Britain’s first Anglican same-sex marriage celebrated in a Scottish church

St. John’s Episcopal Church in Edinburgh, Scotland. Photo courtesy of Creative Commons/Jan Brünemann

LONDON (RNS) — The first gay marriage in an Anglican church in Britain took place this week, a day after Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby described the continuing squabbles over same-sex marriage in the worldwide Anglican Communion as “intractable.”

The Rev. Markus Dünzkofer of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Edinburgh, Scotland.

The gay couple, known as “Mark and Rick,” had their order of service posted on Facebook, which told people that they were married on Tuesday (Aug. 1) at a service that included the Eucharist at St. John’s Episcopal Church in the center of Edinburgh. The Rev. Markus Dünzkofer, rector of St. John’s, a church of the Scottish Episcopal Church, which is part of the Anglican Communion, officiated.

The wedding was “a small intimate occasion,” said Dünzkofer. The couple, he said, were Americans with Scottish connections who had been together 24 years.

“This was not some pretty, fancy occasion,” he said. “They wanted a religious ceremony and they wanted it to be a nuptial Mass.”

In June, the Scottish Episcopal Church, which is part of the Anglican Communion, announced that it was allowing gay weddings after its synod voted to amend its canon law on marriage. The change was made when the synod agreed the law stating that marriage was between one man and one woman should be removed.

Anglican national churches in Brazil, South Africa, South India, New Zealand and Canada have taken steps toward approving and celebrating same-sex relationships amid strong resistance among other national churches within the 80 million-member global body. The Episcopal Church in the U.S. has allowed gay marriage since 2015.

The Scottish vote sparked a backlash from traditionalists in the Global Anglican Future Conference, or GAFCON. The group responded by announcing it had appointed a missionary bishop to Scotland to offer alternative leadership for traditionalist Anglicans opposed to the synod’s decision.

Welby, speaking to the BBC from Africa where he has been traveling, was asked if the Anglican Communion’s rift over homosexuality might worsen, given that the communion’s center of growth is on that continent, where traditional views on marriage hold sway.

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, after his enthronement ceremony at Canterbury Cathedral, in Canterbury, southern England, on March 21, 2013. Photo by Luke MacGregor/Reuters

The archbishop answered: “It’s an intractable problem. This is more complex than having a binary approach. There is not an easy fix, but the primates (of the Anglican Communion) have said that they will work together.”

But the situation in Scotland will make the archbishop of Canterbury’s task in keeping the Anglican Communion together much more difficult.

Since the vote in June, at least nine Scottish Episcopal Church clergy have registered to officiate at same-sex weddings. The first to sign up was the Rev. Kelvin Holdsworth, the provost of St Mary’s Cathedral in Glasgow.

Holdsworth, a leading figure in the Changing Attitude Scotland campaign, said that people in Scotland have changed their minds on gay marriage and now support it.

“The congregation has been hugely supportive. There were loud cheers in church when I announced that bookings for weddings were now open to all couples, when I received permission to do this a couple of weeks ago,” Holdsworth said. “Several members of the congregation were wearing badges saying, ‘The Archbishop of Canterbury has no jurisdiction in this realm of Scotland.’”

St. John’s Church in Edinburgh first announced that it would offer the rite of marriage beginning in July. Dünzkofer said that there had been dialogue throughout the Scottish Episcopal Church about human sexuality and same-sex marriage.

St. John’s Episcopal Church, left, in Edinburgh, Scotland, with Edinburgh Caste in the background. Photo courtesy of Creative Commons/The Rev. Lawrence Lew

“It has been easier than in the Church of England,” he said. “We are a smaller church, we are not the established church and there is less of an evangelical voice. But we heard different perspectives and heard very different voices.”

Dünzkofer estimated about 80 percent of his congregation approved the change in doctrine. St John’s website reflects these varying opinions, with an apology “for the deep pain” the church caused to LGBTQ people and their families. “(W)e asked for forgiveness for our resistance to proclaiming the love of God more courageously. We have failed.”

But it also says that it “recognizes that the radical move by the Scottish Episcopal Church will be difficult for some people. We also have failed in loving more generously and embracing more compassionately those who disagree with recent developments in church and state. For this we are sorry, too.”

The proximity of Scotland to the Church of England will make the situation particularly difficult for Welby. Although they have only an estimated 100,000 members, the impact of gay weddings in its Scottish Episcopal churches will be significant, according to Simon Sarmiento, of the website, Thinking Anglicans.

“Gay Anglicans in England will be able to travel to Scotland to get married, putting more pressure on the Church of England,” he said.

Within the Church of England there are deeply divergent views on gays, and at the most recent General Synod, a bishops’ report advocating no change in the church’s stance on the blessing of gay partnerships or the conducting of gay marriages was narrowly rejected.

Since then a Pastoral Advisory Group has been set up and chaired by Bishop of Newcastle Christine Hardman to support and advise dioceses on pastoral approaches to human sexuality.

Holdsworth said Welby is wrong to say the problem is intractable and urged him to speak to gay people who want to help come up with solutions.

“If Justin Welby wants to hear from passionate Anglicans with lots of ideas about how to solve these troubles then one of the things he needs to do is to speak to the people concerned. LGBT people from around the communion would be willing to meet him to help find solutions,” Holdsworth said. “The last time an international meeting of LGBT activists was invited to meet with a senior leader from the Anglican Communion was in 2005.”

(Catherine Pepinster is a London-based correspondent)

About the author

Catherine Pepinster


Click here to post a comment

  • “Welby, speaking to the BBC from Africa where he has been traveling, was asked if the Anglican Communion’s rift over homosexuality might worsen, given that the communion’s center of growth is on that continent, where traditional views on marriage hold sway.”


    All one needs to do is google “Christian polygamy in Africa” and one will find out exactly how much traditional marriage means to Africa. Well it does, as long as it is heterosexuals who are doing the marrying.

    “It’s an intractable problem. This is more complex than having a binary approach. There is not an easy fix, but the primates (of the Anglican Communion) have said that they will work together.”

    The problem isn’t intractable. The problem is that the unity of the church is more important than those silly gay people. The problem is that the church has failed to actually take a position, preferring to dither. Rowan Williams wanted to be a wonderful person to gay people, and a wonderful person to those who are stuck in the 1500’s when it comes to gay people. Welby is no different.

    This is Welby a few years ago:

    “Were the Church of England to accept gay marriages, he commented, “the impact of that on Christians far from here, in South Sudan, Pakistan, Nigeria and other places would be absolutely catastrophic….” Nonetheless Welby condemned homophobia and said, “to treat every human being with equal importance and dignity is a fundamental part of being a Christian.”…He explained that the reasoning behind the massacre of Nigerian Christians was essentially, “If we leave a Christian community
    here we will all be made to become homosexual and so we’re going to kill the Christians.”

    And thus continues the intellectual, moral, political, and spiritual dithering and vapidity of the highly paid religious class. (Love your pointy hat and your turquoise and gold crozier, Justin. So Festive!) If we treat the people we have always despised in God’s name even remotely decently, why, there might be consequences for the people we actually think are far superior– our tribe, not theirs. “I’ll condemn the homohatred my church has been peddling for centuries, but I won’t accept the consequences that
    homohatred has visited upon the innocent members of our tribe. I’m not too concerned about the other innocent victims of centuries of homohatred– gay people.”

    And of course, there is also the tacit endorsement of stupidity, ignorance, superstition, tribalism, and a host of other ills that beset the dark continent– and western civilization, wherever religious fundamentalism sinks its fangs.

    Does that about cover it, mr. welby? Who exactly would be doing the killing of your tribe members? Oh, yes! Other religionists who worship a different version of your god. You people have been slaughtering each other for a thousand years– when each has taken the time out from slaughtering us.

    And is there not present in his comments just the slightest bit of blaming the REAL victims of church-exported homohatred? “Goshdarn those homosexuals. If they weren’t demanding an end to legalized bigotry, why everything would just be so much better for everyone!” It would be back to unicorns and rainbows for everyone, and Christians and muslims in third world hellholes would stop killing each other over who is actually god’s best friend forever.

    Thank god I’m an atheist.

  • Christ doesn’t offer Gay Marriage. Christ doesn’t offer lifetime enslavement to Gay-Self-Identity.

    Christ offers healing, deliverance, freedom, just like He did in the Bible days. You already know what He did to the homosexual Corinthians (1 Cor. 6:11). Nothing can withstand His astonishing power.

    He ain’t changed. He ain’t weak. He ain’t dead. He offers you a new, pure, supernatural life.

    “The temptations in your life are no different from what others experience. And God is faithful. He will not allow the temptation to be more than you can stand. When you are tempted, He will show you a way out so that you can endure.” (1 Cor. 10:13)

    It’s not too late. Jesus is all-powerful. He’ll re-write your entire book.

  • Looks like yet another Christian church doesn’t share your prejudices, though I’m sure there will be a few Scottish of your type who will be shocked! Shocked! Shocked! that gay people get treated like fully human beings and this nonsense about how God hates homosexuals almost as much as you do will finally go on the moral trash heap with the likes of prejudice against black people…

    If you get my drift.

  • It will be interesting to see how fast this church will decline. Another fake marriage takes place.

  • Rejoicing in the alleged misfortunes of others. How very Christian of you.
    How very you of you.

  • jesus is all powerful except to stop his holy men from raping our children.
    and your fat.

  • GOD does not love gays as ypu say if he did how does one explain what God did to the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah for GOD to say he loves them now would make GOD a liar. Know your bible before you open your mouth and spew out shit

  • The misfortune is that these church deny the truth and thus will many to leave their churches. That is a good thing.

  • So people being damned to hell and the further deconstruction of Christianity is a good thing to you, because everyone knows that a church is not a refuge for sinners but a museum for saints.

    How very you of you.

  • ” Know your bible before you open your mouth and spew out shit”

    Obviously, knowing your bible is what enables you to open your mouth and spew out shit.

  • Funny version of god you have there. We’re told god loves everyone, except for the people you don’t love.

    It’s almost as if Christianity means nothing when it comes from the mouth of someone like you.

  • “Christ doesn’t offer lifetime enslavement to Gay-Self-Identity.”
    Bible-thumping is the addiction and self-enslavement. You show us just how bad of one it is every time you start preaching hate and intolerance for LGBTQ. The actual Christ of the New Testament would never endorse your views, words or actions.

  • The only “fake” marriages are the ones that don’t last. That would include mine to the same woman for almost 4 decades. She was shocked that I would actually file for divorce after she moved out with the expectation that I would pay the bills and live on peanuts while she spent most of our joint incomes on her. But she was the churchy one between us. Blinders and Bible-thumping go hand in hand.

  • “But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Rom. 5:8

  • Well, your latter accusation is a new one, I hadn’t heard it before.

    (Most people seem to think the opposite, that I need more meat on my bones. “Eat, Eat!” the lady said to me.)

    But on a far more serious note, I know you’re angry about the priests’ sex abuse, You’ve apparently seen what that abuse does to a young person. You know a lotta kids were hurt. You’re angry at God over it.

    And now that anger has become your new Ruler, your new God. But what hope, what healing, does your new God offer you? What deliverance & renewal & wholeness, does your new Ruler give to the hurting and the abused?

  • I definitely see a split coming in the Anglican Communion, and it takes neither a psychic or a prophet to predict it (Note to Kangaroo52). It will follow the pattern that has already been established elsewhere in other faith communities. Biblically speaking, and with no disrespect to those who disagree, this will be a function of wheat from chaff, tares from wheat, sheep from goats, and etc.. I take pains to point out that each human is made in the express image of God and is worthy of being treated with dignity and compassion, but beyond that, the Church, any church, is not authorized to abrogate the clear command of scripture with respect to Christian marriage: Caesar may do as he likes.

  • Ben, his comment was not worthy of a response. I know this is just the sort of attitude that only reaffirms your unhappiness with those that call themselves Christian, even though “Peter” did not specifically declare himself to be one. We have our differences where common ground seems impossible, but I absolutely agree with you here.

  • The sin of Sodom was not homosexuality but inhospitality to strangers. We are never told what the sin of Gomorrah was, although it got destroyed along with the city of Sodom and the wife of Lot–maybe just careless collateral damage..

  • There is no question the Church needs to address the problem of polygamy in Africa, at least as far as “Christians” are concerned, this laxity, or accommodation to cultural practices not conversant with the Word of God is both an error and a transgression.

  • However correct you may be doctrinally, and accurate in your prediction, the way you are proclaiming it seems not to be done in the Spirit of Christ. While we are called to declare error in spiritual matters, we are also called to be gracious when doing so…Grace, kindness, and humility, without compromising basic biblical truths. This is an occasion for regret, that the Body of Christ is wracked with internal dissension. I commented earlier on wheat from chaff, sheep from goats, etc., but it brought me no joy to do so. In spiritual terms, I agree that Christ will not and does not recognize gay marriage, but declaring it “fake” in an ungracious manner does not advance His cause. Even the greatest of saints remains a sinner until translated by death to the kingdom of Heaven. We are called to win souls for Christ, attempting to do so in a flip manner will not achieve that end. There is no pleasure in this admonition, just concern for both a fellow brother in Christ, and to one, who though not a believer, I value as a friend.

  • As someone who has not embraced the Christian faith, you have put it most aptly for those of us who have.

  • In general, I’d agree with you. but it got at least one person thinking a little– you, in this case. But he wouldn’t bother mentioning Sodom unless he was a Christian– possibly jewish or muslim, but most likely Christian..
    My issue, Edward, as I have said many times before, is not faith itself, though I don’t share it. My issue is what people do with it, and how they try to hide behind it in order to justify what they could not justify by any other means,

  • Thank you, Edward.
    This is what Jesus would call righteous judgment, not JP’s self-righteous judgment.

  • Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is generally anal or oral sex between people or sexual activity between a person and a non-human animal (bestiality), but it may also mean any non-procreative sexual activity.[1][2][3] Originally, the term sodomy was derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Book of Genesis,[4] where it commonly referred to anal sex.[5][6] Sodomy laws in many countries criminalized these behaviors.[6][7] In the Western world, many of these laws have been overturned or are not routinely enforced.
    This was what the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah practiced to deny this is to deny the bible

  • He died for the sin of Adam and Eve which we all inherited from our first parents and baptism washes away that sin but it does not wash away our own personal guilt which we aquire through our own actions to do that one must get to confession and be truly sorry for the sins we ourselves commit and do our best to avoid them

  • GOD loves the righteous and the just now before you start noone is righteous or just by themselves but only by the grace of GOD. To be a Christian is to be Christ like as St Paul says. And to be Christ like is not to accept sin as something that is pure sin is sin as to make it something else or to justify it as somethong else is a lie

  • At least the “shit i spew out” does not contradict the bible and you cannot admit to that or you would be a liar

  • 1. To deny this is to deny the fairy tales of a book compiled orally by unknown peoples almost six thousand years ago and then passed down by what we now call the parlor game of “gossip” until it was written down in comparatively modern times as the authoritative Word of one god out of approximately 6000 known named gods. I do not deny that the Bible exists; indeed I have a copy in my library. It might interest you to know that the majority of people on this planet deny the authenticity and authority of your Bible. No one is required to believe what you believe merely because you believe it.
    2. Your definition of sodomy is a back formation; in other words, you have started with the assumption that non-procreative sex is sinful, then named that sin “sodomy,” and then defined the sin of the City of Sodom as sodomy/non-procreative sex. (Gomorrah may have escaped such ignominity merely by the awkwardness of “Gomorrahity.”) If I accepted your roundabout definition, I would have have to consider the sex between aged couples, the rhythm method of birth control, and the use of condoms as “sodomy” as well, which is why I do not accept your definition; nor do the laws of the United States.

  • All true. But it was love for us, in all of our hopeless sinfulness, that motivated Him to make the sacrifice necessary for our restoration in the first place. It is for love that He holds out His hands to everyone who is willing to repent and receive.

  • “how does one explain what God did to the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah”

    A very poor reading of those passages of the Bible. Ignoring commentary by Ezekiel and ignoring the importance the rule of hospitality in the ancient Mediterranean.

  • So what did Ezekiel say? Let’s look at chap. 16. (Italics mine)

    48 “As I live,” says the Lord God, “neither your sister Sodom nor her daughters have done as you and your daughters have done.

    49 Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

    50 And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.”

    So there you go. Multiple sins, including
    (1) Inhospitality. (2) Homosexual behavior (the final straw).

  • Talk about making a mountain from a molehill not to mention clutching at straws where there aren’t any. Congratulations that you have a bible but I doubt if you have ever read it as the authoritive word of GOD or you would not have referred to it as fairy tales not one of the so called 6000 names could be regarded as fairy tales if so JESUS and/or the apostles would not have referred to them to make a point if that be the case then may as well refer to the seven dwarfs as authoritive figures, you also say a majority of people deny the authority of the bible. Maybe thats one of the reasons why JESUS said the road to perdition/hell is wide because many go that way and the road to salvation is narrow because few go that way If one does not believe in the bible being THE WORD OF GOD then how can one believe in GOD.
    Genesis ch 19 vrs 4-10 paraphrasing here, Two men who we all know to be Angels went to Sodom all the “men” young and old surrounded the house demanding to release them so that the “men” can abuse them, Lot said these are my guests don’t do this “wicked thing” i will send my daughters out who are still “virgins” to treat as you please. If that does not tell that there sexual practices where not that of sodomy then what will. With regards to the sexual practices of the elderly married couples or the rythm method there is nothing in the bible to contradict that but with regards to the use of contraception there is Genesis chp 38 vrs 7-1. With regards to the laws of the U.S. if it contradicts the bible then its of no value to the salvation of ones soul

  • Regarding the so called marriages in the anglican community they are no more valid in the eyes of GOD than those so called civil marriages or those performed by any other group. Reason being is that marriage is a sacrament JESUS has said so the only church to perform valid marriages is The Catholic Church since it is The Only Church which goes back all the way to the Apostles and the back to JESUS CHRIST

  • Don’t see any reference to homosexuality there. Especially since you are reading into the word abomination outside of context of the passage.

    But people see what they want to see when trying to use religion to excuse acting badly.

  • The last people who tried to make a deal about that ended up at the bottom of the sea and splayed across the Irish coast when the Spanish Armada were sent packing.

  • So god loves the righteous but no one is righteous unless god says they are righteous but not even then.

    If you are an example of righteousness, then I have a lot a motes in my eyes I’d like to sell.

  • Your god and your faith are no more valid in my eyes than are the ten thousand gods of Asia.

    But hey, as long as the government recognizes my marriage, I could give a small crap if you or your church do.

  • Edward, it is just one of the many hypocrisies of the church. Polygamy in Africa will not go away, just like winking at divorce will not go away.

  • No doubt that is the source of the term, but that still doesn’t change the fact that the sin was a failure to be hospitable. Abusing a stranger in this way (rape) is unquestionably inhospitable. Sex between consenting persons was not the reason for Sodom’s destruction.

  • Do try to learn the difference between civil marriage and religious matrimony. By definition, matrimony is religious law and marriage is civil law. If your argument mixes the two together, your argument will fail every time.

  • This is what i said about righteous, never claim it for myself, so don’t start making erroneous assumption about what i said just because your not willing to read the bible, and better yourself, “As we all need to better ourselves” noone is perfect

    GOD loves the righteous and the just now before you start noone is righteous or just by themselves but only by the grace of GOD. To be a Christian is to be Christ like as St Paul says. And to be Christ like is not to accept sin as something that is pure sin is sin as to make it something else or to justify it as somethong else is a lie

  • I’m not judging anyone, I’m just quoting the bible as it is written, without putting my own personal spin on it, just because it doesn’t suit my view or way of life is not the fault of the bible, but my own fault

  • Then the issue is with you not anything or anyone outside of you. Hence whether GOD is or is not valid in your eyes is between GOD and you, but time will come as it will to everyone how valid GOD TRULY IS by that stage it will be to late our fate will be sealed and for all eternity we will spend it in Heaven or Hell

  • I’m not sure it is about hating homosexuals. The whole underlying meaning of marriage was to give a special religious meaning to the natural act of procreation. Last time I looked, that wasn’t one of the things that homosexuals were known for!

  • Well, if the you followed the Old Testament, people would be put to death for disrespecting their parents. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) . So if you are happy to flatly ignore this clear command from the Bible, why not treat its mandates about homosexuality in a similar way? We need to remember that the Bible contained a lot of material that was a reflection of the tribal culture that existed 3000 years ago, driven by pressures that are quite alien to us today. Perhaps marriage cannot have quite the same meaning as in a heterosexual relationship, but that does not mean that that it should just be condemned.

  • Disagree “marriage equality” means MARRIAGE EQUALITY to claim that they won’t want it recognised by the church is naive if yhey don’t want it recognized why are they going to the catholic church wearing their rainbow sachet your totally wrong

  • Because the Jerusalem Church, which included the apostles, kept the sexual prohibitions from the Torah along with a few other prohibitions having to do with meat and butchering. They had to keep the sexual prohibitions because, while most of the law was not given to the Gentiles, the Torah said quite clearly that God rejected the Gentile peoples in the holy land for sexually immoral practices long before there ever was a Torah. And of course Christ confirmed the unacceptability of sexual immorality in Matthew 15.

  • I have no problem with Catholicism, though I differ with that Church on a few issues. Generally, I embrace Catholics as fellow members of the catholic church, i.e.: the universal Church. That is, those who genuinely and sincerely embrace the Nicene Creed, which many sects subscribe to. My difficulty lies not with your argument, but the manner and language you use to express it. As Christians we are called to preach to and win the lost, that’s hard to do when (1). We fail to recognize that all humans are made in the express image of God and worthy of courtesy, dignity, and compassion. (2). Ben and I agree on few things theologically, or politically, but I consider it essential to my witness of the Gospel to treat him with respect and courtesy despite our differing viewpoints. When other Christians fail to practice any measure of compassion towards those they deem as lost, they only increase the likelihood that those individuals will never embrace Christ, and they will answer to God for that. As a brother in Christ, I feel compelled to admonish you in this regard in the hope that you will consider my argument thoughtfully. Perhaps, I missed the fact that the expression you used was encased in quotes, and that you were quoting someone else’s vitriol expressed to you. Peace.

  • Tell me Edward did Jesus, St Paul or any of the apostles refuse to call a spade a spade no because that would de-emphasize how severe their sin is and the cost of their sin to their enternal salvation I speak like this not because i consider myself any better than anyone i known i am not and for as long as i am alive there is always a chance of damnation all i can do is my best to avoid sin and to not condone it on the false premise of compassion. To say nothing and to allow the thought of sin to be normal under the guise of compassion is not helping that soul for salvation. Ref Ezekiel chp33 : 7-9

  • If you were to read a little further it is then written, chp 21 vrs 21″You must banish this evil from your midst” meaning that it is not the way it should be not the way GOD wants it It then says “All of Isreal will hear of it and be afraid” because thats how it was before ie man made law not from GOD

  • Regarding your comment on marriage, What should or should not be condemned if somethong is wrong then its wrong it would be a lie to classify wrong as right and right as wrong or to make right and wrong equal if that is how it is to be then there is no truth to anything. Also the bible is not a reflection of tribal culture 3000 years ago the bible is the word of GOD, GOD has a desire and that is our salvation for each and everyone’s salvation. For that a standard has to be reached that being GOD’S standard, not my standard and not my interpretation of standard but as its written in the bible and if you refuse the old testament will you also not accept it in the new testament ie: St Pauls, one of many condemnation of that lifestyle 1 Corinthians chp 6: vrs 9 -11

  • Historically, that is actually not true. For example, marriage in Rome was a civil affair. Marriage in modern days is also mostly a civil affair, with religion being optional. Nowhere in the world is procreation required for a valid marriage. And unfortunately for that viewpoint, marriage is not required for procreation. That is why a particularly vociferously antigay community has 70% illegitimacy rate.

    As far a gay people procreating, some have and some do. However, what we often do is adopt the cast off unwanted products of holy heterosexual procreation.

    So it all works out.

  • No there is no issue wth me at all. Believe whatever you like. I don’t care. Your fears aren’t my fears, your beliefs are not my beliefs. 2/3 of the world doesn’t share your beliefs, and half of what is left is too busy screaming heretic at the other half.

    But if not accepting your god means that 2/3 of the world is in hell because of his failures to communicate, it doesn’t speak well for your god. In fact, it’s a good argument that your god is no more real than all of the rest of them,

    Believe what you like. I don’t care. But attempt to interfere with my life because of wat you believe, and you expect a fight.

  • I have met very few Christians– the type who insist they are Christians and good Christians– who are even remotely Christlike. When they start being as concerned about their own sins, then at that point, they can tell me about mine.

    Motes and beams. My brother in Christ.

    Except that I don’t believe in sins or Jesus or heaven or hell.

  • That’s what judgy Christians always say. “I’m not judging anyone, I’m just reporting.”

    You are judging. But it doesn’t fit your self image to admit it,

  • That’s where the English word “sodomy” is derived from. There is no such word in the Hebrew Bible, so the etymology doesn’t answer what Ezekiel was talking about.

  • Adam and Eve were united in a marriage valid in the eyes of God. Does The Catholic Church go back not only to the Apostles but even to the first human beings?

  • Dutch is a sock puppet for Billy the Grave. The latter received a ban from shannon smith; then returned as Dutch.

  • Thanks. These people are scary, in the “it’s scary how much time they have on their hands scary.”

  • Ah right, you are the denier of reality. Pathetic. Seriously, pathetic.

    How about read something true for a change? Ah right, that neg-IQ getting in the way…SAD

  • I don’t need suggestions of reading material from someone that doesn’t know prose and poetry are two different things.

  • Edward, my friend, this is what Christ taught is a marriage. He listed no exceptions, as I’m sure you know from speaking with you all this time. Anything else is just a fallacy.

    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.

  • Righteous judgment is repeating what Christ said Ben. He said marriage is a man and a woman. No exceptions.

  • God loves homosexuals Peter. He wrote untold scripture to show them they need to repent and accept His love.

  • Clearly you don’t know up from down, but that is good. You will bring up your nonsense in front of an intellectual one day…I hope their laughter doesn’t cut you too deep, kid.

  • I’ve been here for years, you showed up just to stalk me. I think you’re going to find it’s you who’s for dinner. Except that no one here wants to taste you.

  • You don’t have a brain, so if you think I am worried about your reprisals, you are sorely mistaken, child.

    Cross my path again, and I will shame you back into your mother’s womb.

  • Right. That’s why marriage comes with a fertility test and a clause requiring those who take part to have kids, lest the marriage be invalidated.

  • But you told Peter that you specifically “don’t believe in sins or Jesus”, so now you have no rational warrant to either:

    (1) criticize or even imply any act of hypocrisy on anybody’s part, as a sin;

    (2) invoke or allude to Jesus in any way, for the purpose of criticizing or implying any act of hypocrisy on anybody’s part, as a sin.

  • Silly.

    So you are claiming that I have no right to insist that you live by my standards, but you spend your entire life demanding that I live by yours, and are willing to yoke the law in your defense because of your religious beliefs. Which, BTW, I don’t share.

    You and your fellow travelers use Jesus as your sock puppet all the Time. but I am not allowed to quote him.

    Next you will tell me how persecuted you are, except for the part about being ” blessed because you are persecuted for my name’s sake.”

    Oooops, I did it again. When will I ever learn?!?!?!?!?

  • I want to make it clear that I am NOT arguing that gay people should not have access to civil marriage. I think we are perfectly capable of defining civil marriage to be anything we wish and I don’t presume to dictate what sexual preferences are right or wrong.
    If you read the flow of the posts you would see that my response was to a post relating to a RELIGIOUS, CHRISTIAN marriage performed by a church, so the issue of whether religion is necessary for a marriage is irrelevant. Most countries recognize a religious marriage to also be an official civil marriage. But they are not technically the same, and not all countries universally recognize them to be the same. However, Christianity has been absolutely 100% clear about the meaning it gives to marriage. If the Catholic Church actually followed its canon law, they would not marry a couple where one or both were infertile. However apparently they can issue exemptions for this. However, if a couple turned up at an RC church to be married and stated explicitly that they had no intention of having children, then that marriage, by canon law, would not be valid (religiously).
    The really weird thing then is that if the couple say “screw you” and then go and get a civil marriage, the RCC recognizes civil marriage as valid marriages, and it does not apply any of its rules to those!!! Wierd!
    I’m not justifying this…just giving you the facts. Why do you think the RCC is so adamantly against contraception??? It is because it sees the role of sex to produce children, and it does not approve sex outside of marriage. Other Protestant denominations have similar, if not identical rules. So it is difficult to see how they can possibly perform a homosexual marriage without completely changing their understanding of the point of marriage….whether you agree with that point or not!
    But as far as civil marriage is concerned, I have absolutely no problem with gays being allowed to marry. Some gay couples turn out to be outstandingly good parents with children they adopt, and you are right…being heterosexual does not guarantee that the couple will be good parents. No argument there.

  • Sorry. I should have been more clear . “The whole underlying meaning of religious marriage (at least christian) is to give a special religious meaning to the love and commitment between a couple and the openness to the “production of life”. It is not just one or the other. My response was to a post discussing an issue with a religious marriage….not marriage in general.

  • It doesn’t come with a fertility test, but the RCC for example, does not technically consider a marriage between infertile couples to be valid, and would refuse to marry a couple who were fertile but stated that they were not open to having children. Its in their canon law!

  • Actually, Ben, your chosen atheism makes it worse.

    By saying you don’t believe in (specifically) sins or Jesus, you’re dropping your rational consistency to criticize anybody’s act of hypocrisy on either basis (even implicitlly)..

    But your atheism takes the situation to the next level. There are NO inherent, automatic, derivable condemnations of “hypocrisy” within atheism at all.

    If somebody says, “Ben condemns hypocrisy,” I need only respond “Ben who? And on what atheism-derived basis? I’m an atheist too — and I make my own rules.”

  • You still haven’t answered my point. The Bible commanded the death penalty in very explicit language for a whole range of offenses. Fortunately, the Israelites were quite happy to ignore most of the more grotesque demands, and did not systematically implement them. What I am asking basically is that if a gay couple chooses to live together and to commit to all the positive issues related to marriage, why can’t religion see that that is better than just having gratuitous sex.

  • Perhaps, but I suspect that was referring to wild, uncontrolled, gratuitous sex and orgies for nothing but satisfying the demands of personal sexual desire…..not a gay couple who choose to commit themselves to life long fidelity and mutual respect even if they can’t achieve the procreative dimension.
    What I am really doing is challenging the consistency behind what you are calling sexual immorality and why it is considered immoral. I understand what religion thinks about this. I am asking WHY? Give me a reason WHY it is immoral!

  • I think you are missing the point. I’m saying there are TWO aspects to a marriage. One is the personal commitment of two people to each other. The other is the duty to keep the species roaring along with lots offspring. You can’t just turn round ansd say they are the same thing. They are not! I have no problem with gay people focusing their contributions to raising children who are orphans for example. I know some gay couples who re raising orphans, and they are some of the most committed parents I have ever seen. My only argument here is about the religious definition of marriage.

  • Interesting that you shuold choose 2/3 of the world dosent share my beliefs because that the amount of pepple that will perish for their lack of faith. Regarding the heretic comment in a sense your right until king Henry viii came along in the early 1400s and starting chopping off the heads of his wives because the failed to bare him a son and divorce was not permitted, and marriage was and still is a sacrament, and martin luther in the mid 1400s Germany who through pride decided that he knew more about religion than what had taken place in the past 1500 years and therefore started his own religion in which at that stage that civilized world was catholic is it any wonder that the term heretics was and is used. With regards to GOD failing to communicate due to the amount of people lost then its not GOD’S fault but those who failed to educate and instruct others about him not to mention our own faults for wanting to remain ignorant about him and live a life that is separate from him
    Regarding interfering in your life and expect a fight. Well I’m not interfering in anything im just saying it as it is. The fight that you have to contend with is that with your own demons so you have to choose fight “your demons” now and win while you’ve got a chance or they will devour you for all eternity

  • But Sandi, my point was not about what the bible teaches, rather how we communicate that truth to the unbeliever, the skeptic, and the deceived. I think we can make more progress in winning the lost by taking a kind, as well as uncompromising approach. Many people on this forum think you are unkind and hateful, I regularly assure them that such is not the case, but you might consider whether or not an adjustment in tone or language, without sacrificing the clear intent of scripture, might be more effectual in persuading doubters to the faith. I myself am no great soul winner, but I have learned that by framing my case with gentleness and respect -again, without compromise- I typically am able to have a more fruitful dialogue. Fruit that may not be evident today, but perhaps will be in the future. I say this in the course of Christian brotherly kindness to you.

  • I fully understand that, but it is both possible to be uncompromising in our declaration of what the Word of God teaches, and yet be measured in our tone and language. Paul became all things to all people…so that some might be saved. I don’t suggest you alter the clear message of scripture, simply that you might express it in more tempered language…and that, to my way of thinking does not constitute sin and may be more effective in winning the lost to Christ. Peace in Him who died for us.

  • Then you will believe in all of this when you time comes as everyones time will come but by then it will be to late because you did nothing about it to amend your life for eternal savation

  • So if i see someone being irresponsible with fire and playing with fire, classify them as silly and at the same time help them to change that behavior for their health and safety then so be it I’m judging

  • The marriage of Adam and Eve was valid under the covenant of that time up until the time of Christ from then on JESUS birth, death and resurrection overturns that and therefore Christianity is the new and only covenant for salvation nothing else

  • With a response like that It just goes to show how low your ignorance has taken you and how perverse you are and then you fail to prove to me or anyone with an ounce of common sense including me, with your last comment “but you are wrong” there is no thought in that just void

  • It’s not religion that makes the laws in this case it was and is GOD as it says in the bible GOD made them male and female and then fast forward to the new testament with regards to marriage JESUS does not refer to two people who want to get married thus leaving it open to interpretation as to male to female male to male or female to female but because marriage is a sacrament instituted by Christ he used the terms husband and wife or man and wife

  • Sexual immorality is immoral because it is a repudiation of God’s original creation purpose for us and for our bodies (“missing the mark” = sin). As Paul put it, food is for the stomach and the stomach for food, but the body is not for fornication. Jesus told us what God’s purpose for our sexuality was: He created us male and female to become one flesh reflecting the whole image of God, and this happens in quite a literal sense when a child is conceived becoming a unique and independent being out of two separate beings. And of course that echoes Malachi, who tells us that God makes man and woman one because He desires godly offspring from their union.

    I can think of no instance in the scriptures where fidelity or respect or any other emotion turned a prohibited act into a permissible one. Is incest all right as long as it’s “loving and committed?” Adultery? We know from Josephus that Herod Antipas loved Herodias, but the “voice crying out in the wilderness” lost his head for giving him the straight dope on the subject: it was not lawful for him to have her, period.

  • New testament Book of Jude vrs 7  

    So with Sodom and Gomorrha and the cities round them, which fell into the same debauchery as their neighbours and pursued unnatural lust; they bear, for our warning, their sentence of eternal fire


    1 Corinthians chp 6 vrs 9 – 10


    Instead of that you commit wrong, you inflict loss, and at a brother’s expense.


    Yet you know well enough that wrong-doers will not inherit God’s kingdom. Make no mistake about it; it is not the debauched, the idolaters, the adulterous,


    it is not the effeminate, the sinners against nature, the dishonest, the misers, the drunkards, the bitter of speech, the extortioners that will inherit the kingdom of God.

    If these two vrs from the new testament do not prove to you that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their homosexual perversions then its your fault
    To paraphrase JESUS you have eyes but do not see, ears but do not hear Are you truly that dumb. And I’m proud to wear the title of Homophobe and enter Heaven than wear a title of Supporter of Homsexuality and enter hell

  • Shorter: I like being an a-hole, but I’ll Claim its about religion.

    Speaking of playing with fire, Jesus said not to judge. Peter said there is none righteous, so you can’t even do righteous judging.

    Sounds like we’ll be sharing a spot on an eternal BBQ.

    See? Everyone can play Bible bashing, even us atheists. What fun!

  • It’s lucky then that I don’t believe in eternal salvation, and wouldn’t take it even if it were on offer. Spend eternity with Bible beating and Bible bashing Christians of the type that so frequently post here?

    If that isn’t hell, I can’t imagine what is.

  • So you admit that your god is an irresponsible terrorist who punishes people because he failed to get his message of love to everyone, chose imperfect instruments who also failed to get his message out, and in general, couldn’t make a case for his “love”.

    Knock! Knock!
    Who’s There.
    It’s Jesus! Let me in!
    I have to save you!
    SAve me? from what?
    From what I’m going to do to you if you don’t let me in!

    I nearly became a Christian 50 years ago, but then, the blatant contradiction of John 3:16 convinced me otherwise. And I have yet to hear one single christian of your sort say anything to convince me otherwise.

    So god will damn me for eternity because of people like you. Sweet!

  • Even sillier. I know it is impossible for you to believe that people have standards, but we do.

  • Sorry. All of that just boils down to the “no true Christian” fallacy. Christians aplenty do not share your opinions about religious marriage. In fact,this who alrticle is about Christians who don’t. You can claim that they are not true Christians. They can make the same comment about you.

    On the whole, it is pretty pointless.

    But as an arbiter of moral values, the last place I would look, next to a baptist church, is the RCC. Children starve while the pope dines with a golden fork. Third world countries are breeding themselves into disaster because of the church ideas about contraception. For centuries the church has harbored child molesting priests, and covered up their crimes for AMGD.

  • You don’t even have to be people to do it. You just need a sperm, an egg, and a Petrie dish.

  • And according to so many posters here, if you don’t believe that he’ll show us how much he loves us by burning us for eternity.

  • Edward, you’re a nice man. But I don’t think you really understand people who are not nice, who get off on being not nice, and who love thinking of themselves as GOd’s BFFF in order to justify how not nice eye are.

    You got close in your admonition to sandi, above.

  • Your argument about certian words not existing in the hebrew language and words mean different things does not wash. If any person were to accept that then they would have to say that the term gay, never meant happy or joyful but is used as a third gender, and that the rainbow had nothing to do with the flood as a sign from GOD, that he would never flood the earth again, but we’re to take it as a symbol of the lgbtqis movement. What a load of b.s. wake up, careful your ignorance is showing

  • Well, you already know my views on that. While I believe in an unhappy post-death state outside the presence of God for the unrepentant, the lake of fire is exactly what it’s called, the second death. “The soul that sins shall die.”

  • How has your all-powerful not found a way, elegant or not, to prevent the very core of his believers to fracture into 33,000+ denominations, all of whom believe the other 32,999+ are intrinsically wrong as a matter of faith, and going to (apparently) one of the distinct 33,000+ Hells?

    Let’s do some math, because it’s fun. There are 2.2 billion world-wide Christians, with 33,000 denominations. So, on average, each denomination comprises 2.2B/33K = 66,666. How utterly ironic. Since they all think the Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Jainists, Rastafarians, atheists, humanists are all condemned, from a strictly Christian point of view, the upper bound on the number of people destined for Heaven is this same 66,666. (Their Heaven, they make the rules. This is the MLE, given the assumption that any denomination is equally likely to be right / wrong. It’s a linear distribution. We know that Kansas religious cult, Westboro Baptist Church, are all going to Hell, but this does not significantly alter calculations. I found their name, incidentally, by googling ” Kansas religious cult.”)

    How many seats are left? Well, we need to make a few assumptions here. Let’s start with “everyone already dead went to Hell.” Except the saints, maybe. There’s about 10,000 of them. Add in popes and apostles and distinguished luminaries of (previously united versions) of the church. Maybe half that. I’m being kind. That leaves 51,666 seats in this game of Musical Chairs. Next assumption. All non-Americans are going to Hell. So that leaves 330 million or so to chose from. Who has the greatest chance in the US to make the cut? Clergy. I mean, they not only stake their afterlife on faith, they stake their livelihood. What better indicator? Can we say 10% of them, figuring in the numbers in the wrong denomination, hidden pederasts, malignant sociopaths gaming the system, and the like? Well, there’s ~330K clergy currently in the US. That’s 1 in 1,000 “making their living” on the backs of the other 999. Sojourner Truth, Roger Williams, Aimee Semple McPherson, MLK Jr. all SOL, sorry, all dead, non-saints. Vatican City(100% Christian,) East Timor (99.1%,) Puerto Rico (97%,) Haiti (96%) suck it, not Americans. Well VC has the pope and ex-pope anyway. So 10% of 330K is 33K, leaving 18,666 (or so) seats left.

    So, 329.7M, leaving out condemned clergy (~297K,) Let’s assume you have to be married and never divorced to achieve the Pearly Gates. We’re looking for the cream of the crop here. ~55% of Americans are married. ~50% of those will divorce, so they’ve bought it (1 Cor. 10.) This leaves 90 million or so with a shot. For brevity, let’s stop here. If you’re in the remaining non-dead, non-clergy, never-divorced Americans, and you further assume that everyone not yet born is going to Hell (the imminent Apocalypse, after all,) and further assume you’ve never “spilled your seed on the ground” or worked a Sunday, you have, at worst, a 1 – 18,666/90475000 = ~.9998 chance of going to Hell. Kinda makes you want to “spill your seed” if the alternative is raising a Hellion. I propose this number in the future be referred to as “A Snowball’s Chance in Hell Number.”

    74% of all US divorced people are Christians, who make up 70.6% of the population.(Pew research) So divorce is *more* likely within Christians. And your Bible quote condemns them all.

    If someone re-writes an author’s book, it is no longer the author’s book.

  • They also declare that any sex, already limited to married couples, must have as part of the expressed intent the possibility of conception, with no means whatsoever, whether chemical (eg the pill, spermicidal, RU486,) physical barrier (condoms, diaphragms,) interruptive (IUD, vasectomy,) incidental (infertility due to anything including age,) misdirected (oral sex, masturbation,) or calculated (the “rhythm method”) used *at any time.* Any pleasure or bonding involved with sex *must be incidental* and subverted to the direct attempt to conceive. Wife is past menopause? Sex is a sin.

  • Thank you Edward for your comment, and support. That is very thoughtful of you.
    I figure if the words were good enough for Jesus, they’ll still be ok with Him, and He’ll make them heard as He wishes.
    Blessings to you.

  • I do know your views. That’s why I mentioned it. But Christians will disagree with Christians, won’t they.

  • Was that “JESUS” in the middle of things just a passing epithet or did it need to be possessive, and you didn’t know how to do it? (Jesuses, Jesus’, Jesi?) Also, with the pluralization of “overturns,” it sounds lie you’re saying death and resurrection (one process) overturns (possibly his) birth.

    “Christianity is the new and only covenant” you say.
    Pope John Paul II said, in 1980, that the Old Covenant was never revoked. Is he wrong, or are you?

  • I agree the word gay does not refer to a third gender, i was being kind the word gay is discribing satans gender, and those that are gay follow him. From the point of view of natural law the purpose of male and female is for the regeneration of life. If the whole world were to be gay then there would be no regeneration of humanity. Now we bring religion in it to it because regardless whether you believe it or not GOD exists, “only a FOOL says that there is no GOD” as it states in the bible. Now the purpose as to why GOD made us male and female is for the glory of GOD. Now considering the animosity that satan has for GOD its quite obvious that the last thing he wants is to see GOD glorified. He, satan attacks our carnal appetites to prohibit that which we were created for, for the procreation of life for the GLORY OF GOD

  • I’d never read it that way. Thanks. So apparently everyone who has died must have been a non-believer?

  • Hey I’m not gay nor a supporter of it so its not my ass but yours and you’ll have a hell of a time doing it in HELL enjoy if you can but i doubt i you will

  • The Catholic Church recognizes some kinds of marriages as valid in the eyes of God even though it has not celebrated those marriages. Its next step will be to recognize same-sex marriages as valid even though it has not celebrated them. Its final step will be to celebrate same-sex marriages.
    The Catholic Church’s celebrating same-sex marriages is inevitable, because that is God’s will and God will not have his Church remain always in grievous disobedience. (Here, the disobedience is caused by misunderstanding. For proof that God wills the Church celebrate homosexual marriage just as it celebrates heterosexual marriage, ask for my essay by email: [email protected].) Therefore, it is inevitable that you too, Peter, will recognize same-sex marriage as valid in the eyes of God.

  • The reason why i said Jesus; birth ,death and resurrection is because people deny that he ressurected, and if they deny the resurrection they deny his death, if they deny his death they deny his birth, therefore you deny he ever existed. In the gospel of St Luke chp 22 vrs 20 Jesus says “This cup is the new covenant in my blood which will be poured out for you” 1 corinthians chp 11 vrs 25-26 St Paul says qouting JESUS “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” St Paul here is explaining The Last Supper.
    Finally 2 Philippians chp 2 vrs 9 -11 St Paul writing to the Philippians says “But GOD raised him high and gave him the name above all other names so that all beings in the heavens on the earth and in the underworld, should bend the knee at the name of JESUS and that every tongue confess JESUS CHRIST as LORD, to the glory of GOD THE FATHER.” At the present time the jewish people do not do this hence their salvation is not assured and he, JESUS therefore is the only covenant. Even the fact that the bible is split into two books The old testament, The new testament that in its self tells you that the old (Jewish) law covenant is noolonger valid if there is a new law covenant

  • It can not recognise ssm, to do so it will have to accept the act of sodomy which the bible condemns and the bible is the word of GOD and in GOD there is no error. As I said in previous message read 1 corinthians chp 6 vrs 9-11. Even if the act of sodomy did not take place in ssm it would still be a contradiction to what JESUS said regarding marriage

  • I ask you a question what’s the best way of loving thy neighbor, acknowledging someone may be trouble and possibly losing their soul and helping him or her to avoid evil or to keep quite and not help anyone avoid eternal damnation I do this while keeping in mind two texts of the bible the first is the old testament
    Ezekiel chp 33 : 7-9. And in the new testament i also keep in mind this text in relation to myself alone Romans chp 7 vrs 14 – 25
    To put it in secular terms; Would try to prevent a person to commit a crime, thus end up going to jail and end up having a crimnal record, or would you keep quite and not say a word. Surely if you were to do something in the latter, how much more important is it to do something in the former where salvation or punishment is for all eternity.

  • I’m not sure what you are asking. Everyone that died before Jesus was a non believer, and is thus in hell. The majority of people who have lived since have also been unbelievers, and went to their eternal rest, never knowing that god loved them so much that he created hell just for them.

    And if hell weren’t enough, there are always fundelibangelist Christians.

  • Well, since it said if they believe in him they will live forever, and they’re now dead, he either reneged on his promise or they weren’t really believers. It’s the direct contrapositive. That whosoever should perish and hath not everlasting life believeth not in him.

  • Your logic skills need a little work, with that dubious chain of material implications you lead off with. I deny Puddles the Clown resurrected, that does not mean I deny he died. I deny Billy Graham died, that does not mean I deny he was born. I deny I was born (I sprang from seafoam fully formed) but do not deny i exist. Well, that last one is a stretch, I’ll give you that, you have to be born to ever exist. You have to be born to ever exist. Write that one down, it has some very obvious direct consequences.

    On the other point I take it you mean Pope John Paul II was either lying or entirely misinformed..

    I have to ask, do you believe in the (directly contradictory to the above) papal bull of Pope Eugene IV, who said “The Holy Roman Church . . . firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law … after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; … after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, the holy Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation.”

  • That’s actually been changed. The Canons pertaining to marriage are 1055-1165. The canons do say that marriage (in general, not in the particular) is ordered toward procreation (1055) but that doesn’t address the validity of a particular marriage. A valid marriage is considered ratified if it has not been consummated and it is consummated if the couple had engaged in an act suitable for the generation of children (1061). In the marriage rite, they are asked to be open to children but infertility in itself is not a barrier to a valid marriage. A pastor may express reservations about witnessing the sacrament if they were not open to having children; and he would likely do some catechesis; but can’t find any canon that cites openness to children as a requirement of a valid marriage. (did you mean “not technically consider marriage between infertile couples to be INVALID?)

  • Again, your capability to draw things to there ultimate conclusion, needs a little work not my logic skills. Ultimately if one denies the birth of JESUS, then everything else follows. Hence people put there own heretical spin, as to whether a person by the name of JESUS CHRIST the second person of THE HOLY TRINITY was born, whether he died and rose from the dead; and they deny any one of these, or all of these or even interpret them to mean something else, to justify their own heretical belief. It is for this reason that now there are over, 40,000 different christian faiths preaching their own version of “heretical truth”

    Pope John Paul ii also said, as all his predecessors have said before him, “That there is no salvation outside of the Catholic church”
    And what Pope Eugene iv said has been what St Paul has said in the bible regarding the mosaic law and the Catholic Church has always taught that.

  • Maybe in this life, but definitely not in the next unless they truly and sincerely repent for the harm that they have done mortally but more important spuritually. Likewise it is also attributed to everyone ever born that unless they truly sincerly repent asking GOD for forgiveness by going to confession for the harm that they have caused others then they to will end up the same

  • If you’ll think about it the 33k+denominations (what I understood to be the number) is actually 2.2 billion or so. since I have yet to find a Christian who does not dispute something that is a matter of canon, either in words or actions. So many sentences here start with “No true Christian…” and then go on with something whole hordes of them actually do / believe, and often as a matter of faith, opiion. They should simply say those three words, “No true Christian.” Full stop. No quantifiers, no qualifiers.

    I asked about Pope Eugene IV’s bull because at the time he was still deemed a heretic by most of the collective church leadership. If no Christian will achieve salvation by continuing to follow the laws of the OT, as he explicitly says, then there’s no reason to insist on trying to write them into secular law, unless they want to go to Hell and take everyone with them.

    Have you studied all the other denominations in order to properly choose? Why can’t they agree on –almost anything? Why does this internal dissonance not matter, when time comes to make a difference, like in the voting booth? How is one supposed to choose which denomination is the correct one, if any are? They mostly go with the one they were indoctrinated into as a child, and assume the others are the heretics — because they are others. It’s confirmation bias, and it’s circular, like a wheel. So it’s roulette, with souls. You’re born into 31 Black and stick with it, until you die. All my money is on 00, straight up, because I can’t place a bet on the ball simply leaving the wheel.

  • At least you expanded your vocabulary if not your faith for your eternal salvation raher than your eternal damnation

  • Only the catholic church can claim and does claim that it is the sole depositor of truth there cannot be 2, 3…20, or 33k as you say or to be more accurate 44k versions of truth. If that where the case then since mathematics has a standard of truth to follow and going by your theory 2+2 will equal more than one answer it could be 33 – 44 thousand different responses how rediculas is that.
    With regards to which faith is true and which isn’t the Catholic church teaches as it has always taught from the time of the apostles (may I add that only the catholic church can and does claim that connection) that the bread and wine after the consecration truly become the body and blood soul and divinty of JESUS CHRIST no other faith does claim it nor do they have the authority to do it simply becuse the power to do so has not been given. I also wish to add that no other faith has the authority to forgive sin.
    With regards to the other denomination, and your question “What is there to study?” Since all denomination except the Catholic church are man made. The anglican /church of england for example was founded on the murder of the wives of Henry viii, not to mention the Catholic Martyrs like St Thomas More or St John Fisher, just to name two who were beheaded for siding with the truth, rather than with henry the murderer king of england.
    Then you have martin luther who, although he had some legitamate argument due to the indulgence for money for prayers; from there he basically goes stupid and says that each person can interpret scripture for themselves as well as editing the bible to suit his own belief thus we have the birth of a multitude of christian faiths, and the only thing that binds all these heretical faiths is their hatred, for the Catholic Church.
    Your quote from Pope Eugene “No Christian will achieve salvation by continuing to follow the laws of the OT” is the same as what St Paul said its in the bible

  • They all claim inerrancy and being the one true faith. Every bifurcation that came along the way has its roots right from the beginning of Christianity, which has its own roots in Judaism and a myriad of previous religions. All the Christian denominations are incestuous offshoots, and each *by faith* decrees that their schism preserves the one true way. Yours does too, mirabile dictu!

    COE ably demonstrates that politics has been inextricably linked with religion all along. There are also many editions, contributions, extractions, translations, rewordings, interpretations, redactions and simple mistranscriptions of the Bible through the years to reflect current-at-the-time mores, politics, agendas both societal and personal. It’s a hash, a stew, a soup of contradictory edicts. But inerrant. It gets basic biology, physics, and astronomy, any science it touches really, flat out wrong. But inerrant. It preserves the OT as reputedly a historic lesson on what to do, which still applies (“not one word…”) according to the reputed direct words of God, but insists it will lead you to Hell by the inspired word of God. But inerrant.Multiple councils have hacked away at it to make it a Bible by committee. But inerrant. It purports miraculous human behaviors (old age, building the Ark, omniscient narrators, living in a fish, parting seas) as not only utterly plausible but often indicative of great faith. But inerrant. .

    Incidentally Paul is a great one for the omniscient narrator piece. He writes with incredible detail about events 80 years before he was born, to the point of recounting what people were thinking, saying, and their general demeanor, accounts of events apparently previously unknown to anyone, religious or not.This while having no apparent knowledge of other purported events that have multiple commentaries, and these just the ones that finally made the canon.

  • How is it that Catholic leadership, redolent of faith and reputedly inspired by God, could so disagree with Pope Eugene IV that they declared him a heretic and elected an anti-Pope in his stead? He had “self-exiled” from Rome.The image of him supposedly leaving the area on a boat while in disguise and being pelted with rocks from both banks is particularly striking.The quote from above was part of the political accommodation at the end of the Council of Basel Ferrara-Florence required to stop yet one more permanent schism.

  • He also elsewhere directly quotes the Bible where it explicitly says that following the OT laws will lead you to damnation, but then insists on applying interpretations of those same laws to “others” today. So by his own canon, he wants to go to Hell, and drag everyone else along as well.

  • I will try to give a brief answer combining the last two entries into one since your asking the same question. The Catholic Church it self has always stated The Infallibility of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church; Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, to guide His Church into all truth. The Holy Spirit teaches the Church “all things,” bringing to mind everything that Christ first taught His apostles. So if it happens who ever is the pope, and, (unfortunately for their own soul and that of others), leading them astray by his heretical teaching, then the church reverts back to the traditional teaching. Of where the truth was upheld.

    With regards to Henry viii, Martin luther (ML) and others, that came after them to establish there own faith these historical facts cannot be disputed. They are man made false churches, as stated previously, not founded on CHRIST JESUS, but on their own twisted interpretion. M.L for instances took out six books from the bible while also adding words to scripture that were not there he started his dissent in the year 1517, and henry viii set up fake coe in 1534. So basically what we have is, from the time of Christ up until 1517-34 the only church around was Catholic teaching the truth. From 1517-34 (M.L), and Henry viii and others set up fake protestant (coe) faiths to the present day.

    With regards to your argument about Pope Eugene iv so what that he was deposed, the truth has never been appreciated by some within the church and by all outside the church. With this I will finish off with a quote from St Paul Acts 20 : 28Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
    Now if they were doing that at the time of St Paul, why not 1300 years later with Pope Eugene iv.
    With regards to St Paul and referring to what happened 80 years earlier; Can i ask you. What do you think historians do.

  • My dear brother,
    In my essay, I help you correct your misunderstanding of Leviticus and 1 Corinthians and Matthew; I treat those texts at length with none of the kinds of fatuous reasoning that revisionists tend to offer and that we conservatives disdain. I go further. I refute all the other arguments of Christians against same-sex marriage — all that I know of. Ask for my essay by email, then give me your severest criticism of it. (I would be grateful for any refutation.)

2019 NewsMatch Campaign: This Story Can't Wait! Donate.