemed the "practice of homosexuality" to be “incompatible with Christian teaching” in 1972.

At its 2016 quadrennial meeting, the General Conference tasked a 32-member commission appointed by bishops to tackle the issue. The bishops will make recommendations based on the commission's work for the General Conference to act on at a special session in 2019.

While the same debate has vexed the denomination for years, Oliveto said, "what's different is now there's someone in the room."

"It's no longer an issue. It's about people. My presence changes the conversation, and that’s my hope for the commission."

Friday's Judicial Council decision said that while “self-avowal does not nullify the consecration and cause removal from episcopal office,” it is enough to subject the bishop’s office to review. It also raised the possibility an “openly homosexual and partnered bishop,” as well as any clergy who participated in his or her consecration, could be charged with disobedience.

Several complaints — the beginning of judicial proceedings — already have been filed against Oliveto since she was made bishop last July of the Mountain Sky Area, which encompasses Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana and Idaho.

It was just one of several decisions the council made last week impacting LGBTQ clergy. The council also ruled that the denomination’s regional New York and Northern Illinois annual conferences must consider all qualifications of a candidate for ministry. Both previously had decided they would not consider sexuality when evaluating candidates.

"They’ve made it even tougher for LGBTQI people to serve the church they love — to follow God's call to serve in this church. And it gives anyone the opportunity to file a complaint, to do a witch hunt, to do searches online of marriage certificates. It raises a veil of suspicion on people’s humanity, and that’s not the gospel," Oliveto said.

"It sends a chilling (message) at a time when more and more people are not having to stay in the closet because society has changed so much."

Comments

  1. ““They’ve made it even tougher for LGBTQI people to serve the church they love”. They may love the churchhouse, but not the body of Christ – the real church. Christ taught that homosexuality is a sin and that there is a penalty for that sin.

  2. She is in violation of the UMC Discipline. She should resign.

  3. I haven’t seen that teaching. Please point to it for us.

  4. The Methodists are in real quicksand trouble right now. They are dying. But there are a few Methodists who offer a much-needed alternative to this ongoing Oliveto mess.

    This group is apparently too small to show up on RNS’s radar (or any other media outlet), but what they offer is really important. They call themselves “Transforming Congregations”, and honestly, THIS is what a spiritually healthy United Methodist Church looks like. Check out this one brief page:

    http://www.transcong.org/5becometc.htm

  5. With the way some Christians focus on what people do or don’t do with their genitals, you’d think the Bible was a sex manual.

  6. Floyd, are you struggling with same-sex attraction? Did this group help you somehow?

  7. The UMC Book of Discipline is not the Bible. There is a commission appointed to work on and hopefully resolve this issue by 2019. Jesus provides guidance in our Bible (John 13:34-35).

  8. Sandi, Google Matthew Vines and listen to his take on this issue. Surely we can make room for LGBTQI people in the “real church”.

  9. I agree with Bishop Oliveto – that statement from the judicial council was muddled and that perfectly reflects where the Methodist Church is on the issue.

    This is how change happens. The best thing that can happen is for this to stretch itself out until people get used to the idea and have a chance to see this bishop perform. Maybe then they will see that being heterosexual or LGBTQI doesn’t matter to the Christian heart nor to the ability to live a life inspired by love of God and neighbor.

    It doesn’t matter folks. LGBTQI people are also children of God, created by Him, part of the natural order which God established and said “It is good.” Just because it is not reflective of most people’s sexuality does not make it bad – it just makes it different.

  10. You are wrong, Sandi. Christ said absolutely nothing about homosexuality. Further, he summed up all laws in these: love God, and love your neighbor.

    We’re in the 21st century, and science and psychology has proven that people are born lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and everything in between. “Homosexuality” is in nature as well. The concept of “homosexuality” did not exist in biblical times, so they had no understanding of it, and were critical of certain behaviors (like temple prostitution) which people today mistake for condemnation of “homosexuality.” I could go on, but I’ll leave it at that. There are many resources for those who wish to learn.

    Please do not judge our calling. (Let’s recall what Jesus said about judging.) You can’t speak for God, who created us, loves us, and calls us, whether we’re lgbtqi or not.

    May God bless you, and bless us all, with an open heart, mind, and spirit. May the UMC as a denomination learn that too. Then its doors will truly be open.

  11. This group operates a form of antigay conversion therapy. It is the antithesis of spiritual health.

  12. Skip Vines and go directly to Boswell. All of Vines’s stuff (as well as virtually all gay apologia) is warmed-over Boswell minus the minutiae. I read Boswell years ago. No case there.

  13. It’s a sex manual, a money manual, an everyday life manual, pretty much everything.

  14. Without that Biblical justification, it is just being someone with personal boundary issues.

  15. So if she were a man and a pastor and was involved in an adulterous relationship then you would have the same response? “The UMC BofD isn’t the bible, you know. So we’ll appoint a commission to study whether adultery is ok or not.”

  16. “It’s a sex manual, a money manual, an everyday life manual, pretty much everything.” . . . for people who are unable or unwilling to think rationally utilizing the valuable tools of evidence, reason, logic, and the vast amount of human knowledge accumulated since the Bible was written.

  17. Jesus certainly did speak against homosexuality in Matt 5:32 and 19:9 where He uses the word “unchastity” and “immorality” which includes adultery, incest, premarital infidelity, homosexuality, beastiality and any other sexual conduct condemned in the OT.

    Stop doing what you claim you are not doing and that is you are judging Sandi.

  18. Matthew Vines is a heretic who has been proven wrong more than once.
    When a person becomes a Christian, the old has gone and the new has come….they become a new person in Christ – hence, their sin, which has been renounced is left behind. Homosexuals are not Christian. They value their sin more than Jesus, and are unwilling to do as the Lord asked for salvation.
    If you are still following a course of self pleasing, you are only fooling yourself if you think you have come to Christ. AW Pink

  19. You’ve never seen the teaching that homosexuality is a sin.
    It starts with Sodom and Gomorrah – Genesis 18 and 19.
    Next, I believe would be Leviticus:

    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.

  20. Science has proven there is no genetic pre-disposition to being gay. Psychologists remain divided on the condition, some suspecting that the original vote to remove homosexuality from a list of mental illnesses was rigged.
    The bottom line is that the Bible does teach against same-sex sex, describing it as a sin. Those who teach otherwise, even if they do it out of love, are putting the souls of their hearers in danger. No worldly pleasure, not matter how much we love it, is worth endangering our souls.

  21. So, you disregard John 1:1-10. Your god is so small that he isn’t

    om·nis·cient
    ämˈnisēənt,ämˈniSHənt/
    adjective
    knowing everything.
    “the story is told by an omniscient narrator”
    synonyms: all-knowing, all-wise, all-seeing
    “he thought I was some kind of omniscient guru”.
    Christ is omniscient. Do I need to provide that scripture for you?
    I think you have just shown that your “god” is what Romans 1 clarifies as:
    22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (easier said, an idol)
    Christ spoke about homosexuality all over the Bible, from Genesis to the Book of Revelation. Jesus taught in the Book of Revelation, and He could be speaking to you in the first verse: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 21:8 ESV
    But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

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

    You think science knows more than the Lord. I think science has a ways to go to catch up with the wisdom of the Lord – another sign that you have chosen an idol over the Lord.
    Then, if you, yourself are practicing homosexuality, yourself, you have been turned over to a reprobate mind – to do that which is not good. (Romans 1). Hence, you should not leading a congregation whatsoever – particularly because you are in defiance against Christ.
    About judging….You said: Please do not judge our calling. (Let’s recall what Jesus said about judging.) ” I refer you to Matthew 7:24 -English Standard Version
    Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”
    You must have missed that class also.

    Christ condemned homosexuality all over the Bible, and just from your little comment, you have shown that you neither know He, or what He said – not only in reference to homosexuality. So, I would suggest that you are teaching a different gospel – harming your followers – and harming yourself. Galatians 1 will tell you how you are bringing a curse upon yourself.
    I think you have some reading to do.  “When we become so tolerant that we lead people into mental fog and spiritual darkness, we are not acting like Christians—we are acting like cowards” (A.W. Tozer).
    (edited)

  22. Everything, Including a baseball bat. And therein lies the problem.

    “Believe what I believe or I’ll hurt you” is exactly how some people use it. And then YOU wonder why people like me show up.

    This is what you refuse to see in your righteousness. Believe whatever you like. But if you can’t keep it out of the lives of other people who don’t share your book, your views, your prejudices, or anything else, don’t be surprised if they resent your intrusion into their lives.

  23. Science has proven absolutely nothing of the sort. Your facts, whether it’s not inborn, or the visit left wing conspiracy to rig the vote– and the vote that followed it– are simply your fanatasies to explain why decent people could possibly not agree with you.

    But when you find the heterosexual gene, be sure to announce it,

  24. Advocating the murder of gay men again, Sandi. Be sure to tell me you’re not doing it.

  25. You can hope I am, but that’s about as close as you will get to it. Tsk tsk tsk Ben. I thought you had more class than that.

  26. Sorry, Ben, you’re wrong. Gays claimed to be “born” that way prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, despite a lack of any scientific evidence whatsoever. The burden is on those who claim that, not on me (or others who believe like me).

    Gays remain societal outliers, statistically, historically, and (most especially for our conversation here) theologically. No new Scripture has been written for several thousand years—and the Church has had a long and historical pattern of interpretation that agrees same-sex sex is sin. “New interpretations,” springing from a society that is increasingly immoral in every way, are not “new at all.” However, they remain outside the orthodoxy (and orthopraxy) that has characterized Christianity since its inception.

    You want to be gay? Go for it! Just don’t call it Christian—and don’t stoop to twist and explain away the Scriptures that clearly identify the activity as sin.

  27. “It raises a veil of suspicion on people’s humanity, and that’s not the gospel,” Oliveto said.

    What the good bishop could have gone to to say, is “The Gospel of Jesus Christ is OUR MAIN FOCUS HERE! Whatever the issue or human condition that our church is addressing. we will stay focused on your faith that–whether rich or poor, male or female, gay or straight–EVERYONE finds the fullest measure of their humanity through the Gospel of Jesus Christ!”

    I trealize the LGBT issue is a thorny one that divides many denominations. Unfortunately pastors and biships dwell only on the political nature of the issue, and neglect focusing on the tremendous influence of the Gospel, to transform ALL of human life through faith in Jesus Christ! That focus is the only on that can bring peace to the discussion of thorny issues among people of good will who happen to hold a wide spectrum of opinions.

    My mainline Protestant church quietly welcomes everyone to come worship and serve alongside us. We don’t make a big deal out of the differences in race, gender, income and politics because none of those are the “main thing.” The main thing for us is teaching and modeling the Gospel of Jesus Christ in our lives, communities, and throughout the world!

  28. Homosexuals are not Christian. Women are not called to be pastors. If she is a homosexual, Christ has turned her over to a reprobate mind to do that which is not good. Hence, she should not be leading a congregation.

  29. “New interpretations,” springing from a society that is increasingly immoral in every way, are not “new at all.” You put that very well. agree completely.

  30. Sure we can. They can sit right next to all the other sinners (including all of us!). The issue is not whether they can attend the services, but whether same-sex sex is sin. It isn’t even about struggling with the issue, it’s about loudly and unrepentantly declaring it is not sin and vowing to continue the lifestyle. People who do so are not suitable for church leadership in any way.

  31. First, Tim, you are not sorry.
    Second, there has always been plenty of evidence. That you don’t wish to see it is your problem– like the idea that APA vote was rigged somehow. I was therer. You weren’t.
    There is a huge body of evidence which obviously you know nothing about, or more likely, prefer not to. Google it. There is the testimony of millions of people like me. There is the failure of Freud, Jesus, and the fraud of ex-gay “therapy” to change people from gay to straight– apart from a handful of professional ex-gays. (Please spare me the nonsense that they are all out there. If they were, we would have seen them long ago.) The vast majority of scientific, medical, and social science professional organizations disagree with you. The Mormon and catholic Churches disagree with you.
    And what do you have, Mr. Anonymous Guy on the Internet? Religio-political beliefs and agendas.

  32. Genesis and Leviticus are in the old Testament, long before Jesus. Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. I assume you mean Jesus when you say “Christ”. There was historical context to the teachings in the old testament surrounding homosexuality. Men were having sex with men because of strong sex drives. There was concern that the population would dwindle due to so much seed being wasted so laws were created to stop that behavior. The Jesus we know would not turn his back on gay people, he would sit with them and minister to them. He would not be in favor of putting them to death.

  33. Hahahhahaha, Ben.
    You know nothing about my qualifications or experience—and I am not going to bother informing you. What I do know is Scripture, which is (or should be) the basis of this discussion. After all, we’re talking about the Church, the basis of which is Scripture.

    Your description of Jesus as a “failure” is revealing. Apparently you are gay and not a Christian. I have no quarrel with that. My issue is with those who claim to be Christian and LGBT&ct, especially as it relates to a specific activity prohibited in the Bible: same-sex sex. I’m not even talking about “attraction to,” lifelong partnerships, or people struggling with this lifestyle.

    The Catholic Church and Mormon Church still consider same-sex sex a sin. There are Christian denominations who, under current cultural pressure, have caved in. They include USPCA, United Church of Christ and others. Generally, they are those that are more liberal and less committed to Scripture.

    The question before us is what the UMC will decide. They’ve been trying to avoid doing so for years, as they have both active liberal and conservative wings. A decision will almost certainly result in a major church split. We evangelicals hope and pray the UMC will base their decision on Scripture and historic tradition, rejecting the modern liberal calls for sexual liberation.

  34. You may be interested in John 1:1-10.

  35. You are correct on one thing ATF45 — that IS the actual strategy that Oliveto and her allies are using right now.

    Drag everything out as long as possible, keep everything “muddled” (an accurate term!) as much as possible, so that Methodists “can get used to” the poisonous leaven that is even now leavening their entire loaf.

    It’s the same reason why the Commission is scheduled to do its thing in 2019 when a decisive leadership ruling is painfully needed right now. Get the people “used to the idea”, of buying into something they should not be buying.

  36. Hahahaha, timothy. You’re a bible believing Christian. so far, that’s your only qualification. You decline to list your others. I’ve studied this matter my entire life.

    I never said Jesus was a failure. That’s your interpretation. There is only the slightest bit of evidence that Jesus ever changed anyone from gay to straight, and a great deal of evidence that it was all a fraud. Alan Chambers, head of the former Exodus, admitted it himself before shutting exodus down.

    “The Catholic Church and Mormon Church still consider same-sex sex a sin.” Yes they do. But that’s just changing the subject. They also believe it is inborn. They also believe each other is wrong about god and his message to the world. So, there you have it.
    your comments about “cultural pressure” and “less committed to scripture” is just the fundamentalist mindset at work.You just cannot conceive that anyone religious would not shared your prejudices. They don’t believe what they believe despite what their bibles say, but because of what their bibles say. But in the fundelibangelist mindset, that’s just a heresy.
    Have a nice life.

  37. Nope on both specific questions, but I am very familiar with your first question. It’s a standard tactic. Always ask if the “anti-gay” persons who are advocating for change-oriented, Christian resources, are themselves SSA-afflicted. Got it.

    No worries, though. It doesn’t bother me to answer such questions, and it doesn’t slow me down either.

    By the way, I’m straight. How ’bout you?

  38. I beg to differ. I know a few “homosexual” Christians personally. I’m also aware of the various usages of Romans 1. These people I know are very warm, genuine people with integrity, and in that light, are much better than a lot of so-called Christian leadership. I don’t hold to the religion anyway. I can also admit that the Bible is largely against homosexuality (unless you hold to Matthew Vines’ position, which I do not). But I don’t believe the Bible is inerrant anyway, much less divine in origin. Now is the time for Christianity to change for the better.

  39. Throwing Stones Sandi…You certainly can’t claim innocence in this area of sin, can you? Bishop Oliveto speaking, seems more Christian than your Pharisee-speak and hypocrisy.

  40. Sandi, I believe that Jesus Christ was not wasted on the cross just for me or just for you. He died and was resurrected for all sinners. He was sacrificed by God to eliminate all the animal and human sacrifices of the Old Testament.

    Do you have gay friends or family members? I am a married man (to a wonderful woman) of 44 years and we know a few gay people. They are doing no harm to me or my wife. In fact we see them as God’s blessing to us. I know a few parents who have learned that their gay child is a continued blessing to them.

    I have two wonderful daughters whom I would never ever teach that God would never call them to the ministry, because He just might do that someday. Sandi, God is a loving God who doesn’t change, but He calls us in different times to make changes–Ex. ditch slavery, equal rights for women–two big things.

    I love the Holy Bible as I believe it is the divinely inspired word of God, passed along by Godly minded people of ages past. These God-minded people (not being perfect, as Jesus was perfect) passed the story along the best they could, but we must realize that the Bible itself is not God.

    I am not going to judge my fellow man; I am going to do my best to put God first in terms of belief and worship, and I am going to try my best to love my neighbor as myself. I am going to trust and believe in Jesus Christ, because he has already made His sacrifice for all of us.

    PS, I do not personally know Matthew Vines, but the Holy Spirit that resides in me because I believe in Jesus Christ, tells me he is no heretic as you have judged him to be. I am confident of that.

    Prayers for your Christian walk and mine!

  41. Not throwing stones at all Damien……Christians repent of their sin.

  42. Thanks for your response. Homosexuals are not Christians. When they repent of their sin, they become a new creature in Christ and are no longer homosexuals – if they have repented of their sin. Otherwise, they are only fooling themselves.

  43. Sadly, I understand your theology all too well. What I don’t understand is why my Christian gay friends want to be part of such a backwards religion. But their take on it isn’t backward, and they are helping Christianity to progress, without any thanks offered to them. You do not repent of being who you really are at heart. Though I suppose you can believe you can be zapped by the Magic Holy Spook into a non-gay super shiny Jesus-loving Bible thumper, my take on the Evangelical version of salvation.

  44. Well, you’re welcome to “utilize” anything you like. This, however, is an intra-denominational matter.

  45. Actually, they are not helping Christianity to progress. They are showing a lack of respect for Jesus and what He taught. They set a bad example for children. They don’t go to Heaven.
    Christ said that He would forgive and heal us of our sin, should we repent. He does all the work.

  46. Those are your religious beliefs, and you are welcome to them. I generally do not subscribe to invisible friends, enemies, or afterlife places, and have to chuckle at the confidence of people who insist so adamantly that they exist. However, I used to share all of those beliefs (though I now regard them to be false and not worth believing). But I cannot resist adding one thing, gay people do not set bad examples for children. Often they set very good examples on how to love your life partner. At least, judging from my friends’ example that is the case. And I don’t see why heterosexuals are so uptight and stressed out over this anyway: it’s not like heterosexuality is in any danger of dying out.

  47. It’s Byron, please. And how do homosexuals hurt their (adopted?) children. Most homosexuals are not guilty of molesting children and wouldn’t dream of doing so. I’d like to think most heterosexuals aren’t, either, but there are always exceptions. Once someone comes of age, let them identify sexually as whatever they want. It’s not my business, or yours, and it’s no skin off my back, or yours. I don’t believe in Hell, so you’ll have to use something other than religious arguments for that on me. But since we’re there, a deity that would send someone to eternal conscious torment for failing to have the right beliefs is not a deity I consider fit for worship in the first place. Though, if God is indeed the Creator and has all sovereignty, then I suppose that he also has the right to be a Cosmic Jerk/Tyrant/Sadist as well, whether I like it or not.

  48. LOL! Reminds me of the time some guy around here accused me, a happily-married middle-aged mom of two, of being turned on by the thought of his activities with another man. Had to send it the hubby so he could share in the funny.

    Not too many pages in the play-book

  49. I apologize – typo there.
    This is a bit longer than I intended, and I dislike long posts, so I apologize in advance.
    Another study in April 2016 shows that “female same-sex parents report more anger, irritation, and comparative frustration with their (apparently misbehaving) children than do opposite-sex parents,” according to Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas in Austin.” Lifesite news

    The American College of Pediatricians is “a nonprofit organization of pediatricians and health care professionals dedicated to the health and well-being of children.”

    The College filed an amicus brief in Obergefell v. Hodges, the case which led to the legalization of gay marriage in the United States. The brief examines scientific studies on same-sex parenting conducted during the past 20 years.

    “Despite being certified by almost all major social science scholar associations — indeed, in part because of this — the alleged scientific consensus that having two parents of the same sex is innocuous for child well-being is almost wholly without basis,” the brief states.

    The brief maintains that the “alleged consensus” that the children of same-sex couples do not suffer any disadvantage is the result of “intense politicization of research agendas” — not of objective science.

    cnsnews dot com

    “Fitzgibbons also cites 2015 studies by American sociologist Paul Sullins that show “the risk of clinical emotional problems, developmental problems, or use of mental health treatment services is nearly double among those with same-sex parents when contrasted with children of opposite-sex parents” in “eight out of twelve psychometric measures.”

    The Sullins studies analyzed data on 512 children of same-sex couples pulled from a base of 207,000 respondents to the National Health Interview Survey between 1997 and 2013.

    They found that “the estimate of serious child emotional problems in children with same-sex parents is 17 percent, compared with 7 percent among opposite-sex parents, after adjusting for age, race, gender, and parent’s education and income.”

    The studies also found that among children raised by same-sex couples, the “rates of ADHD were higher as well—15.5 compared to 7.1 percent. The same is true for learning disabilities: 14.1 vs. 8 percent.” Life site news.

    Then there is the study of the Canadian census; http://www.sfu.ca/~allen/REHAllen.pdf

    Homosexual pedophiles sexually molest children at a far greater rate compared to the percentage of homosexuals in the general population. A study in the Journal of Sex Research found, as we have noted above, that “approximately one-third of [child sex offenders] had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls.” The authors then make a prescient observation: “Interestingly, this ratio differs substantially from the ratio of gynephiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature females) to androphiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature males), which is at least 20 to 1.”[17]

    In other words, although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses.

    Similarly, the Archives of Sexual Behavior also noted that homosexual pedophiles are significantly overrepresented in child sex offence cases:

    The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2 to 4 percent of men attracted to adults prefer men (ACSF Investigators, 1992; Billy et al.,1993; Fay et al.,1989; Johnson et al.,1992); in contrast, around 25 to 40 percent of men attracted to children prefer boys (Blanchard et al.,1999; Gebhard et al.,1965; Mohr et al.,1964).Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6 to 20 times higher among pedophiles.”[18]

    17. Freund, “Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference,” p. 107. In this and previous studies, Freund claims that homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to be attracted to children (p. 115). However, Silverthorn, et al., mentions the limitations of studies by Freund and others: “Studies of homosexual male preferences are also limited. . . . The Freund et al.(1973) study was possibly compromised because the homosexual men used in the study were selected to be sexually attracted to adults, but not teenaged, males. The Bailey et al. (1994) study was limited in that it did not present participants with objective stimuli but simply asked participants to report what age of sexual partner they preferred . . . the Jankowiak et al. (1992) study . . . was limited in two ways: the homosexual male participants had a limited age range of ‘middle-aged professionals’ and the stimuli presented to participants were also of a limited age range (‘university to middle-aged’).” Silverthorn attempted to correct these deficiencies, and in his study found that homosexuals “preferred younger partners than those who preferred female partners”–in cluding those as young as fifteen. Zebulon A. Silverthorne and Vernon L. Quinsey, “Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 29 (February 2000): 67-76.

    18. Ray Blanchard, et al., “Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles,” Archives of Sexual Behavior29 (2000): 464.

    God doesn’t send anyone to Hell. He loves you. He makes it well known how much He loves you throughout your life by providing food, shelter, beauty to enjoy, air to breathe. Some people still choose to deny Him, and refuse the love of the One who created them. So, if you choose not to be a member of His family here, He respects that choice in the afterlife.

  50. No, Dirty Harry#1, I would not have the same response. The UMC Book of Discipline says nothing about the sin of adultery “being incompatible with Christian teaching” like it does for homosexuality. I believe Oliveto is a leader for change here, and I pray she succeeds–if it is God’s will. Rev. Oliveto is a highly educated minister who has served the UMC for many, many years.

  51. Hmmm, do they really repent? Perhaps you (oops… they) are not really sorry at all…and just project onto others.

    After all human sexuality of any kind is natural and enjoyable if handled responsibly, for heterosexuals or homosexuals, married or not…But you know that already, don’t you Sandi 😉

  52. Actually, how responsible (or enjoyable) is it to send the recipient of your sex drive to their death, Damien.

  53. Your data is interesting and I don’t have a rebuttal for it. I’ll have to study the issue. You may be right.

    However, I’m sorry, but your last paragraph doesn’t even make sense. If God doesn’t send you to Hell, then how do you get there? People don’t send themselves to hell, and wouldn’t if given a choice, not with full knowledge of what that would entail for them. There is zero evidence that the Christian God exists, or that he owns or gives any benevolence to humankind. Again, you can believe that if you want, but the proof isn’t there that I can see. Also, I don’t choose to not be a family member of Christianity. I fail to be persuaded by the available evidence that it is anything more than falsehood, however well-intentioned, at best. I see no evidence that God exists, loves me, or provides me with any benevolence, so the only thing I can reject as a result is insufficiently-supported belief in such. God, on the other hand, being omniscient and ominipotent, knows exactly what it would take to convince and fails to provide it. Instead, Christians seem to tell me that I am supposed to “have faith” and “choose to believe” which is not a choice I can actually make, the brain believing what it will based on what it finds to be the most persuasive, and regardless, is not going to fool God if he truly is omniscient. Lastly, leaving someone in eternal conscious torment in Hell for not having the right beliefs, is not respecting their choice. A truly good and benevolent God wouldn’t torment people for not choosing to believe in him, even if God provided sufficient and convincing evidence that even they agreed met all their requirements and that they found intellectually persuasive and compelling. If people go to Hell, then it’s ultimately God’s decision that they go there. He made Hell to start with, and we don’t have the ability to choose our final destination even according to your theology, because there is only one correct choice and we don’t get to dictate its existence or its terms. I’d prefer the Calvinist God over that weak-willed silliness of a deity, who predestined people for eternal hell as vessels fitted for destruction, as that makes more logical sense to me (as repugnant as I find that soteriology to be).

  54. People make the choice all on their own. God offers you His love, His help, miracles for some, His guidance, and an eternity with Him. One has until death to make the decision, so it isn’t a snap judgment needed. If one wants to defy the Lord and remain separate from Him here, He is respectful enough not to force Himself on one in the afterlife.
    Byron, Christ exists. My dad was healed of lung cancer with no medical intervention, just tests showing the cancer there, and tests showing the cancer gone. He exists.
    He died so that we don’t have to die – there is no greater love for us.
    No one can implant a belief in the Lord into you – believe me, sometimes I wish we could, but then we wouldn’t have free will in the matter.
    I can tell you that I will pray for your eyes to be opened to His reality though. And that I will do.

  55. Sorry, but that sounds like this conversation:
    Jesus: “Let me save you!”
    Me: “Save me from what?”
    Jesus: “From what I will do to you if you do not let me save you!”

    Uhhh, no thanks?!? Why do I need saving in the first place? Born OK the first time, etc etc. I don’t buy the whole Original Sin thing, and I think Adam and Eve is nothing but literary fiction. Again, what I tell others I’ll repeat here, “Believe what you want, but if you want me to share those beliefs, you will have to convince me.”

  56. Well, God bless you then.
    I’m cooking dinner as we speak but came back to tell you one more thing. He created you to love you, and all He asks in return in love from you. God bless.

  57. How many gay parents do you know, Sandi? I know several. Their parenting is just as questionable as mine is.

  58. I cannot willingly believe in that, but okay. If that makes you happy, more power to you.

  59. Just as with climate change, there will always be fringe academics to challenge the actual science. Regnerus and Sullins have been widely refuted. Furthermore, the American College of Pediatricians is NOT a legitimate professional organization. It is specifically set up as a socially right-wing political organization that happens to have a membership consisting of children’s doctors. The real US professional organization for pediatricians is the American Academy of Pediatrics.

  60. An odd choice of website name I would say.

  61. There are standard tactics on both sides.

  62. Regnerus? The guy that claimed that gay parents were worse than straight parents, but then admitted he never studied them? And then,, while under oath, admitted that the few gay parents that he did study did just fine?

    Lifesite news? Another right wing Christian hate factory.

    You’re very sick.

  63. Sandimonious goes to right wing websites, cherry picks their cherry picked stuff, and then claims she loves gay people.

    If you need further citations, I will be happy to provide them, meanwhile, regarding Regnerus, see my comment above.

  64. I’d appreciate the help. When it comes to family and behavioral statistical data, I am out of my depth. I doubt those “facts” that she presented, but no doubt there are always horror stories in every situation. But for that part of it, I have to bow out.

  65. John 1:1-10 appears to support inclusion, not exclusion, and doesn’t mention homosexuality. It does seem important for those wishing to exclude LGBTQ persons from the table of Jesus to believe that a choice has been made. A determined choice to be gay and live a life of sin. This has been proven to be false but most of the excluders refuse to believe that. That IS a choice. In question here is the UMC language that says that practicing homosexuals cannot be clergy. There will soon be a vote, probably the final vote on that issue because it will divide the church, and cause many to leave, whichever way the vote goes. If the vote goes against LGBTQ people, it won’t be just us who will be once again blocked from the “open minds, open hearts and open doors” of the UMC but it will be parents, children, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins and loving friends of LGBTQ people. The Jesus that I know, and I have been taught about would not be in favor of excluding gay people from his church or his pulpits. And other denominations have come to believe this. God bless us all.

  66. Actually, dwelling on the attributes of God the Father is a good thing: Genesis 15:1 and Matthew 20 are good starting points.

  67. You could much more easily express your bigotry without so many words.

  68. You have a sick mind, Sandi…But actually we all should be sending our partners to heavenly bliss during responsible (or enjoyable) sexual activity. And this would be a heavenly experience even atheists can’t deny.

    Hope it was just that for you…before you repented !!

  69. I don’t believe in the Christian God, so dwelling on any good attributes of such a concept is just a mental exercise for me. I’ve already read the Bible. I’ve probably read those two chapters more than the other books.

  70. I don’t have a huge amount of time now, and I don’t want to just paste a bunch of stuff. But Sandimonious cites Regnerus. You can “google “American Sociological Association and Mark Regnerus” and easily find their take-down. I don’t have the link.

    But here is Regnerus raking HIMSELF down.

    Regenerus made this statement, reported in huffpost in 2012, I think. He has made similar statements in the past. You can find it without much difficulty.

    “I’d be more careful about the language I used to describe people whose parents had same-sex relationships,” Regenus told the magazine. “I said ‘lesbian mothers’ and ‘gay fathers,’ when in fact, I don’t know about their sexual orientation; I do know about their same-sex relationship behavior.” He also noted: “Finding someone whose parent had some sort of same-sex relationship as they were growing up is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.” No it wasn’t. But it would have destroyed his study had he odne so.

    He didn’t even know about their same sex relationship behavior. He defined a gay parent as anyone who had had at some point in the their child’s life a same sex encounter ACCORDING TO THE MEMORY OF THE CHILD.

    In other words, it wasn’t about gay parents because HE DIDN’T KNOW THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION. He didn’t know about their same-sex relationship behavior, only that they had committed a homosexual act at some point. He could have found plenty of same sex couples raising children, but clearly chose not to find that pile of needles in a tiny haystack. Contrary to what Sandimonious claims, HE DIDN’T STUDY CHILDREN RAISED IN A SAME SEX UNION, but children raised in mixed-orientation marriages, by definition, UNSTABLE.

    For anyone who is defending this piece of garbage as somehow scientific, or who just doesn’t understand English: HE’S ADMITTING THAT HE DIDN’T STUDY WHAT HE CLAIMS TO HAVE STUDIED. But that doesn’t stop Sandimonious, because She Is On A Mission.

    The rest of her citations– Lifesite News, really?– all suffer from the same kind of propagandistic disease.

    Her reference to the Journal of Sex Research does exactly the same thing. It ignores reality. She gets this garbage from the Family research Copuncil, a rabidly antigay fundamentalist Christian political organization that many people– people with morals and integrity– consider a hate group. The hidden assumption in it is that a man who molests boys is homosexual. Some people are just pedophiles– their interest is in CHILDREN. I know personally two men who were molested by their heterosexual fathers. The annals of the Boy Scouts are a great example. For decades, they forbade gay people, gay anything. For decades, they chose primarily married men as scoutmasters for their heterosexual cred. For decades, they had a molestation problem, which they covered up Roman Catholic Style, and attempted to blame on gay men.

    This sort of stuff just goes on and on. If you wish to educate yourself, please go to the American Psychiatric association and American Psychological Association websites. They have plenty. The southern Poverty Law Center also has a lot of information on their website.
    This has been the M.O. of the anti-ex-gay industry– fake studies, cherry picking actual studies, and outright lying. It’s how they make their money. They have no shame and no morals.

    And sandimonious is their willing lap dog.

  71. You didn’t answer my question.

  72. I’m sorry that you see it that way. But you make your own choices.
    I would rather these people go to Heaven.

  73. They are not welcome to the “table” of Jesus until they repent. One needs to be a Christian to take communion.
    The John reference was to show you that Jesus is God, and the Word of God, and that He spoke Leviticus 18 and the Bible on whole which seemed to be your first difficulty. Perhaps you should read that again.
    There is nothing saying that homosexuality is innate and more showing that it is a choice. (Romans 1:24-25 to be precise)
    I would want my clergy to be Christian. How do you expect someone turned over to a reprobate mind to lead you into what Christ desires of you, when they don’t follow Him? You would have a pagan teach you?
    Christ excludes them. They are kept out of the Kingdom of Heaven, should they not repent and be forgiven.
    Christ also taught that He will forgive and heal us of our sins, should we repent.
    (edit) 1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.

  74. Thank you for the blessing Ben.
    The data stands.

  75. I’m sorry to hear that for you.

  76. The point was, it doesn’t. It is well debunked. By repeating it, you are knowingly bearing false witness.

  77. Every accredited professional in the field, the AMA, Wikipedia, the groups own website… Christian bigots have a problem with facts and credentials. So they make up their own

  78. Of course it does. You’re not a moral person, but you play one on the Internet.

  79. You are still talking about it. I guess there is a ring of truth there you are trying to avoid. 🙂

  80. Byroniac, Well, then, how do you “square up” the 2? Your note
    look at the evidence and you cite your own opinion as having “gravitas”.

  81. I haven’t seen any evidence that convinces me that Christianity or the Christian God is true. I’ve seen evidence that the Bible is not inerrant, is very likely not divine in origin, and very doubtful testimony of a “Physical Resurrection” which bears more in common with wishful thinking as far as I can tell. The Bible is book of literature (a book of books, actually), with unknown authors throughout a lot of it, and even the Gospel writers didn’t claim to be eyewitnesses. Plus there are impossible narration sequences such as in the Garden with Jesus alone and elsewhere in the Bible. So, to answer your question, “good attributes” are nice to read about and contemplate, but difficult from which to derive any meaning or relevance to my life since I lack the prerequisite religious faith to subjectively implement whatever I would think the holy text is trying to instruct me.

  82. Thank you for the blessing.

  83. nope. It wasn’t debunked. The homosexuals complained about it, but the info was not debunked.

  84. John 1:17 states, “for the Law was given through Moses, Grace and Truth came through Jesus Christ.” Everyone in the Early Church as well as the Jews believed the first five books of Moses were actually written by Moses.

  85. I guess you’re really NOT a woman after all, Lare.

  86. Ok thanks for making it all so clear. I have been very mislead thinking Christianity and life in general was about acceptance and love. I’ll try hard to be more hateful. Enjoy your life Sandi.

  87. Book of Discipline: ¶ 2702 Chargeable Offenses and the Statute of Limitations

    ¶ 2702. 1. A bishop, clergy member of an annual conference (¶ 370), local pastor,9 clergy on honorable or administrative location, or diaconal minister may be tried when charged (subject to the statute of limitations in (¶ 2702.4)10 with one or more of the following offenses: (a) immorality including but not limited to, not being celibate in singleness or not faithful in a heterosexual marriage;11 (b) practices declared by The United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teachings,12 including but not limited to: being a self-avowed practicing homosexual; or conducting ceremonies which celebrate homosexual unions; or performing same-sex wedding ceremonies;13 (c) crime; (d) disobedience to the order and discipline of The United Methodist Church; (e) dissemination of doctrines contrary to the established standards of doctrine of The United Methodist Church; (f) relationships and/or behavior that undermines the ministry of another pastor;14 (g) child abuse;15 (h) sexual abuse;16 i) sexual misconduct 15 including the use or possession of pornography, (j) harassment, including, but not limited to racial and/or sexual harassment; (k) racial or gender discrimination; or (l) fiscal malfeasance.

    The UMC needs to be faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ. Homosexuality is incompatible with the Christian life. Just b/c your bishop is highly educated and has been around for a number of years doesn’t give her a pass on sinful behavior. She needs to resign.

  88. Liar says what? People complained about it because it was done in a shoddy and patently dishonest way and used for the purposes of justifying attacks on civil liberties of others. Hack work in service of legalized bigotry.

  89. It also must be stated that the modern view is that it is a product of Oral Tradition over many centuries. There is Priestly source, the E source which uses the word elohim for God and the J source which uses the word Yahweh for God. There is also the Deuteronomic Historian which extends from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings. This is an attempt to explain why there was an exile.

  90. Your concession on the facts are duly noted.

  91. Nope, Dedangelo did that. As you poor guys always seem to do sooner or later. Don”t blame others for pointing and laughing.

  92. There is no hatefulness in wanting to be pleasing to God, and to end up in Heaven. God is love, but He is also just and He requires things of us, because He loves us. This is one situation where His will is Supreme.
    We, as Christians, do not expect Christ to jump for us. We change to be pleasing to Him. Actually, He changes us.
    He will not put up with immorality.

  93. Jesus didn’t write Leviticus.

  94. Another lie from Danel. Do you never get tired? You call Christ a liar now. Christ is the Word of the Bible. Half truths from you, don’t help you, Daniel.

  95. Your best to love these people would be to direct them to Christ and forgiveness.

  96. Daniel, Jesus loves you. You can call Him a liar and He will still love you. He wants you as a member of His family and He wants to be be like He wants you, not like you want Him to want you. Until you decide that you want to follow Jesus, and not expect Him to change for you, you will have this difficulty.
    Choose Christ.

  97. What do you not understand about the scriptural teaching regarding homosexual behavior?

    Gal. 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

    19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

    Your bishop is in grave sin – sexual immorality. (they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.)

    You and your ilk who think God will change his mind b/c you want him to are living in a cloud cuckoo land.

    And you sure don’t believe in an authoritative Bible. That’s for sure.

  98. dwelling on the attributes of God the Father is a good thing
    Amen! The Puritans did this.
    A.W. Pink; A.W. Tozer are two good authors + get a good hymn book from the past and read the hymns. The church has always sung her theology. A 1940 Anglican hymn book is “red meat and strong beer” as C.S. Lewis would say.

  99. Arnold Swartzenegger named his left fist Sandi and his right fist Luckins.

  100. Jesus himself said Moses wrote the Torah. There is not one verse in the New Testament where it says Jesus wrote the Pentateuch.

  101. I am not calling him a liar to say he repeatedly said MOSES wrote the Pentateuch. You are just putting words in his mouth.

  102. Ok so i saw this conversation and regarding to all the things said here, i couldn’t help commenting here. First i want to say that i’m french, so english is not my main language, so i apologize in advance if i don’t express myself very well. I’ll be honestly with you, i’m gay, i’m 18, i’ve been raised catholic christian and i consider myself as agnostic ( since i’m studying science i think the world is explainable with our without god, and as a scientist, i have no proof god exists but i also don’t have any proof that god doesn’t exist. So i believe that god simply may exist. )

    First i want to talk about the bible. The bible was translated from hebrew, and in fact in hebrew the word “qadesh” menant a cultual prostitution, and it has been falsly translated as the act of “sodomy”, which means that maybe, the bible is not against homosexuels, but simply condemns prostitution. I’m not a theologist, and i’m certainly not an expert, but this is in my opinion, really important.

    Then i’m going to talk about something i know better, studies that have been accepted by the scientific community, has shown, since the 80’s, that : homosexuality is not a choice and is naturaliste, that children in with homosexual parents don’t have any problems in particular, in fact the only thing these children suffered from is the homophobia their parents already suffer from. These studies has shown that children with homosexuality parents have exactly the same chances to be homosexual later. And this is easily understandable, if the sexual orientation was déterminés by parents sexual orientation, how coule we explain that some children of straight couples are gay and not straight ? In fact sexual orientation is today considered as multy factorial, since no one has been able to explain why some people are gay and some aren’t. What studies have found is that it has nothing to do with education, it has nothing to do with society ( since gay people are everywhere, in every society, tolerant towards gay people or not, there are still homosexuality people, with the same rate ).

    What studies have found is that what really matters for the child is the stabilité of the family, children with homosexuality parents have in fact less problems at school than children raised by only one parent, or in recomposed families.

    Finally i just want to say this, i’m not an expert about religion, but at least i learned one thing when i was a child, one of the most important things for christians is love. We are supposed to love eachother, the church is supposed to be open to absolutely anyone. And even if some of you consider homosexuality as a sin, who are you to judge ? You already are a sinner, and you consider that a different form of love is worst than cheating or lying for some of you. You are judging, and you are making a sin when you do that, don’t you think there would be less hate and less violence in this world if we could all accept the other no matter what ? I don’t talk about support, i talk about respect, you have your have your vices and imperfections, i have mine, i don’t agree with everything you’re doing ( that you chose to do ) and you may not agréé with what i am ( which i didn’t chose to be ) but i respect you, i don’t think you should be rejected for your sins and i expect you to think the same about me and about other people. My “sin” is not affecting other people exept the guy that i love. We are supposed to love eachother, as much as we love ourselves. Never forger that.

  103. A couple of observations from my youth. Kenneth, a typical teenager at 17, Mom & Dad divorce. Mom gets custody, moves in her girlfriend. At 19, Kenneth blows his brains out with a shotgun. George, at 11, molested by a Jesuit priest is very confused. At 19, he chooses the gay way. Lives to the ripe old age of 39 and dies of AIDS. I give no moral to the story, or opinion, only the facts.

  104. I appreciate your support of us gays. However, I think some of your argument is giving Fundamentalists credibility on being “Biblical” that they don’t deserve. For instance, they say “family values” are the supreme truth for Christians and that is why they oppose homosexuality. However, if “family” was so paramount, why would Jesus say in Luke 14:26 that we are to “hate” our family? Paul certainly doesn’t praise heterosexual marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, either. They also oppose homosexuality on the basis of “one man, one woman” when in fact there are very few texts which prescribe this and certainly no text in the OT does- there are a lot of multiple wives there. The Bible is clear and consistent on very few topics. For instance, the Hebrew version of the book of Esther never mentions God.

  105. It would seem that a substantial percentage of Oliveto’s support comes from atheists. Maybe she can join forces with Dan Barker and his “Freedom from Religion” coalition once she is “retired” and collecting her pension.

  106. Don’t forget the parts about casting pearls before swine, shaking the dust off your shoes, and arguing with fools.

  107. Douglas, that’s very sad. I’m sorry.

  108. Could be so, but I disagree, because Jesus Christ clearly stated in Matthew 19:4 (which also pulls from Genesis itself) that God specifically ordained heterosexual marriage and only heterosexual marriage. That’s why I have such a hard time with Matthew Vines’ approach, though I wish him the best, and maybe I don’t fully understand his approach, I’ll grant. But I was a former fundamentalist, and to me, a better approach is to show how the Bible is not inerrant and gets this teaching wrong along with getting other things wrong, too. So, I’ll just speak out what I think. Christ was wrong. The Bible is wrong. And the Christian God behind the Bible is wrong, too. That verse is a hammer verse of wrongness, if you will.

  109. ooooOOOOOOOooooooo lol.
    (edit) We have to protect homosexuals from the world somehow, eh?

  110. Also, Luke 14:26, the way I used to interpret it, doesn’t mean hate your family as if the family unit itself is a bad thing, but to put Christ first in importance and authority, and if that means going against your own family to do so, then it’s right to “hate” such a thing that comes between you and Christ and treat it as something unholy because it would be in that situation. FWIW. 1 Corinthians 7, Paul (ugh, not found of the guy, personally), also thought the world was going to end at practically any moment with the magical return of Junior, too. So some of his teaching is taken in that context. However, the whole passage is in part teaching proper sexual morality within a marriage as authorized before by the Law, and he seems to me to be saying that not everyone has the gift of singleness/celibacy. In short, there are reasons why the fundamentalists think the way they do, and I think some of their Biblical reasoning is valid, but toss it out along with the Bible because the Bible is mostly bunk as far as I am concerned.

  111. You are so right! Thank you for the timely reminder.

  112. I just admire the way you calmly and reasonably respond to the tantrum throwers – kind of like AS. Like you he never really even breaks a sweat.

  113. Well praise the Lord, for His faithfulness. Thank you.

  114. You pull further and further from Jesus, eh Daniel? Paul upholds heterosexual marriage in 1 Corinthians 7:2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. ”

  115. John 5:46-47 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

    By saying “his” writings, he certainly seems to attribute authorship to Moses.

    Acts 3:22 Moses said, ‘The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from among your own people. Listen carefully to everything he tells you.’
    Likewise here, it attributes authorship to Moses.

    This Acts text clearly states Moses said, not Jesus said.

    Both of these New Testament texts attribute authorship to Moses of this prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:15-16

    “15 The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet[d] like me from among your own people; you shall heed such a prophet.[e] 16 This is what you requested of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said: ‘If I hear the voice of the Lord my God any more, or ever again see this great fire, I will die.”

    Also, please don’t curse me for just reporting what most Universities teach and that is the Pentateuch is the product of an long oral tradition. I am NOT the one who came up with this idea.

  116. I’m not cursing you. Maybe I was mistaken. But I was taught that Moses is lesser than Jesus Christ and pointed the way to him, since he himself was not divine but Jesus supposedly was. And Jesus in turn, stamped his seal of approval on all the supposed sayings of Moses (though I personally doubt Moses ever actually existed). Again, you have to remember, I was raised fundamentalist and lived, breathed, and slept in that system. So it’s all I know. It was all magic for us, and we were supposed to toe the line 100%. Nowadays, of course, I think the Torah is a long oral tradition and I think scholarship has debunked most of what I held to as a fundamentalist. But I can understand the way fundamentalists approach these things.

  117. Paul said the most important thing was to Cleave to the Lord in 1 Corinthians 6:16-17 which immediately precedes the text you quote. Clearly Paul taught the community or the Body of Christ was far more important than heterosexual marriage.

  118. I guess where I disagree with this interpretation of Matthew 19 is that the nature of marriage wasn’t the question. The issue Jesus addressed was divorce. He isn’t even necessarily saying that marriage should be “One man and one woman” either. He isn’t even necessarily saying it isn’t legitimate for a person to Cleave to someone of the same gender because Ruth “cleaved” Naomi in Ruth 1:14. What Fundamentalists don’t do is for instance to take a topic and find every Biblical reference to that topic. When you do that, you find that the Bible is “univocal” on VERY few topics. Even the afterlife. In many OT texts. death separates persons from God. It was a late development to believe in an afterlife where we would actually be closer to God. Maybe if you take the Bible completely out of context, Fundamentalism may seem to be “Biblical” but taking the Bible as a whole in historical context will call many of their beliefs into question.

  119. I thought I was responding to Sandi when I used the word curse, sorry.

  120. I think you’re right, reading over what you wrote. I left Fundamentalism all at once, never really exploring other options. But I think it’s pretty difficult to escape what Genesis says, where God made them male and female and specifies exactly what the God of Genesis thinks marriage is, one male and one female (having them not actually be related to each other was a later innovation, and I am not sure that has reached everywhere, yet, LOL!). Genesis 2:24 though could be Adam speaking under God’s authority, I guess. This seems to be the way it’s defined in the earliest part of the Scriptures, and I honestly don’t see a way around it currently. In the case of Ruth and Naomi, they were not directly related, but one was daughter in law to the other and there is no context of a romantic or sexual relationship there that I have ever seen (I think a better case could be made for David and Jonathan, and I am not sure I buy that one either, with so little evidence in the text that that must be what their relationship was, but it could be I suppose). Back to the original passage of the discussion, yes, Jesus primarily focused on divorce, but in order to have legitimate divorce you have to have legitimate marriage to start with, and Genesis defines what is legitimate, and by definition excludes all other possibilities (if you believe in inerrancy and an omniscient God and hold to the fundamentalist doctrine, I suppose).

  121. The Hebrew word for “cleave” is dabaq. This exact same word is used in both Genesis 2:24 and Ruth 1:14. The Hebrew dictionary says it has a similar meaning in both usages. So Ruth cleaved to Naomi as a man would cleave to his wife. Dabaq also means cling, be joined, be glued to.

  122. Well, that’s interesting. But there is still no evidence of a lesbian relationship between the two, and in fact, Naomi sought ought a husband (a near kinsman) for Ruth. I think the Bible uses these as metaphors for the depth of a relationship, not necessarily to insinuate romantic interaction or what have you. But then again, I am not a Bible scholar, but the passage itself doesn’t lend to a romantic interpretation there, so it seems a bit of a stretch to interpret it that way.

  123. You know, I just realized something. I look at everything in the Bible with a fundamentalist lens, even still. It’s like I never knew about the two different Creation stories which were edited together into Genesis apparently from different traditions. Are there romantic traditions with Ruth and Naomi here that are other than the fundamentalist view that I held? That sounds fascinating, actually.

  124. keep trying to convince yourself, Daniel. You only hurt yourself, as the truth is plain to see.

  125. Try reading 1 Corinthians 6:16-18. How does Paul say heterosexual marriage is more important than Cleaving to the Lord, which means Christ and the community?

  126. She sought out a kinsman to bear a child out of love for Naomi. It was a Levirate marriage to Boaz, just for reproduction, not for love. There may not have been sex between Ruth and Naomi, but there was a very deep love.

  127. Thank you, but I’m most sorry for them. They were victims of a big lie. George, laying in his deathbed, painfully gasping for each breath, accepted the Lord and passed on to peace. He was my brother in law.

  128. If he committed to the Lord, then he would be with the Lord now, and no need to feel badly for him – there is no better place to be.

  129. It would seem that way, but only if you read here, and not what is going on in the Methodist church. That’s why there is a threat of a schism, not because of mythical atheists.

  130. Or take Ben. Knew he was gay when he was three. Was never molested. Came from a very dysfunctional family. Learned how to love and be loved anyway. Lived a very successful life as an openly gay man, has a pile of friends, a husband that he’s been with for 15 years, a terrific family of inlaws that loves and values their relationship, and is considered by all and sundry a good, kind person with integrity. Has no known venereal diseases, and at 67 still runs 6 minutes miles.

    So what exactly was your point?

  131. Or he told you he did so that he could die in peace.

  132. John 5:46-47 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

    By saying “his” writings, he certainly seems to attribute authorship to Moses.

    Acts 3:22 Moses said, ‘The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from among your own people. Listen carefully to everything he tells you.’
    Likewise here, it attributes authorship to Moses.

    This Acts text clearly states Moses said, not Jesus said.

    Both of these New Testament texts attribute authorship to Moses of this prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:15-16

    “15 The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet[d] like me from among your own people; you shall heed such a prophet.[e] 16 This is what you requested of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said: ‘If I hear the voice of the Lord my God any more, or ever again see this great fire, I will die.”

    Also, please don’t curse me for just reporting what most Universities teach and that is the Pentateuch is the product of an long oral tradition. I am NOT the one who came up with this idea.

  133. Thank you Ben, I’m well aware of the schism in the Methodist church. I used to be an Episcopalian. And you are correct to point out the myth of atheism. Joseph Stalin’s daughter reported that in his last moments, he angrily raised and shook his fist in the air. Perhaps a final act of defiance to the One he had denied

  134. Ben has been most fortunate. Sometimes we dodge the bullet, sometimes we are the bullet.

  135. Byroniac, You certainly have posted a lot about Him for someone who is fed up with Him. Tell me: whom do you prefer to be wrong?

  136. Leviticus 18: 1And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2“Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the LORD your God. 3You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes. 4You shall follow my rulesa and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the LORD your God.”

  137. And sometimes, people seem to need to believe that the bullets of their imaginations are real. There aren’t bullets. There’s just life.

  138. Byroniac, Try Josh Macdowell’s (spelling unverifiable) book of about 20 years ago, “Evidence That Demands A Verdict” and then get back to me. Perhaps a library near you has a copy.

  139. I have the book on Kindle, I think. I recommend you look at the “infidel” reviews of this that are out there. There are a lot of good resources on this at infidels dot org.

  140. The person that infected my brother in law knew he had AIDS beforehand, and chose to become a “bullet” Fortune is in the eye of the beholder. Have a nice life.

  141. I know you don’t like long posts, so it would behoove you not to write things that require some depth to point out your errors. It was thoroughly debunked, and even Regnerus admits it doesn’t prove the conclusions people like you have made for it.

    In a new interview with Focus on the Family — a group invested in continuing to cite the study to oppose LGBT equality — Regnerus admits that the foundation of his study is too weak to draw the conclusions that many have made

    https://thinkprogress.org/mark-regnerus-admits-his-family-structures-study-wasn-t-about-gay-parenting-554420fd83ea

    out of his much-ballyhooed sample size of 3,000, Regnerus was unable to find a valid sample of kids who were actually reared by same-sex parents. Instead, all but two—yes, two—came from households originally led by a different-sex couple, usually the kids’ biological parents, that had suffered a family break-up, the one variable that’s most clearly known to raise risks for children. Since the kids in his data set who come from households with what he calls a “gay” or “lesbian” parent nearly all come from broken homes, his conclusions merely restated what everyone already knew: that instability raises risks for kids. But since Regnerus refers to these subjects as “children of same-sex parents,” which he didn’t actually examine, his study is nothing short of dishonest.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/04/mark_regnerus_testifies_in_michigan_same_sex_marriage_case_his_study_is.html

    The journal that published it retracted it, and the school he taught for won’t support it, because it did not prove what he said it did. Regenurus finally admitted it doesn’t say what the Alliance Defending Freedom says it does, as the populations were not comparable. Not one set of scientists has been able to peer review his work and get the same results.

    It was thrown out by the Supreme court as an Amicus Brief because it’s methodology was not capable to producing an answer to the hypothesis presented. In layman’s term’s, debunked.

    In may well be that gay people make better parents: “Why Gay Parents May Be the Best Parents”

    In a study of nearly 90 teens, half living with female same-sex couples and the others with heterosexual couples, both groups fared similarly in school. Teen boys in same-sex households had grade point averages of about 2.9, compared with 2.65 for their counterparts in heterosexual homes. Teen girls showed similar results, with a 2.8 for same-sex households and 2.9 for girls in heterosexual families.

    In another study, teens were asked about delinquent activities, such as damaging others’ property, shoplifting and getting into fights, in the previous year. Teens in both same-sex and heterosexual households got essentially the same average scores of about 1.8 on a scale from 1 to 10 (with higher scores meaning more delinquent behaviors).

    A 2008 study comparing 78 lesbian families in the United States with their counterparts (lesbian households) in the Netherlands, showed American kids were more than twice as likely as the Dutch to be teased about their mothers’ sexual orientation.

    http://www.livescience.com/6073-children-raised-lesbians-fine-studies-show.html

  142. Sorry about your brother in law. I had a lot of good friends and dear people die back in the day.

  143. Byroniac, Read the book, maybe at a library. Then get back to me/us.

  144. How is it the case the Gay persons are uniquely guilty of the sins listed here? So you are saying that gay people can never manifest the fruits of the Spirit, such as “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness and self control” in Galatians 5:22? OR are the fruits of the Spirit really the fruits of being Heterosexual and that Heterosexuals are never guilty of unbridled lust and murders, but only gay people are? Paul never said that some groups of people are more uniquely sinful than other groups. It is true that being self righteous, that is being convinced of your righteousness as opposed to other people’s is a sin that Christ condemned.

  145. No, thanks. I’ve already read the rebuttals. I think I read the book a long time ago. Not interested, currently. The rebuttals are better.

  146. You implied that all these sins are always the end result of being gay.

  147. Thanks, but I cited more than Regenurus.
    Secondly, they are from liberal websites, and I believe the truth is found in the middle – not on the left. Thanks though Daulphin.

  148. Not liberal, Sandi, they just don’t agree with you.

  149. I’m not sure about that Daulphin, but I appreciate the effort you put forth.

  150. This is an e-mail that I sent to Bishop Oliveto with no response:

    Dear Bishop Oliveto,

    The Holy Spirit has placed it on my heart to send you this e-mail.

    I live in Mississippi and, until recently, have been involved in my local United Methodist Church with great joy in my heart. Through much pain and heartbreak, I have come to realize that God is the centerpiece of all that is righteous and good in the world. Serving God through UMC has been the greatest satisfaction to my life. We are a small church and on any given Sunday may have as many as 120 people in attendance. Like most believers, I try to live as a light in the darkness of this crazy and ever changing world, but recently I discovered that the UMC had elected the first openly gay bishop, and I have once again become lost to His word.

    Please don’t think that I am judging you or any other person who doesn’t fit my beliefs, but part of my transformation has been to live according to the Word of God that He has given to us all. The bible is very clear about God’s view of sexuality as it relates to sin; see Romans 1: 26 & 27. I have, and continue to sin against God, but I repent, and through God’s grace, I know that He will forgive me and help me to stand strong to His teachings. For me, this is where the rubber meets the road. I was the finance chairman for my local UMC and I understand how apportionments work. Even though my tithes and offerings are very small in comparison to many, I have the painful understanding that a portion of this money goes to pay the bishop’s salaries for the UMC. With all due respect, I have four questions to ask you:

    1. Do you believe that the Bible does not pertain to your situation of sexuality? And if not, why?
    2. Why do you think that it is acceptable for you to ignore the UMC doctrine and book of discipline on human sexuality and the election of our bishops?
    3. Do you not care about people like myself who desire to live according to God’s unchanging Word? See Revelation 22:18-19, Proverbs 30:5-6, Mathew 24:24, Deuteronomy 2:2, 12:32 and 13:1-10, Galatians 1:6-9, and Timothy 3:16, to name a few.
    4. Are you aware that your acceptance of Bishop within the UMC is tearing our denomination apart? Do you think this is what God wants from you? Do you think that God will forgive you for giving false teachings about his Word?

    Again, please accept this e-mail as a letter of love and compassion to all who are effected by your acceptance of the honored role of bishop within the UMC. I can no longer attend my local UMC because of my love for Christ and his Word. My reason is because I am terrified that I will be judged by God for the same things that I fear He will judge you. I pray for UMC often and I don’t understand how this could have happened. I have read your profile on line and you speak of love and community, but you have changed the meaning of the Bible to meet your own desires and you have put the souls of many people in jeopardy of judgment by God for something they don’t understand.

    I am sure that there is nothing that I am telling you that you haven’t already heard and considered, but as a child of God, I felt compelled to give you conviction to your actions. Please forgive my candor to this e-mail but I would like to know your thoughts to my questions.

    IN HIS NAME,

    Don

  151. With all respect….

    Maybe the election of Ms. Oliveto is god trying to tell you something that you simply don’t wish to hear.

  152. Where is your scripture asserting such Daniel. You are telling stories again.

  153. That is what the text states or at least implies. You must not know anything about Levirate marriage. These marriages were not based on love, but rather for the purpose of continuing a blood line. Read Deuteronomy 25:5 as well as Genesis 38 about Judah and Tamar.

  154. “Implies” – what you are reading into it, yes. You are making up stories again.

  155. Everybody agrees the story is about Levirate marriage.

  156. Ruth was a Moabite and she was not a lesbian.

  157. Ruth 1:14 – 14 Then they lifted up their voices and wept again. And Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her.”
    So, in your imagination, all three women were weeping together and Orpah kissed her mother in law while Ruth was having sex with her. Gosh, are you getting desperate Daniel!
    Then Ruth runs off to have sex for a levitical marriage to have a child for her female lover. It was a levitical marriage for Ruth, but not to have a child for her female lover. (although it worked out that way, that she had a child) It was so she and Naomi were taken care of, in a culture where women didn’t work.
    Also, are you that reprobate that you think Christ would bring the line of David, thus producing Him in the flesh, that He would utilize a lesbian relationship when He condemned those relationships for death. Again, you call God a liar.
    Daniel, with his lies and half truths! (edited)

  158. Ruth was a Moabite. In your lust for immorality with the two daughters in bed with Naomi, you left this out. So, were all three of them lovers Daniel? Hmmmm…..your home written bible gets worse and worse. See my comment below.

  159. So “cleaving” as you stated above: “The Hebrew word for “cleave” is dabaq. This exact same word is used in both Genesis 2:24 and Ruth 1:14. The Hebrew dictionary says it has a similar meaning in both usages. So Ruth cleaved to Naomi as a man would cleave to his wife. Dabaq also means cling, be joined, be glued to.”
    So you are now asserting that Paul wants us to have sex with the Lord, Daniel? Is this what the bible you are writing says.
    Or, have you contradicted your earlier comment on cleaving?

  160. ” Paul certainly doesn’t praise heterosexual marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, either. ”

    1 Corinthians 7: 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.
    That goes along with Christ’s one man one woman, Daniel. Also, how does it denigrate heterosexual marriage. You are making things up again Daniel.

  161. Further along, you state: “Try reading 1 Corinthians 6:16-18. How does Paul say heterosexual marriage is more important than Cleaving to the Lord, which means Christ and the community?” So which is it? Are you now trying to assert we will be having sex with the Lord, or could you just be wrong in your “interpretation”?

  162. You seem to say that Heterosexual marriage is THE most important measure of whether a relationship is right or wrong. The Bible is clear and consistent throughout that whether our relationships lead us into idolatry or not is a far higher consideration. Even monogamous Heterosexual marriages are not acceptable if they become idolatrous (1 Kings 16:31). I wasn’t talking about sex with the Lord, but that our relationships should build us up in the Lord which means Christ and the community and that gay relationships are capable of doing this.

  163. I quote you because you change your comments after I have commented to you aside from lying about what I have said.
    “You seem to say that Heterosexual marriage is THE most important measure of whether a relationship is right or wrong.”
    Heterosexuality is “normal”. Homosexuality is called, “unnatural”, “contrary to nature”, “shameless acts” in Romans 1.
    Idolatry will keep one out of the Kingdom of Heaven:Revelation 21:8 ESV
    But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
    Revelation 22: 14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.

    ” I wasn’t talking about sex with the Lord, but that our relationships should build us up in the Lord which means Christ and the community and that gay relationships are capable of doing this.” Then you contradict yourself, again, making up a bible, as you go along.

  164. But Romans 1 is talking about idolatry combined with homosexual behavior- according to the model I described, of course it wouldn’t be acceptable. Heterosexual marriage when mixed with idol worship is every bit condemned, even deserving of death. Read Deuteronomy 13:6-9.

  165. The universal basis of rejecting homosexuality is the so called heterosexual norm. The book of Revelation has a lot to with not engaging in the idolatrous worship of the Roman emperor and It uses many sexual metaphors for this idol worship. It condemns idolatrous heterosexual relationships in 14:4- saying they are “polluting.”

  166. No. Homosexuality is idolatry because they chose an idol over God, who said that homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality is a sin in itself, and because it involves idolatry.
    Romans 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
    24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.”
    He turned homosexuals over to a reprobate mind to do that which is not good because they chose an idol that condones their filth, over God who condemns it.
    1 Corinthians 7: 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. (Sexual immorality being homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, etc.)
    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.

    I showed you where Christ told Moses to say this to the people, Daniel. Leviticus 18:1
    Christ condemned homosexuality as idolatry in Romans 1 (edit)

  167. Paul isn’t talking about ALL gay people. For instance, there are passages in the NT which blame the Jews for killing Jesus. Would this then mean that all Jews in every time period are guilty of killing Jesus? Ezekiel 18 speaks of each person of being responsible for their own sin. This rejects the notion of collective guilt.

  168. “The universal basis of rejecting homosexuality is the so called heterosexual norm.” No, the rejection of homosexuality is because Christ taught that it was a sin worthy of death.

    ” The book of Revelation has a lot to with not engaging in the idolatrous worship of the Roman emperor and It uses many sexual metaphors for this idol worship. It condemns idolatrous heterosexual relationships in 14:4- saying they are “polluting.”
    Really?
    Christ is talking about the New Heaven and the New Earth and who will come into it, so I would say that you are stretching again in your assertion with these scripture. Aside from idolatry, He mentions sexual immorality, liars….etc…..
    Revelation 21:21 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”
    5 And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” 6 And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. 7 The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
    It is substantiated by the following….
    Revelation 22 Jesus Is Coming
    6 And he said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place.”
    7 “And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.”
    8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, 9 but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.”
    10 And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. 11 Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.”
    12 “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
    14 Blessed are those who wash their robes,[c] so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. 15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.”

    There won’t be any roman emperors to idolize there, Daniel.

  169. Oh I see….Christ condemns homosexuality for some, but not for others? Where does it say that in Leviticus?
    I also have seen nothing about Christ sending angels to Sodom and Gomorrah to get the lesbians out.
    Where is your scripture Daniel? (edited)

  170. So, they’re wrong. I showed you how you are wrong. Shall we go back to Naomi, Ruth, and the other daughter-in-law – that filth you are asserting?

  171. The point is that you say ALL gay people are idol worshipers, murderers, child molestors, thieves, liars, etc. It is like saying ALL black people are thieves or ALL Jews are Christ killers. Paul stated that the idol worship was exchanging the worship of the Creator for the creature. He didn’t say that their homosexuality WAS the idol worship.

  172. You never once provided any scintilla of evidence that I was wrong in my understanding of texts. The only thing you did was just say I was wrong.

  173. In your hopes Daniel. You forget very quickly.

  174. And, now the lies start, eh? “The point is that you say ALL gay people are idol worshipers, murderers, child molestors, thieves, liars, etc. ” When you cannot overcome scripture you resort to this.
    Paul taught that homosexuals choose an idol over the living God because God does not allow their sin, but their idol does.
    Romans 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
    24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

  175. OK, prove that DABAQ or cleave or cling is not used in both Genesis 2:24 and Ruth 1:14 and/or that Ruth’s vow to Naomi in verses 16 and 17 of chapter 1 is NEVER used in marriage ceremonies. Your usual argument is that I am wrong, but you don’t document that this word is not used in both cases.

  176. I don’t need to prove anything more. I showed you your error.

  177. How did you show me my error?

  178. Read what I said and learn.

  179. Your exact statement is “So, they’re wrong. I showed you how you are wrong.” Just saying I am wrong is not proving that I am wrong.

  180. Then read what I said. You are only lost because you refuse to learn. I’m not going to type it out for you again. Read what I wrote to you.

  181. You said nothing to show that DABAQ is not used in both texts. You provided no evidence that Ruth’s vow to Naomi is not used in marriage ceremonies.

  182. Read what I wrote Daniel….how many times do I need to repeat that for you? And, you are trying to change the subject. (edited)

  183. And Daniel tries to change the subject again……same old stuff, yawn.

  184. So are you saying THIS PROVES your point? So, in your imagination, all three women were weeping together and Orpah kissed her mother in law while Ruth was having sex with her. Gosh, are you getting desperate Daniel!
    Then Ruth runs off to have sex for a levitical marriage to have a child for her female lover. It was a levitical marriage for Ruth, but not to have a child for her female lover. (although it worked out that way, that she had a child) It was so she and Naomi were taken care of, in a culture where women didn’t work.
    Also, are you that reprobate that you think Christ would bring the line of David, thus producing Him in the flesh, that He would utilize a lesbian relationship when He condemned those relationships for death. Again, you call God a liar.
    Daniel, with his lies and half truths!

    And anyway, I DID say they didn’t necessarily have sex with each other, but the LOVE part of a marriage relationship was there. There may not have been any lust between them whatsoever. However, homosexuality is NOT all about lust, it is about Love.

  185. “I DID say they didn’t necessarily have sex with each other,” So you still try to keep them lesbian, eh?
    That wasn’t the comment that I was referring to but thank you for adding that, as it makes my assertions even clearer.
    Don’t change the subject.
    Now, please read where you were wrong. It’s on this thread.

  186. You didn’t read my comment properly Daniel. Read it again and look for where you contradict yourself.

  187. I don’t change the subject. The fact remains is that the same Hebrew word for CLEAVE is used in both Genesis 2:24 and Ruth 1:14. ALSO, one thing a spouse would do for the love of a spouse is to bear a child for them. Ruth 4:15 states that Ruth loved Naomi and that this was connected to providing a child for Naomi. The text never states that Ruth LOVED Boaz.

  188. I didn’t contradict myself. I stated to Byron that they didn’t necessarily have sex. I stated that before.

  189. And yet, you contradict yourself further down the thread. Ruth and Naomi were mother and daughter in law. You don’t need to make their relationship filthy, and have no scripture supporting it. Where in verse 14 does it state that she wanted to have a child for Naomi? How are you coming up with that filth, from a simple scripture about women crying?
    Ruth 1:14 -14 Then they lifted up their voices and wept again. And Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her.
    lol…..and what does Ruth loving Boaz have to do with any of this?

  190. Yet, you’ve put them in a sexual position with a third person there kissing Naomi. Contradicting yourself again, Daniel?

  191. That is NOT changing the subject, because that is the KEY word used. You are trying to avoid the key word, because of your hatred of homosexuality. AND, remember that Levirate relationships WERE between in laws, so the love between Ruth and Naomi was related to being Levirate. Remember Judah did his Levirate duty with his daughter in law Tamar in Genesis 38. That was IN LAWS.
    And, this is what I stated to Byron before, “She sought out a kinsman to bear a child out of love for Naomi. It was a Levirate marriage to Boaz, just for reproduction, not for love. There may not have been sex between Ruth and Naomi, but there was a very deep love.”

  192. You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that.

  193. Now the love between Naomi and Ruth is of the Levites? You’re blaming them for your inconsistencies now?
    We are discussing DABAQ if you need to be reminded. Don’t try to change the subject please.

  194. Yes you did. ” So Ruth cleaved to Naomi as a man would cleave to his wife. Dabaq also means cling, be joined, be glued to.” You intimated a threesome between Naomi, Ruth and the other daughter in law.
    Read what you said. You stated somewhere that Ruth and Naomi’s love was Levitical, with no scripture reference. lol “AND, remember that Levirate relationships WERE between in laws, so the love between Ruth and Naomi was related to being Levirate.” Where in scripture does it allow for a lesbian relationship between a mother in law and daughter in law?

  195. You said talking about Dabaq WAS changing the subject. But now you agree we are talking about that word. Of course, it is just conjecture on my part that they had a Levirate type of relationship because these relationships involve the care of widows- perhaps it was a different kind of Levirate relationship where there wasn’t necessarily sex, but there certainly was love. However, the relationship with Boaz was certainly Levirate, but not based on Love, but rather for reproduction. The Hebrew dictionary states that DABAQ in Ruth 1:14 is used in a similar way to Genesis 2:24 where the meaning is “loyalty, affection with idea of physical proximity maintained.” This word can be used in different ways, such as in Job 19:20 where Job states that his bones cleave to his skin (remember the word can also mean “glue”), but the usage is the same in Ruth 1:14 and Genesis 2:24.

  196. Ok Daniel, you need your Bible….

    ” The Hebrew dictionary states that DABAQ in Ruth 1:14 is used in a similar way to Genesis 2:24 where the meaning is “loyalty, affection with idea of physical proximity maintained.”
    You also stated: “The Hebrew word for “cleave” is dabaq. This exact same word is used in both Genesis 2:24 and Ruth 1:14. The Hebrew dictionary says it has a similar meaning in both usages. So Ruth cleaved to Naomi as a man would cleave to his wife. Dabaq also means cling, be joined, be glued to.” Intimating a husband/wife caress, or sex, and then re-wrote it for the above quote. Well, which is it?
    You stress it is an intimate relationship between them and then back away from your assertions.
    Where is your scripture?

    “And, this is what I stated to Byron before, “She sought out a kinsman to bear a child out of love for Naomi. It was a Levirate marriage to Boaz, just for reproduction, not for love. ” Again, you assert “Levitical” and then run away from that when questioned. Where is your scripture?

    “She sought out a kinsman to bear a child out of love for Naomi. It was a Levirate marriage to Boaz, just for reproduction, not for love. There may not have been sex between Ruth and Naomi, but there was a very deep love.”
    Where is your scripture supporting your comment?

    “The Hebrew dictionary says it has a similar meaning in both usages. So Ruth cleaved to Naomi as a man would cleave to his wife. Dabaq also means cling, be joined, be glued to.” That is what we were discussing with DABAQ. Yet you tried to change it into something about marriage ceremonies. Where is your scripture for that?

    ” Of course, it is just conjecture on my part that they had a Levirate type of relationship because these relationships involve the care of widows- perhaps it was a different kind of Levirate relationship where there wasn’t necessarily sex, but there certainly was love. However, the relationship with Boaz was certainly Levirate, but not based on Love, but rather for reproduction” Where does the Law state that a lesbian relationship is necessary or properfor widows? You’ve asserted that they are lesbian and that is ok under law. Where does it state such? What is your scripture/
    You have asserted that Boaz was not a love relationship….where is your scripture supporting this? Where is your scripture that he agreed to impregnate Ruth for her mother in law?
    Again, where is your scripture?

    ” AND, remember that Levirate relationships WERE between in laws, so the love between Ruth and Naomi was related to being Levirate. Remember Judah did his Levirate duty with his daughter in law Tamar in Genesis 38. That was IN LAWS.
    Where does scripture state that a lesbian relationship is proper for mothers and daughters in law? Where is your scripture?
    Where is your scripture that the sin that occurred between Judah and Tamar is appropriate for widows and daughters in law?

    Now, let’s look below unless you’ve changed the comments….

    Where does it say in Leviticus that Christ condemns homosexuality for some, but not others?
    You’ve asserted in the past that lesbians are exempt from the Levitical prohibitions….Where in scripture does the Lord send anyone to get the lesbians out of Sodom and Gomorrah? Where is your scripture?

    There will be no Roman Emperors in the New Heaven and Earth, so why would Christ be concerned about them when He refers to persons committing idolatry not getting into the New Heaven and Earth that He is bringing here?. Where does scripture state this?

    In Ruth 1:14 – you assert that Ruth and Naomi are cleaving like a married couple with the other daughter in law there…..Where is your scripture?
    If that is so and that is the definition of “cleaving” as you assert, where is your scripture that we are going to cleave sexually to Christ? You stated: “Try reading 1 Corinthians 6:16-18. How does Paul say heterosexual marriage is more important than Cleaving to the Lord, which means Christ and the community?” Where is your scripture that we will be cleaving sexually with the Lord?

    “”I DID say they didn’t necessarily have sex with each other,” So you still try to keep them lesbian, eh?” Where in scripture does it say that Naomi and Ruth are lesbians?

    “Paul isn’t talking about ALL gay people.” Where does he make a distinction. Please, show me the scripture.

    I haven’t gone through my comments to see the other questions you always fail to answer.

    These are a few of the questions you need to check on, just from our short conversation this afternoon. What Bible do you read?

  197. The text doesn’t explicitly say they had sex, but it certainly said that they had love. However, Dabaq in Genesis 2:24 DOES imply sex, since it states a man will Dabaq INTO his wife. One aspect of this is that too many people think that homosexuality is ALL about sex acts. It is mainly about who a person falls in love with. Revelation IS about Emperor worship. That is what worshipping “The beast and his image” is all about. The new heaven and earth would come after Rome was overthrown. It was written at a time in which Christians were required to worship the emperor and Christians had to hold strong ground against doing this. Perhaps you think Revelation is speaking about present day events? Notice I said “perhaps” which would mean it might not be the case.

  198. Then why are you asserting they are engaging in immorality? Where is your scripture, or stop misleading people.
    Christ was discussing the New Heaven and the New Earth at that point, so, please don’t try to mislead anyone there either.
    Where is your scripture?
    So far, all I’ve seen are more attempts on your part to mislead innocent people, Daniel. You will stand before the Lord one day.
    (edit)
    The new heaven and earth would come after Rome was overthrown.” Daniel, are you on medication?

  199. I think I have addressed most of your questions previously. Marriage ceremonies are connected to Ruth’s vow of loyalty to Naomi in 1:16-17. Paul stated we ALL sin, so why he say homosexual persons are intrinsically more evil as people than are Heterosexual persons? You forgot that I mentioned Ezekiel 18 which rejects the idea of collective guilt.

  200. The text uses the same word with a very similar meaning in Ruth 1:14 as in Genesis 2:24. So you asserting that falling in love with someone of the same gender is evil?

  201. Yet, you submit no scripture, even after being asked several times – indicating that you are not being honest, or truthful – a fraud or imposter who does not follow Christ.
    You again, are trying to divert from the topic rather than clearing it up.

  202. Again, Daniel, where is your scripture?

  203. Where is your scripture asserting they were engaged in immorality?

  204. Daniel, are you so far from the truth of Christ that you cannot recognize His promises? Are you that lost? Those are things to come – promised by Jesus – things that will happen.

  205. I have already provided considerable evidence which you discounted.

  206. You have provided no scripture. This is not a time to lie. Where is your scripture? (edit) You make a lot of assumptions with no scripture to back them.

  207. You sure demonstrated the fruits of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self control- Galatians 5:22) in what you just said. Of course, you don’t display any of the works of the flesh listed in 5:22 such as hatred (echthra) or wrath (thymos).

  208. You cannot support your assertions with scripture and now blame me? lol If you cannot support with scripture, who but a deceiver would assert the points are Biblical? Where is your scripture?
    Daniel, one can say they are a mathematician but if you don’t use mathematics to prove your assertions, you make yourself a liar. Same with the Bible. (edit)

  209. You forgot I documented what Dabaq meant in Ruth 1:14 and you discounted the link I provided to back this up? You also discounted what my Hebrew dictionary stated. And, is Revelation ALL about homosexuality?

  210. The evidence of Christianity is about scripture, Daniel. Where is your scripture?

Leave a Comment