Deputies, bishops and visitors pack a meeting room in the Austin Hilton Hotel on July 5, 2018, to testify on three marriage-related resolutions during the Episcopal triennial General Convention. Photo by Mary Frances Schjonberg/Episcopal News Service

Episcopal convention approves a 'pastoral solution' on same-sex marriage

AUSTIN, Texas (RNS) — Same-sex couples will now be able to marry in their home parish even if their local bishop has moral objections to gay marriage, Episcopal Church leaders decided on Friday (July 13).

Meeting in Austin at their triennial convention, the House of Bishops and House of Deputies, the bicameral governing body of the church, approved the controversial resolution after days of debate.

Under the new rule, couples can request gender-neutral marriage rites, which were approved for trial use at the church’s 2015 convention, in the church where they worship. Even if the local bishop opposes same-sex weddings, the priest of the parish can still conduct the ceremony, requesting “pastoral support” from a bishop in another diocese if necessary.

Currently, eight of the United States' 101 Episcopal dioceses — Albany, N.Y.; Central Florida; Dallas; Florida; North Dakota; Springfield, Ill.; Tennessee; and the Virgin Islands — do not authorize the liturgies.

Bishop Lawrence Provenzano of Long Island, N.Y., who helped craft the resolution, said the arrangement provides greater inclusion for LGBT couples without alienating traditionalists. A previous resolution would have effectively made same-sex marriage part of the official theology of the church by inserting the new liturgies in the Book of Common Prayer.

That would have been “a step too fast,” Provenzano said, for bishops who are biblically at odds with same-sex marriage and have threatened to leave the denomination over the issue.

“This was really a pastoral solution,” he said, “one that was mindful of trying to hold on to everybody.”

Bishop Lawrence Provenzano of Long Island. Photo courtesy of Episcopal News Service

 This image is available for web publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

Some convention delegates who support marriage equality still found fault with the resolution. One bishop worried LGBT Episcopalians would feel like second-class citizens without official adoption of the new marriage liturgies in the Book of Common Prayer. Other bishops said it was likely only a matter of time before the liturgies were added officially.

Opponents of the resolution raised concerns about undermining bishops' authority and about possible schism within the church. Bishop John Howard of Florida said his diocese was still reeling from the 2003 consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson, who is openly gay, in New Hampshire, which led some Episcopal clergy and lay people to break from the denomination.

Bishop William Love of the Diocese of Albany warned that the resolution could trigger upheaval similar to 2003.

“I’m concerned that when this passes, the floodgates are going to open once again, the bloodshed is going to open once again, the insidious lawsuits are going to continue once again,” he said during the debate.

Love also said he would follow “God’s words” and intimated that he may not abide by the resolution.

Before General Convention began, bishops from several predominantly Latin American dioceses issued a statement urging delegates not to broaden the use of same-sex marriage rites, saying that such a move would force traditional Episcopalians “to accept social and cultural practices that have no Biblical basis in Christian worship.”

For Mary Glasspool, an assistant bishop in the Diocese of New York, the resolution is a step in the right direction. She recalled that she married her wife in her therapist’s office because there was no option for a church wedding. It’s time, she said, not only to embrace marriage equality but to “honor the gift” of gay and lesbian relationships.

After lengthy discussion on ecclesiastical authority, scriptural interpretation and technicalities of the resolution, Bishop Brian Thom of Idaho offered his take as a member of the task force that studied the marriage issue over the past three years. What he heard from people in congregations around the country, he said, was simple: “Folks just want to be married at home.”

On Wednesday, not long after the bishops voted in favor of the resolution, Provenzano told Religion News Service he was “joyfully surprised” by what he described as a “spirit of reconciliation” at the convention even in the midst of heated debate.

Finding compromise on the marriage resolution while scaling back on proposed revisions to the Book of Common Prayer, he said, allows the church to focus on responding to critical problems in the world.

“The last thing the church needs to be doing right now is fighting over the rites in the prayer book,” he said. “We need to provide better leadership than that.”


  1. Since its inception, the Anglican Communion’s M.O. can best be summed up by the Latin expression via media, i.e. the “middle way.” This latest measure falls into that longstanding Anglican tradition. Naturally hardliners on both ends of the spectrum are never happy, but they tend never to be happy anyway. I applaud the Episcopalians for once again trying to achieve the difficult task of finding the middle ground on a fraught issue. It’s not the easy way, but sometimes it’s the only way. People who are absolutist in their disposition can’t handle this aspect of Anglicanism so they seek out more absolutist churches, and that’s fine. Anglicanism, small though it may be, is better off without such people. They belong elsewhere.

  2. I would be careful not to confuse the Anglican Communion’s modus operandi with the Episcopal Church’s modus operandi.

    The track record in the Episcopal Church is more absolutist than the Anglican Communion’s.

  3. Their church, their rules.

    If bigots want to get annoyed over it, I would be happy to cite their own statements when people objected to anti gay measures by conservative churches.

    What goes on in a church’s internal policy is their business. Not that it is immune from criticism from the outside. Only that the people responsible for such things always come from within those churches.

    You can believe anything you want, just don’t expect government endorsement for your sectarian beliefs.

  4. The Episcopal Church is part of the worldwide Anglican Communion. To pit them against one another is a logical fallacy. Inherent within the genius of Anglicanism is the fact that each member body is free to express its own version of the via media as it sees fit. It is not like Rome where everyone takes marching orders from the top and then marches in perfect lockstep. That’s what I happen to like about it.

  5. To suggest that what is true of the Anglican Communion is true of the Episcopal Church is a logical fallacy.

    The Anglican Communion, for example, advised the Episcopal Church to seek consensus and agreement with the other churches in the Communion. The result was

    During Katharine Jefferts Schori’s tenure as Presiding Bishop the national church initiated lawsuits against departing dioceses and parishes, and she also established a policy that church properties were not to be sold to departing congregations.

    That’s pretty authoritarian.

  6. Dig through any haystack and you’re bound to find a needle somewhere. If I were you I’d stop spending so much time in haystacks.

  7. Memo to all EpiscopalIan readers:

    THEY have now made their decision. You see exactly what they’re doing, you know exactly where they’re going. As some of them boasted, “it”s only a matter of time.”

    So now it’s YOUR turn to decide. You have a Bible just like they have a Bible. You know what the Bible prohibits, and what the Bible promises, just like they know. So now it’s **your** turn to vote.

    But there are no more ballots available. So you’ll have to vote with your feet. (And standing still won’t save you; it’s too late for that.) May your vote lead to Deliverance instead of Disaster.

  8. I take it you joined the Episcopal Church after leaving the Catholic Church.

    Perhaps you don’t know that every constituent church of the Anglican Communion operates under its own constitution, so what is true of one may not be true of another.

    Getting suspended and Bishop Schori are hardly needles in a haystack.

    Nor has the Catholic Pope muscled a bishop in the last century or so like Bishop Schori muscled bishops of the Episcopal Church.

  9. They DO belong elsewhere, I agree with that part.

    Consider getting outta there, Christians. Really consider it. The Titanic is absolutely the wrong cruise ship for you.

  10. As this assembly slides further into the mire…..
    This is what Christ taught on Marriage:
    Genesis: Genesis 2:18-25 English Standard Version (ESV)
    Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for[a] him.” 19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed[b] every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam[c] there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made[d] into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,
    “This at last is bone of my bones
    and flesh of my flesh;
    she shall be called Woman,
    because she was taken out of Man.”[e]
    24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

    Matthew 19:4 teaches:
    He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

    1 Corinthians 7 teaches:

    1 Corinthians 7 – Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.”

    The Episcopal assembly and the idol they follow now know better than Christ, or so they think.
    The lives that will be ruined due to this arrogance on their part will only be a part of the problem. They will need to stand before Christ one day.

  11. Glad to see you aren’t absolutist on assemblies calling themselves “churches” leading people to Hell. You must be so proud!

  12. If only it was Adam and Steve in that Garden! Then we wouldn’t have to argue about this.

  13. I agree. But, what biblical scriptures do the church have to support gay marriage?

  14. This decision will lead to membership decline..

  15. Ask them. Not my church. Not my issue to figure it out.

    I am absolute certain it has come up in discussion within the church decision making authorities. Like all such beliefs, every sect/faith has their own way to justify their policies with holy scriptures.

  16. This is why we Catholics call Episcopalian “catholic lite”…EWTN has a great TV one-liner “live truth, live Catholic” and that is correct. The Catholic faith (which just means UNIVERSAL as we all should know) is the church founded by Jesus Christ. It is wholly biblical in all aspects even though our Protestant brethren want to constantly argue against this fact even with the mountains of evidence in front of them AND can be traced back to Jesus and the Apostles.

    Also, as we know being truly Catholic s NOT easy either in this secular, relativist world where everyone thinks highly only of himself/herself and the only objective truth is the one individuals decide for themselves…you see the problem? Clear as day…these other Christian denominations and off-shoots of who-knows-what-religions simply align their beliefs with the culture at the expense of the direct Scriptural teachings of Jesus who is God….cannot be any more contradictory than that. Here’s a challenge: research Christianity and its roots and you will soon find yourself questioning your beliefs and gravitating TO Catholicism. NOT because we are right…but because God leads all to truth.

  17. ” It is wholly biblical in all aspects …” So when the Catholic church declares that Christianity and evolution are compatible, it is pretty much a direct refutation of the entire catholic religion. It certainly isn’t biblical. Comments?

    “secular, relativist world where everyone thinks highly only of himself/herself” Really? Got some evidence for that?
    “and the only objective truth is the one individuals decide for themselves” Again, got some evidence for that?
    And any evidence at all for the catholic Church being in possession of the sole truth? Half of chrisitanity, and everyone else on the planet, would disagree.

  18. There are some beliefs no one can not biblical justify.. It is your issue because their interpretation of the bible has an effect on other churches’ interpretation of the bible. All christian churches represent God!

  19. Why do this church want to give the false perception that God approves of sexual behavior outside of marriage between a male and female? This church is doing a disservice to its members…

  20. The advantage of spending eternity in Hell is that there won’t be any REAL CHRISTIANS there. Spending eternity with REAL CHRISTIANS would be its own kind of Hell.

  21. None at all, Tom. Not one. Thanks for asking a key question there.

  22. “There are some beliefs no one can not biblical justify.”

    Completely and utterly wrong there.

    Literally any kind of actions, good/bad/indifferent find justification in the Bible depending on how one chooses to interpret it. You would not have 500+ sects of Christianity if interpretations were universal, unambiguous, or closed to self-serving interpretation.

    If discussions with Christian Fundamentalists have taught me anything it’s that any action can be supported with a proof texting of scripture to suit one’s needs. I have found no belief that was incapable of being justified using the Bible. For example both Martin Luther King and William Pierce have used the Bible to justify their completely polar opposite views

    BTW you are a liar as well. You did not “agree” with my prior statement or even the concepts behind it. Anyone who can state “Why do this church want to give the false perception that God approves of sexual behavior outside of marriage between a male and female?” would not actually agree with my statement that churches make their own rules based on their own interpretations of scripture.

  23. You haven’t bothered to ask them on the subject. So you are just making assumptions based on your own personal animosity to such churches.

  24. Translation: My beliefs conflict with theirs, so theirs must be wrong. I have no respect for the beliefs of churches who do not believe as I do.

  25. “It is wholly biblical in all aspects” = I agree with their interpretation of the Bible and have no respect for those who believe differently from myself.

  26. Understand that Spuddie aka Tater has about the same respect for the Bible as you do for a roll of Charmin.

  27. It is not as though all of its members are oblivious to that.

    As it has wended it way through the last half century it has lost about half its membership.

    As those folks left, they were replaced with disgruntled Catholics and some others who brought agenda with them.

    If were to walk into a non-mission parish of the Protestant Episcopal Church in 1900 you’d find 90% or more of its members were born Episcopalian.

    Today it might be 30% or so.

    Once a denomination realizes there are literally NO limits to innovation, this is a common tendency.

    Much the same thing happened to the Continental Old Catholics.

  28. You have no respect for the beliefs of churches in any case.

  29. How is noting that Christianity and evolution are compatible non-Biblical?

    I’ll go get some popcorn.

    Oh, btw, how is the minority rights project coming?

  30. Or “continued membership decline”.

  31. For your first comment this summarizes the best about what we believe. Entire books are written on this topic so a comment section is hardly a good forum for lengthy debates.

    Here is “evidence” for the biblical aspects of our Mass as a whole citing specific Scriptural passages that Protestants are so fond of quoting–even though early Christians had no Bibles or New Testament and got everything from word of mouth…. and I could give you a list of books to read which spell out in details. Books that justify the Canonical books removed by Protestants, Biblical roots of the Eucharist, Biblical roots of Mary and Saints, Doctors of the Church and so on.

    As for “secularism and relativism” you can look those terms up yourself and determine “where” these exist in society. If you don’t see stark examples these every day then I doubt any examples I provided would sway you one way or another based on your tone.

    Catholicism is the one religion that has withstood the test of time and can be traced back to Jesus….that’s a fact. NO OTHER RELIGION can or does make that claim and this makes people angry. Nothing I can do about that but it doesn’t change the facts.

    Honestly, I WANT more people to join the Catholic church…it’s a wonderful religion but also a tough one live by and very misunderstood by most non-Catholics in this secular country. Even now I still hear people making false and inaccurate statements about our faith and when I ask “where did you hear such things” they almost always say from another non-Catholic…my question to you and others “Have you ever talked with a Catholic or tried to learn this faith even if you never become Catholic?” Wouldn’t that be the “fair” thing to do before making statements that aren’t accurate or true—just saying…

  32. I am not sure you understand who you are talking to.

    Religion? Nyet.

    A deity? Nyet.

    Morals? Well … he knows what he likes.

  33. Maybe he and Tater can collaborate on it, since Tater talked too much with his mouth (as my grandfather would have said) and consequently stumbled into the same impossible assignment.

  34. The Catholic Church does not take a literal view of every book in the Bible; you know this.

    ….secular world where everyone thinks highly only of himself/herself… Really Ben? We talk here all the time about the selfishness of man and their man-centric view of the world. I guess you never heard of the “me” generation.

    The RCC can trace its lineage back to Christ. I would think that would imply some notion of the truth. The rest of Christianity was founded by men who left the Catholic Church. They had valid reasons from time to time, but were still started by men.

  35. I see that spuddie is back from a week or so absence. He must’ve made bail for the Statue of Liberty stunt (s)he pulled….

  36. Tom, you said, “Why do this church want to give the false perception that God approves of sexual behavior outside of marriage between a male and female? This church is doing a disservice to its members…”

    Why to you want to give the false perception that God exists outside of marriage between gullible people and fraudulent people seeking power, wealth, and status? You are doing a disservice to humanity.

  37. Thank you. I’ve been asking that same question for several years now and get little except crickets.

  38. He’s begging someone to produce a biblical argument that he can cut and paste elsewhere.

    He’s been waiting a long time. He’s going to wait a lot longer, too.

  39. Hardly. My point is and always has been, churches decide for themselves on how to discuss such matters.

    Only fundamentalist sectarian bigots labor under the misapprehension that the Bible can only support one point of view on a given subject (their own).

  40. I am avoiding the self serving fundamentalist garbage argument that only their take on the Bible exists or matters.

    Time to bring up the old joke:

    A man arrives at the gates of heaven. St. Peter asks, “Religion?”

    The man says, “Methodist.”

    St. Peter looks down his list and says, “Go to Room 24, but be very quiet as you pass Room 8.”

    Another man arrives at the gates of heaven. “Religion?”


    “Go to Room 18, but be very quiet as you pass Room 8.”

    A third man arrives at the gates. “Religion?”


    “Go to Room 11, but be very quiet as you pass Room 8.”

    The man says, “I can understand there being different rooms for
    different denominations, but why must I be quiet when I pass Room 8?”

    St. Peter tells him, “Well, the Baptists are in Room 8, and they think they’re the only ones here.”

  41. So Spuddie tries to give the rapidly sinking Episcopalians an escape hatch. He says, “Their church, their rules.” Okay.

    But the poster, Tom R, has zapped that excuse. This is not a teeny-weeny 10-cent church beef. This story is on national media for only one reason: ALL churches are affected by the corrosive message the Episcopalians sent today. Today’s mess (just in time for Friday the 13th!), entails a denial of Genesis, Jesus, Bible, God, Gospel, you name it. A clear denial of Jesus’ power (1 Cor 6:11). .

    Atheists, Christians, Gays, Media, everybody knows the score. We all know what Genesis and Jesus openly said about the exclusively male-female, gender-complementarian nature of marriage. No exceptions. Always hetero. Plus we all know that the Bible mentions Corinthian gays turning straight — all the way straight — via the invincible incalculable power of Jesus.

    But the Episcopalians are calling Jesus and Scripture a liar on all counts today. (By the way, the government has nothing to do with this gig, so that deflection won’t work.) So yes, today’s a good day for Christians to, umm, not put up with it.

  42. You ask the wrong questions and only seek to validate your own sectarian prejudices. Laboring under the assumption that your view is the only available interpretation of the Bible. Fundamentalist Syndrome.

    You should be asking members of that church. But that requires tact and showing a modicum of respect for beliefs you do not share. Something you have not been able to do for several years. 🙂

  43. Tom R, like yourself (and now Shawnie5) labor under the derangement of fundamentalist sectarian bias. The idea that your ideas are the only interpretations of scripture which exist or matter.

    It is a primary reason why I can never take you or other fundies seriously when you speak of religious freedom. You clearly have no respect for the beliefs of fellow Christians, so why should I believe you will respect the beliefs of other faiths?

    Time and again, when questioned on the policies of various churches to act in malicious and discriminatory manners you would say that it is their church and their beliefs and their decision making process on official dogma must be respected. But obviously you never meant such things.

    You will never bother to ask why those churches believe differently than you do nor respect the answers given if you ever bothered to do so.

    You want to define your version of Christianity by whom you hate, go ahead. Its your church or religious belief. I couldn’t care less. Because I respect your right to believe in whatever you want. I understand what religious freedom means. You do not. That is why you are trying to start sectarian holy war here. Why the very notion of a church which disagrees with your frothing at the mouth bigotry offends your sensibilities so much.

  44. Relativism is what christian fundamentalists do and accuse others of being. There is no greater moral relativist than the person who proof-texts scripture to justify whatever personal position they have, regardless of actual moral consideration. Citing a rule to justify one’s actions is not moral thinking, it is merely deferring to authority or self-serving motives.

    Secularism is simply government which respects religious freedom. It is not atheism, it is the opposite of sectarianism. It respects all religions by giving favor or disfavor to none.

  45. I love the association with a ridiculous daredevil but I have not been absent. 🙂

  46. Secularism is what they do in France and Mexico.

    We have non-establishment.

  47. I am just enjoying how deranged you fundies get when you see Christian churches which aren’t trying to be as hateful as yourself.

  48. We have members of all sorts of churches that use this forum. I’ve asked them all. Few respond (because they know better), and the few that do can not defend their positions from scripture. Their positions all end up at the same point: disregarding scripture.

    If you can’t even read the roughly 4-page constitution, taking on scripture will drown you. Don’t even try to go there.

  49. You’ll avoid it only until someone gives you what you think is a good blurb to cut-and-paste.

    And then I shall systematically dismantle it for you, and you will tell me I’m “dishonest.” And I will laugh.

    You’re all out of new material, Tater.

  50. Your response has always been rather hostile, bigoted and self-serving. After a while people pick up on that and just walk away because they know you are not interested in the answers you are trying to solicit. Just validating your own prejudices.

    You labor under the self-serving delusion of being the sole arbiter of God’s word on any given subject. I make fun of this all the time.

    You do the same for the Constitution. You can only hem and haw about how you want it to be interpreted. Giving me a fantasy version of how things work. I simply point out to how it has been done and will continue to be done barring devolution into autocracy (that you seem to want!). Even more to the point, even the people who claim to have the view you express don’t actually follow it. There is not a single “Constitutional Originalist” on SCOTUS who has, or will ever, cede their ability to “legislate from the bench”.

  51. I see you’ve adopted the vernacular of Glorious Leader’s favorite foreign language, comrade.

  52. Deranged? Dead churches don’t upset me in the slightest. I just don’t attend them.

    Let’s see where those minority rights come from, Einstein! Remember the two sources you can’t use…

  53. Never been the case. It is not my job to tell churches what they should believe. But I am more than free to tell people how I feel about such beliefs.

    I don’t claim to be the sole arbiter of God’s will like you do. I leave that to church authorities and self-styled prophets. I simply point out how silly and hateful such delusions can be.

  54. As usual, a distinction without a difference.

  55. No, my responses have been grounded in scripture itself and history. When people see that their positions don’t hold up they walk away. Just like you walked away from the challenge to identify the non-existent source of minority rights that originate in neither nature nor majority vote.

    But thank you for your re-affirmation of judicial legislation. Keep that position squarely in front of the voting public for us, now, OK?

  56. “Start a sectarian holy war”? Oh, I wish I had such influence. (I’d give those Episco’s and Methodists such a hotfoot!!)

    But alas, I ain’t nowhere near such clout. Meanwhile, you clearly wrote that the Episcopalians are “not immune to criticism from the outside.” So you already gave me permission to call ’em out a little.

    As long as Christians don’t appeal to the government to force Episcopalians to participate in any events that oppose their particular religious beliefs, it’s perfectly okay for Christians to explain out loud exactly how the Episcopalians are totally killing themselves (and compromising American Christianity on the side) with all that gay marriage & gay clergy mess.

  57. Ok. Haven’t seen you here lately.

  58. You are so not upset that you are itching to attack someone willing to take the bait on a scripture duel. 🙂

  59. As usual, a difference you can’t distinguish.

  60. “As long as Christians don’t appeal to the government to force
    people to follow their particular
    religious beliefs, it’s perfectly okay for Christians to explain out
    loud exactly how the Episcopalians are totally killing themselves (and
    compromising American Christianity on the side) with all that gay
    marriage & gay clergy mess.”


    The whole “participate in any events that oppose their particular religious beliefs” from you guys really means “attack people in public life”.

    But sort of correct. As long as you are not trying to force people to follow your sectarian dictates, spew away with your hatred of fellow Christians.

  61. It’s been used to justify just about anything and everything in the past, including slavery and the Holocaust. I’m sure you could find a passage or two in there about treating people equally if you looked hard enough. Well, I imagine you can. It’s entirely possible there’s nothing in there on that particular subject.

  62. In your self-serving take on scripture. Laboring under the delusion it is the only one which exists or must exist.

    This is an affliction of the fundamentalist. Much like every mullah in ISIS claims their views are grounded in scripture and history and must be the only one that exists.:)

  63. LOL! Dramatic irony is the best kind around.

  64. One only gets upset when they’re at some disadvantage. Since I know all the arguments and all the answers to the arguments I am quite relaxed about the whole thing.

  65. Explain what “Why to you want” means for us.

  66. This is why I invite the presentation of a case for examination against scripture. Either it fits or it doesn’t. Few takers — again, because most know better.

  67. Certainly you’re not the one to get into a Scriptures duel.

  68. Whatever makes you feel better, oh great prophet Shawnie, the living embodiment of God on Earth and his voice here on Earth. 🙂

  69. The question, in case you missed it, was “Where do minority rights come from?”.

  70. Does that last sentence mean you’re moving on to a discussion you actually know something about?

    There must be at least ONE discussion you know something about SOMEWHERE.

  71. For somebody who doesn’t care less, you’re devoting quite bit of time to bloviating about the topic.

  72. You mean an examination against your self-serving, arbitrary interpretation of scripture.

    Usually followed by proof-texting, wild stretching of points beyond rational limits, goalpost shifting, fabrication, appeals to authority and flat out lying about the meaning of less ambiguous texts. A scripted sucker’s game to play into a fundamentalist’s feeling of self-worth and ego.

    Religion is not about presentation of facts, rational arguments or logical appeal. So there is no reason to believe the methods of such things will apply to religious beliefs.

  73. Except that he’s a lot more familiar with the sheets of the Charmin roll than he is with the pages of the Bible.

  74. I am not sure that the Episcopalians are calling Jesus and Scripture a flat-out liar.

    What you are seeing at work is the continuation of what led to the ordination of women in the ’70s in the same church.

    Its roots are in the rejection of the belief that the revelation was once for all and ended with the death of the last Apostle.

    It is usually encapsulated in “the Spirit is doing new things” or “God is making new revelation”.

    Apparently the deity has anointed the Episcopal Church in the United States to be the new spokespersons for this new revelation.

    The instrument of the deity is the triennial General Convention, where the deity stalks the convention floor putting divine inspiration into the heads of nice ladies from Dubuque so they can vote correctly.

    It is quite amazing to watch – it makes the alleged divine inspiration of the Scriptures over centuries look like a simple party trick and puts the prophetic authority of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints look like a piker.

  75. I suppose a self-serving arbitrary interpretation of Scriptures beats nada hands down.

  76. Perhaps he’s reading them?

    That would explain quite a bit.

  77. Oh, I’m sure they’d never (well, hopefully never) come right out and say, “flat-out liar” of Jesus.

    But the positions they’ve taken and openly acted upon today, upon close comparison with Scripture, does effectively call or entail Jesus’ words and accuracy in Matt. 19:4-5, (and Jesus’ deeds and power in 1 Cor. 6:1), as being flat-out lies.

  78. Call them to repentance. Forget the homosexual “marriage” nonsense.

  79. I see that this thread is a s boring as all the others with topics along these lines. And everyone is represented, from the strong Roman Catholics to the conservative Evangelical Protestants. And it has devolved into the usual tit for tat back and forth useless comments as is usually the case, from she who is the expert in the Bible as an English translation to he who believes that he is far more enlightened and expert in all matters than anyone else here.

    The case is this and it’s simple. Spuddie is correct, it’s our church, our rules. The current membership of the Episcopal Church believe that the heavens are not sealed, that God still leads the church through the promptings of the Holy Spirit and believe that the Holy Spirit has led the Church to accept & welcome LGBTQ folks as they are, the image of God in their various sexual identities and gender orientations. That our bishops, through their apostolic succession, hold the keys to bind and loose and the majority have chosen to bing the church’s acceptance go LGBTQ folks serving in all aspects of the ministry of the baptized, both lay & ordained and to participate in the sacraments and sacramental ordinances of the Church.

  80. Again self serving interpretations of scripture, you really mean. A game nobody ever needs to play.

    Only the delusional or dishonest think they can rationally justify religious belief. Especially when their belief is never based on reason.

  81. Ah, but they’ve “reinterpreted” Matthew 19:4-5.

    It’s like those pesky sexist references like “Our Father who is in heaven”.

    Fortunately with the lady from Dubuque getting inspired by the Holy Spirit they can knock those things right out of the way.

    This is not ubiquitous among the constituent churches of the Anglican Communion.

    The Africans in particular have made their disagreement clear.

  82. I know that. But the OP SAID it was wholly biblical in all aspects.

    Like the idea of the “me generation”, His statement was a gross generalization and oversimplification about selfishness, not to mention, flat out wrong.

  83. thank you. You may change your mind
    For a small tour – Luke 16

  84. What he did not say was “it was wholly biblical as a gay atheist would interpret the Bible in all aspects”.

  85. Your first sentence sounds just like your line about activist judges.

    And the rest of that first paragraph echoes the same lines.

    Surprise everybody and cite one or two facts.

  86. “BTW you are a liar as well”

    WHERE have we heard this line before?

    Do have scripts with blank spaces that you fill in depending on the topic being discussed?

  87. I would absolutely love to see your Biblical citations in support of the Holocaust.

    As to slavery, it depends on what one means by “slavery”.

  88. One night, the Potato family sat down to dinner – Mother Potato and her three daughters. Midway through the meal, the eldest daughter spoke up. “Mother Potato?” she said. “I have an announcement to make.”

    “And what might that be?” said Mother, seeing the obvious excitement in her eldest daughter’s eyes.

    “Well,” replied the daughter, with a proud but sheepish grin, “I’m getting married!”

    The other daughters squealed with surprise as Mother Potato exclaimed, “Married! That’s wonderful! And who are you marrying, Eldest daughter?”

    “I’m marrying a Russet!”

    “A Russet!” replied Mother Potato with pride.

    “Oh, a Russet is a fine tater, a fine tater indeed!”

    As the family shared in the eldest daughter’s joy, the middle daughter spoke up. “Mother? I, too, have an announcement.”

    “And what might that be?” encouraged Mother Potato.

    Not knowing quite how to begin, the middle daughter paused, then said with conviction, “I, too, am getting married!”

    “You, too!” Mother Potato said with joy. “That’s wonderful! Twice the good news in one evening! And who are you marrying, Middle Daughter?”

    “I’m marrying an Idaho!” beamed the middle daughter.

    “An Idaho!” said Mother Potato with joy. “Oh, an Idaho is a fine tater, a fine tater indeed!”

    Once again, the room came alive with laughter and excited plan for the future, when the youngest Potato daughter interrupted. “Mother? Mother Potato? Um, I, too, have an announcement to make.”

    “Yes?” said Mother Potato with great anticipation.

    “Well,” began the youngest Potato daughter with the same sheepish grin as her eldest sister before her, “I hope this doesn’t come as a shock to you, but I am getting married, as well!”

    “Really?” said Mother Potato with sincere excitement. “All of my lovely daughters married! What wonderful news! And who, pray tell, are you marrying, Youngest Daughter?”

    “I’m marrying Peter Jennings!”

    “Peter Jennings?!” Mother Potato scowled suddenly.

    “But he’s just a common tater!”

  89. Letting someone else own your sexuality is slavery.

  90. That’s awfully rich, coming from a virgin-birther like yourself.

  91. You are a flat-out liar. Stop imposing your religious beliefs on others.

  92. Your comment reminded me of someone who posts here from time to time, who unabashedly hates Christianity, hates Christians, hates the Bible, hates the words of Christ whenever they’re referenced…but for some odd reason refuses to admit outright that (s)he hates Jesus.

    I think the lingering effects of western culture still show in the unwillingness to hate directly on gentle-Jesus-meek-and-mild. I wonder how long it will take to fade to the point of the modern world having no more trouble hating on Him than the ancient world did.

  93. Wow, Tater, between those two posts — not one but two! — you managed to pack in just about all of your shorthand for “I don’t know what you’e talking about but I hate, hate, hate it!”

    I’m flattered. I’m also more than a little bored with you.

  94. That’s all you’re good for, isn’t it?

  95. Is it your position that God no longer leads the Episcopal Church through the Bible? Given today’s clear outcome, isn’t it true the Bible has become merely optional — perhaps even obsolete or falsehood — for you Episcopalians?

  96. Exactly. In the end God grants us all what we desire the most.

  97. You desire the deaths of all gay and trans people, apparently. How’s that working out for you?

  98. The key is the belief “that God still leads the church through the promptings of the Holy Spirit” – i.e., new revelation – scrapping altogether the notion of one revelation which ended with the death of the last apostle.

    It ‘s basically impossible to support “our bishops, through their apostolic succession, hold the keys to bind and loose” since the Episcopal Church entered into communion with churches without the slightest pretensions to the historic episcopate, and scrapped its understanding of Holy Orders, but more importantly violates a foundational Anglican belief:

    XX. Of the Authority of the Church.

    The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

  99. NO, that is not what I am saying at all. But like many Western mainstream churches, the Episcopal Church believes that God is still speaking to the Church through the Holy Spirit. And, most mainstream churches don’t approach the Bible the way that conservative Protestants do. As to the passages of scripture that you believe condemn LGBTQ folks, 50 years of scholarship have shown us that your approach to those passages aren’t either what they are about or what you think that they say when looked at in the original languages, Hebrew or Koine Greek.

  100. 1. Your concept that Scripture somehow closed the doors & windows of heaven regarding continuing revelation to God’s Church isn’t shared by most mainstream Western Christian churches.

    2. We have entered into full communion with 6 churches, five of which held the Apostolic Succession on their own, and one which we, and some of the others, have shared the Apostolic Succession.

    3. We don’t believe that we have violated Article 20 of the historic documents. We don’t share the conservative approach to scripture, nor to the passages that you may have had in mind when you wrote this.

  101. 1 – My concept of the revelation and the Scripture is the historic position of Anglicanism, which holds to a single revelation ending with the death of the last Apostle.

    The largest group of Christian churches would be the Catholics and the Orthdox, and they both reject an ongoing revelation. That belief has been a hallmark of cults.

    2 – The Episcopal Church entered into – just for an example – communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church which had zero claim to apostolic succession and immediately treated their orders at parity with Anglican orders.

    3 – Since the question is about what you believe, stating that you believe you did not violate Article of Religion XX is zany indeed. Anyone who can read English can see that the actions discussed are incompatible with the plain text.

    Like Elagabalus you dropped by the Episcopal Church from somewhere else, and are simply clueless about Anglican polity and belief.

  102. By “Western mainstream churches” you mean liberal Protestant denominations, not other members of the Anglican Communion, the Orthodox, or the Catholics.

    Fifty years of scholarship have shown us that the only folks who believe the passages don’t mean what the Church has always believed and taught they meant are

    LGBTQ advocates and zany fellow travelers.

  103. Good post.

    Makes more sense than you usually do.

  104. Many churches in the Anglican Communion may join you in that belief. And it may be historic. How long and who has believed something doesn’t make something true.

    Yes, the ELCA was the church with whom the Episcopal Church and others have shared the Apostolic Succession.

    Your 3rd assertion is your own belief about us, but is not something to which we would agree.

    Life long baptized and confirmed member. TEC in Mexico, then The Anglican Church of Mexico and now that I am in the US, again TEC. I am well aware of Anglican polity and belief. It’s just that our understanding of ourselves doesn’t line up with what you insists that we must be.

  105. The question is NOT whether “many churches in the Anglican Communion” agree.

    The question is (a) whether the Articles are foundational beliefs of the Church of England, and (b) whether a denomination can reject foundational beliefs and remain Anglican.

    The answers appear to “yes” and “no”

    Some clergy of the ELCA have received apostolic succession, others have not. The belief of the ELCA in common with the American Lutheran synods is that bishops are supervisors, not one of three orders.

    You can cease “we would agree”. You’re just one more guy in the pew. You’ll need to back your positions up with something more robust than an imperial “we”.

    If you’re a live-long Anglican, you must have slept through the courses in Anglican history, theology, and polity or you are too young to remember anything but this mess of pottage.

  106. Perhaps I should more accurately say, the mainline US churches, which are indeed Protestant churches and has not been used to refer to the Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches.

    Your are free to believe what you may about the scholarship and who ascribes to it. What you believe and say about us is insignificant to us.

  107. Perhaps you should just drop it.

    What you’re saying without realizing it is that the Episcopal Church is just one more liberal Protestant American denomination.

    That scraps Elagabalus’ “via media”, any pretension of the branch theory of the Church (Anglican, Orthdox, and Catholic), any notion of apostolic succession.

    If that’s the position you’re taking, that your church and the Methodists are essentially indistinguishable, you will find a lot of agreement, but if I were you I would not take that position.

    What I think about the scholarship isn’t as important as what real scholars think about the “scholarship”.

    I’ve been at meetings where mention of the “scholarship” that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality was greeted with sustained gales of laughter.

  108. Yes, because we all know that you constantly regale us with your importance, the people you have known, the important meetings which you have attended.

    But your dismissal is but that of one lone man, a nobody actually. If you want folks to take you seriously, cut out the constant putting down of others and what they have to say and the insults of whether you think someone does or doesn’t know what their church believes and teaches. You constantly do it, and it just makes you pompous, nothing more.

  109. Yes, because we all know that you constantly regale us with your smarmy remarks, one-liners, put-downs, and dismissals.

    If you want folks to take you seriously, cut out the constant putting down of others and what they have to say and pretending to be able to speak with any authority on what you clearly know next to nothing about.

    You constantly do it, and it just makes you an annoying git, nothing more.

    You certainly have nothing to add to my knowledge or floydlee’s about the topics under discussion, and your “I see that this thread is as boring as all the others with topics along these lines.” indicates you should find something else to do with your time.

  110. The ELCA believe that their bishops are the chief pastors of synods, which they equate to dioceses. They are elected to the office by the synod, consecrated to the Apostolic Succession by other bishops, including at least one from TEC and sometimes other episcopal churches. They remain bishops for life, even after they retire from office.

    As the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral states, The historic episcopate, locally adapted.

  111. Yes, your assholiness. I stand put in my place by my better.

  112. All American Lutherans consider bishops as supervisor, not an order. Until the intercommunion with PECUSA the ELCA, like all other American Lutherans, elected bishops for a term, at the end of which they went back to being pastors.

    Yes, since the intercommunion some but not all have received Anglican or other consecration. What they believe that signifies is not clear.

    “Locally adapted” is not a synonym for “not in existence”, which was the case with every member of the ELCA clergy when the intercommunion began.

  113. Here’s how it goes.

    You write

    I take the time – and it was not a couple of minutes – to actually detail the history of Canon DuBois.

    You respond with

    to a third party.

    And here are some further examples, just ones to me:

    Earlier you were claiming the power of keys for bishops in the Episcopal Church, but you previously showed that this power could not possibly authorize what you claim when you were writing to Thomas Aquinas 2015:

    So, the assholiness begins and ends with you, who contributes nothing of value to conversations that deal with anything substantive in theology.

    My suggestion to you is that you avoid being annoying, and if you cannot cease, take the drubbings that result like a man.

  114. What stands out the most to me, after roughly a decade of off-and-on discussion on HuffPo, RNS and Patheos, is how many scoffers care so little about religion that they spend the better part of everyday online talking about how little they care about it.

  115. No one has the time to look up and link to all of the times that you dismiss folks, insult them and call them names.

    As to your link to a conversation with TA 2015, I’m sorry that you aren’t able to follow the difference in that conversation and what I shared above. And I’m not going to take the time to lay it out for you.

    Yes, I’ve been so righteously put in my place.

  116. I’ve heard the old joke many times. My mother told it years ago, only the Church of Christ was the punch line then.

  117. Bob Jose Arnzen Carioca, you are already so thoroughly “drubbed” that your face is covered in muck.

  118. BobbyJo Arzen’s head is also mostly blank space.

  119. BLAM! Our nasty, typical Christian AS​SHOLE BobbyJo Arzen takes yet another swipe.

  120. Shawnie, you rancid old bigot, your church of christ IS the joke. Die soon please.

  121. Shawnie, you rancid, deluded old bigot, you are all BS, all the time.

  122. Well, you clearly use your hands a lot for beating, BobbyJo Arnzen Carioca.

  123. Speak for yourself there, Christian AS​SHOLE BobbyJo Arnzen, bloviator of incredible volumes.

  124. No, actually, Shawnie, you rancid, sickening, disgusting and deluded old bigot, we are doing a public service by pointing out your bigotry and delusion.

    Die soon please, you wretched old cow.The world needs to move on from your awful delusions.

  125. Laughing AT you, Shawnie, you rancid, fat, deluded old cow.

  126. Cr*p….

    Marriage is a civil contract entered into by 2 parties.

    It has nothing to do with sex or religion.

  127. You have nothing to complain about.

    You knew you were taunting, you knew you had nothing to contribute, you knew and in fact hoped for a reaction with your trolling, and you got it.

    Man up.

  128. I note that every single time the usual cast of non-contributing gadflies chime in.

  129. So, your position is that whatever you do if you marry, don’t have sex and don’t go to church, temple, mosque, or synagogue together.

  130. This denomination, having surrendered faithful witness to a culture of corruption, now wants to undercut its own bishops. Declining membership, abandonment of orthodoxy and now structural disemboweling, they are busy about the business of what color to paint the deck chairs on the Titanic.

  131. On the other hand they seem pleased about it as all get out.

    It should make an interesting footnote one to five hundred years from now in someone’s book.

  132. One of the unique aspects of the Episcopal Church is its likeness to our American system; it’s practice of bicameral government, regions of sub-governing… and at the center of it are the parishioners. Leadership knows this. They understand that without the people there is no church. There is no “my way or the highway” attitude. It just isn’t allowed.

  133. “Opponents of the resolution raised concerns about undermining bishops’ authority and about possible schism within the church.”

    POSSIBLE schism? It’s already here, like the San Andreas fault line.

  134. The reason why the two are similarly structured is that many of the same people were involved in setting them up at roughly the same time.

    Yes, there is “my way or the highway” attitude, as demonstrated by the ongoing litigation over parishes and dioceses who said “no, thank you very much” and tried to leave.

  135. Jeez, if their belief is never based on reason, you ought to feel right at home with them.

  136. “There is no “my way or the highway” attitude. It just isn’t allowed.”

    That makes for interesting conversation with fundamentalists who think such attitudes are the only way people have religious beliefs.

  137. You think that every troll is me, because you are completely obsessed with me, creepy stalker.

  138. Shawnie, every post from you is shorthand for making up crap and trying badly to obscure an obvious agenda of “Jesus says its OK for me to treat people like crap”.

    “I don’t know what you’re talking about but I hate, hate, hate it!””

    That is only because you are dishonest by nature and love ascribing phony positions to others that you hold yourself.

    My view was to show respect for a church for its beliefs and practice. (See my first post and my entire view here so far of “their church, their rules”) You came in to support hateful attacks on it. As expected from a fundamentalist bigot who does not respect your fellow Christians.

  139. yeah – that’s it. Later bob corizone…


    You’re such a jolly troll, Bob.

  141. This is the only account I am currently using. How sad that you fail to recognize the fact that your kind are outnumbered on the internet, and in real life, as well.

  142. And lose Genesis and the rest of the Bible becomes moot.

  143. My view was to show respect for a church for its beliefs and practice. (See my first post and my entire view here so far of “their church, their rules”) — LOL! Your view was to acknowledge the decision the convention reached but to call the delegates who opposed it “bigots.” Real respectful — though it hardly counts anyway because nobody needs to care about what’s shouted through the keyhole of the church door.

    I called nobody anything. I seconded Tom’s request for a biblical case for same-sex marriage — and remarked upon the conspicuous absence of a response. What you are in no position to understand about the faith is that this is not an attack but a biblical obligation for us. To “contend earnestly for the faith,” to “always be prepared to give a response,” to “test all things, hold fast to what is good, and avoid every appearance of evil,” and to keep ourselves “unstained from the world.” The sifting process by which we call each other to account strengthens and purifies the faith.

    That is only because you are dishonest by nature and love ascribing phony positions to others that you hold yourself. — No, it’s because you can’t keep up.

  144. To a fairly large extent the Episcopal Church lost Genesis four decades ago.

    This is just detailing out the consequences the rest of the way.

  145. For that matter, what biblical scriptures did the Church have to support slavery?

    ANSWER: Luke 12:45-48, etc.

    It wasn’t until late 1965 that the Church of Rome’s bishops, gathered at Vatican II, officially condemned slavery. Their action was a recognition of inherent human dignity that comes from God, not government. It appears that increasing numbers of people, at least in the West, are responding in like manner in their support for same-sex marriage.

    Attitudinal change can take time.

  146. Apparently religious discussion, like legal discussion, is over his pay grade.

  147. If his post was shorthand for making up crap, you’d point to the biblical proof that his position was made-up rather than your usual generic accusation of an “obvious agenda of ‘Jesus says its OK for me to treat people like crap’.”

    I can see, however, you don’t know what you’re talking about but you hate, hate, hate it!

    That is only because you are dishonest by nature and love ascribing phony positions to others to obscure your complete lack of knowledge.

  148. There is plenty of “my way or the highway” in the Episcopal Church.

  149. I can see that you don’t know what you’re talking about but you hate, hate, hate gay people!

  150. “Homophobia now, homophobia forever!!”

  151. “My view was to show respect for a church for its beliefs and practice.”

    Yet you are practically calling them heretics for approving marriage equality. A big difference from my “their church, their rules”.

    I may call out bigoted policies of churches, but I do not deny they are Christian as you do. I do not presume to dictate dogma to them as you would. ”

    “Your view was to acknowledge the decision the convention reached but to call the delegates who opposed it “bigots.” Real respectful”

    Which they are. But the difference is you presume to deny they are Christian or even churches. I would not. You act as if your bigotry is a defining feature of Christianity. Other churches do not share such a narrow and hateful view.

  152. Yet you are practically calling them heretics for approving marriage equality — Um, no, I am asking for their biblical case in support of it. The Word is “sharper than any two-edged sword.” It searches the heart and shines the light upon the true and the false where epithets fail.

    But I do not deny they are Christian as you do — I challenge you (in addition to my challenge to you to reveal the non-natural and non-majority-vote source of minority rights) to show where I have denied the Christianity of another. Although you have been known to upvote many from YOUR camp who did so, probably without knowing what you were doing, as usual.

  153. That’s correct. Even if intelligent design were true, Genesis doesn’t truthfully describe the creation. Intelligent design is obviously going down the wrong road.

  154. The classic 1 Cor. 6:9-11. The unexpected twist, that occurs right at 6:11.

    There’s nothing like it, it’s so powerful. It’s like a historical bolt from the blue. Not only is this Jesus claim unique to the Bible, it’s unique to all the world religions’ primary texts.

    Nobody dares to display this kind of transformative power … except Jesus.

  155. ” I am asking for their biblical case in support of it.”

    No, you are demanding that they agree with your self-serving interpretation of the Bible.

    “Biblical case” to a fundamentalist like yourself is an arbitrary set of proof-texts to justify a personal opinion. A way to pretend one’s opinion needs to be taken seriously by claiming to invoke divine support.

    Of course if asked, they will tell you and you will attack them for choosing such an interpretation which differs from your personal hate and malice.

  156. No, if they present it I will simply show how it doesn’t hold up to scriptural and historical scrutiny., which is precisely why no one wants to discuss it in depth. From there is is not necessary in the least to label anyone a “heretic” or not; the Word itself pierces the heart and forces one to choose between following the Master or self. That is s choice I neither need nor want to be a party to — all each of us is called to do is to bear witness to the truth.

    Tater, seriously, it requires considerable familiarity with scripture to know what a “biblical case” is or isn’t. You’re out of your league here.

  157. “scriptural and historical scrutiny.”

    Meaning to more honest people, agrees with your preconceptions, prejudices and personal opinion. Nobody is fooled into thinking fundamentalist Christians have the sole ownership of the Bible or its interpretations.

    Anyone who claims to have a sole definitive view of scripture for a faith with over 500+ sects is just demonstrating delusions of grandeur. Sorry, but not everyone recognizes your authority as God’s sole prophet and the ultimate arbiter of how to interpret the Bible.

  158. “Nobody is fooled into thinking fundamentalist Christians have the sole ownership of the Bible or its interpretations.“ A facile viewpoint for those with exactly zero acquaintance with either scripture, ancient history or ancient languages.

    Anyone who thinks their position holds up to scriptural, historical and linguistic scrutiny is utterly free to present it. One can not, however, expect to present it free of the critique it merits.

  159. Again, your ego seems to be the main driving factor here. You just can’t seem to stand that there are Christians who don’t take your view of the Bible as the only one available. So therefore they must be attacked, condemned and you must pretend they are not of the same faith as yourself.

    ” A facile viewpoint for those with exactly zero acquaintance with either scripture, ancient history or ancient languages.”

    You are not an expert in any of those. You certainly have never given a fact-based account of history. People pillory you constantly over issues with language and translations of scripture. You simply chose to cite whatever sources will support your self-serving interpretation.

    “Anyone who thinks their position holds up to scriptural, historical and linguistic scrutiny is utterly free to present it.”

    To see if it comports with your personal interpretation of scripture. Most notably whether it validates your personal bigotry and malice towards others. 🙂

  160. You just can’t seem to stand that there are Christians who don’t take your view of the Bible as the only one available — I stand it quite well, thank you. I simply ask for their case. I lose no sleep whatsoever if they will not or can not produce it. That fact speaks for itself with no need for supplementary condemnation.

    So therefore they must be attacked, condemned and you must pretend they are not of the same faith as yourself — It is not an attack to test any proffered position against scripture. The Word is a gift to us which “searches the mind and tries the heart” all by itself. And again, I challenge you to show where I have denied the Christianity of anyone, while you, on the other hand, are on record upvoting those who have.

  161. To ascertain whether I’ve given a fact-based account of history, Tater, I’m afraid you would have to have some knowledge of history.

    About issues with language and translations… LOL! Some people claim that there are such issues, but anyone can do that. They tend to decamp when asked about the specific nature of those so-called issues, and a few who do specify them decamp when they are debunked.

    Please specify the self-serving sources to which you refer and the nature of your objection to them.

  162. Tater, I’m sorry but you are becoming a joke in your complete helplessness to do anything other than stand outside the door and scream “Lies! Lies! Lies!” You’d do well to simply sit down and let someone more competent attempt to address scriptural challenges, if they can. Which shouldn’t be too hard for someone who purports to show respect for a church for its beliefs and practice.

    And please do not clutter my inbox by responding to each post separately. It is only because of the asinine RNS moderation system that I must post in segments.

  163. Again, that ego is rearing its ugly head. You are annoyed that people don’t want to play in your pre-scripted game or have any reason to take your views seriously as the only one available.

    500+ Sects of Christianity are proof enough that nobody has a monopoly on interpretation of scripture nor are you going to find agreement on major elements of faith there. Only a fundamentalist looking to stroke their ego and validate their personal beliefs labors under the delusion that there is a single binding one which defines them. Usually having to do with their own personal prejudices and arrogance.

  164. You have never given a fact based account of any given subject. You love giving wild interpretations of history which do not hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

    As for language and translations, you have no skills or expertise in that field anyway. Your opinions as to the issues there are meaningless. Just looking to handwave inconvenient views to your own.

    “Please specify the self-serving sources to which you refer and the nature of your objection to them.”

    That would be your entire line of argument, how you expect people to respond to it and the delusion that a single interpretation of scripture (your own) exists and is valid for all faiths that use it.

  165. “You just can’t seem to stand that there are Christians who don’t take your view of the Bible as the only one available — I stand it quite well, thank you”

    Your entire reason for posting on this subject is proof of the opposite.

  166. Does this mean that parish priests can refuse to perform same-sex “marriages” even if their bishop has said they are acceptable? Or does this only cut one way?

  167. Your entire reason for posting on this subject is proof of the opposite.

  168. You have never given a fact based account of any given subject. You love giving wild interpretations of history which do not hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

    As for language and translations, you have no skills or expertise in that field anyway. Your opinions as to the issues there are meaningless. Just looking to handwave inconvenient views to your own.

  169. Again, that ego is rearing its ugly head. You are annoyed that people don’t want to play in your pre-scripted game or have any reason to take your views seriously as the only one available.

  170. I am not annoyed in the slightest. I simply remark upon the responses that are conspicuous by their absence.

    500+ sects mostly DO agree about the major elements of the faith. And 500+ sects have ALL agreed about the unscriptural nature of same-sex practice up until the appearance of the unfortunate John Boswell’s ideas about 40 years ago.

    Again, in order to ascertain accuracy or expertise in history, scripture or language, one would need to some knowledge of those matters, of which you have none. Otherwise your proffered rebuttals would not consist entirely of a handful of meaningless adjectives like “dishonest” or “self-serving.”

    So, no specified sources? I didn’t think so. Just more helpless whining.

    Christians debate intra-faith questions — it’s simply what we do, in accordance with the NT’s direction. An atheist complaining about intra-faith questions that don’t concern him, yelling epithets through the keyhole to show how much he doesn’t care about it (?) is who “can’t stand it.”

    Do you have ANYTHING specific to offer, other than your usual handful of adjectives? You are being extremely ineffective and boring.

  171. “500+ sects mostly DO agree about the major elements of the faith”

    Not even close to true.

    They can’t even agree upon whey constitutes a “major element of the faith” other than claims of following their own interpretation of scriptures and reference to Jesus to fit them.

    Even disagreement about which translation of the text to the same language is rife. There are at least 30 different versions in English alone with different kinds of emphasis and deliberate word choices.

    “Christians debate intra-faith questions — it’s simply what we do”

    No they don’t and no you aren’t. You attack other on issues of differences and declare others not to be “true Christians”. You are not interested in polite discussion or respect for differences. You want validation for personal bigotry and malice.

    Sorry Shawnee, but your playbook is already well known.

    It’s telling why you are discussing this with an atheist, while fellow Christians have not taken the obvious bait.

  172. No one ever accused the Tater Tot of self-awareness.

    In small does he’s hilarious. In larger ones, like now, he approaches Lisa Strom et al in sheer tedium.

  173. One need not worry overmuch about the English when we have the original Greek.

    We don’t debate and I’m not? LOL! I’ll let someone you may know respond to that:

    There is no such thing as a reasonable argument that an outsider to a faith can accurate represent what they believe without sounding like a complete bigoted dolt.

    It certainly IS telling — I started out discussing this with a fellow Christian and am now discussing with an atheist because he rudely barged in and addressed me. And (I assume you mean liberal) fellow Christians have not “taken the bait” because they can not.

    Again, ANY specific facts to discuss? If not, I suggest you go watch a movie because you’re done here.

  174. Oh no! People will not take Shawnie seriously as the sole prophet and arbiter of God’s Word! Therefore, we go through days of your whining. Get a grip.

    “One need not worry overmuch about the English when we have the original Greek.”

    Which you are not familiar with, nor issues of the translations from the ancient forms of the language. Issues which form vigorous discussion far outside the subject of Biblical translation and interpretation. So its a non-issue.

    “There is no such thing as a reasonable argument that an outsider to a faith can accurate represent what they believe without sounding like a complete bigoted dolt.”

    Yet you consider fellow Christians “outsiders” as well. They seemed to have picked up on it as well and are not taking you any more seriously on the subject than I am.

  175. Oh no! People will not take Spuddie seriously!

    Oh, wait, they don’t now.

    “’One need not worry overmuch about the English when we have the original Greek.’”

    “Which you are not familiar with, nor issues of the translations from the ancient forms of the language.”

    And YOU are?

    Let’s test you.

    Theologian Mel White argues that the Greek word “arsenokoitai”, used in 1 Corinthians 6:9, is hard to translate. He claims that this “mysterious” Greek word was translated into English as “homosexuals” even though no such word exists in Greek or Hebrew.

    Take a position yea or nay on his proposition and defend it.

    “‘Yet you consider fellow Christians ‘outsiders’ as well.’”

    Erroneous in their interpretations is not the same as “outsiders”, even if Mel White argues otherwise.

  176. “They can’t even agree upon whey constitutes a ‘major element of the faith’ other than claims of following their own interpretation of scriptures and reference to Jesus to fit them.”

    It’s telling why you are critiquing this at all, since you’re clearly clueless as to the issues under discussion.

  177. To ascertain whether or not I am familiar with the original Greek, or issues of translation, or “vigorous discussion” inside/outside the subject of Biblical translation/interpretation…you would require knowledge of the subject. And you have none.

    You are “not taking me seriously” so much that you have followed me, uninvited, for a week now. As for the others, it makes not the slightest difference how “seriously” anyone takes me; the lack of scriptural rebuttal speaks for itself — as it is intended to do.

    Any specific facts, Tater? Any at all?

    TCM has a Barbara Stanwyck marathon going on today — check it out. Something for you to do that won’t bore others.

  178. Everyone can tell you are faking it there. You are not very good at presentation of credible scholarly sources. Certainly not as good as you think you are.

    Has anyone else taken the bait and decided to pretend you are a Bible scholar? I haven’t seen any here.

    ” As for the others, it makes not the slightest difference how “seriously” anyone takes me”

    Which is why you are still so steamed that I am not doing so and making fun of your attempts to portray yourself as someone who should be.

  179. Of course. George Washington was an Episcopalian.

    I correct myself; it is not an “attitude” so much as it is a belief. But the resolution of this “gender-neutral” babble is one leader’s way of letting the rectors know that the people do make the Church. Just as Bishop Provenzano said: “That would have been ‘a step too fast.’”
    As much as I despise comparing the Church to American politics, this decision is comparable to the Feds leaving it up to the states. It isn’t ideal, but it will sustain relations… for now.

  180. Stop killing gay people, you morons.

  181. Says the raging homophobe, who is totally butthurt that other Christians don’t all hate gay people as much as you do.

  182. One who considers Wikipedia and The Friendly Atheist to be credible sources is in no position to evaluate ANY scholarly sources.

    The most recent poster here to take on, and subsequently abandon, the challenge was Susan Humphreys, in the thread on the article titled United Methodist Annual Conferences Meet With Denomination’s Future in Flux, which you can find through the RNS search engine.

    Same unsupported, unspecified appeal to “modern scholars” (really just Boswell) reminiscent of the famously unintelligent CCM. She wouldn’t even name the word she was trying to make a point about, because she knew what the obvious problem with it was and that I would instantly demonstrate it.

    Tater, it is odd that you believe I am steamed by you. Sometimes your hypocrisy is amusing, sometimes your whining is boring (like now), often your ill-breeding and vulgarity is repellent, but be assured that I am not angry at you. You do serve a useful purpose here, the same one served by Lisa et al, although no doubt it’s NOT the one you intend to serve.

    As an aside, let me remind you that you have not yet turned in the minority rights assignment…

  183. I would hardly call what Tater is doing “critiquing.”

    Wah-wah-wah is not a critique.

  184. Here’s his defense: You’re dishonest.

    Tater has no idea what “issues of translation” are and only spoke of it because DA mentioned it up above and Tater hoped he might jump in and take over for him. He certainly can’t come up with anything on his own other than his little collection of half a dozen or so adjectives.

    He also never heard of the Federalist Papers until he picked it up from me.

    Need we say more about why he accuses others of “faking it?”

  185. Wikipedia is still far more credible than making crap up and then scrambling for a source several days when called out for obvious fabrication.

    “in the thread on the article titled United Methodist Annual Conferences Meet With Denomination’s Future in Flux”

    So nobody bothered here.

    My guess is like most people, she got tired of your terrible excuses, deliberate misrepresentations, cheap insults, gish gallops and overall bad faith debating. Which is why nobody is bothering to respond to your challenge now. You have fouled the nest.

    “(really just Boswell)”

    Again, poor self-serving scholarship rears its head to handwave sources you don’t want to consider. I find it funny the excuses you come up with to deny the existence of things which run counter to your claims and interpretations. Its not even remotely intellectual. It just comes down to off hand remarks and attempts to change the subject.

    Oh well. Have fun.

  186. Wikipedia is not credible in any fashion, and you have failed to identify anything “made up” or any objectionable sources so I suppose we can dispense with that particular whine.

    My guess is that if she had the goods she would produce them, as do most people who enter a discussion actually knowing their stuff–which leaves you out altogether.

    “Which is why nobody is bothering to respond to your challenge now. You have fouled the nest.” Keep telling yourself that. No doubt it is more pleasant than the realization that those you’d like to crib arguments off of don’t actually have any arguments.

    But I couldn’t agree more that Boswell was poor, self-serving scholarship. What’s worse, his camp has produced nothing better since.

    Bye, now.

  187. The difficulty with “the people do make the Church” is obvious when we consider the people at the time the Church began.

    It was an upward climb.

    The Church was founded to leaven the populace and raise them to higher level.

    What seems to be happening now looks like a race to the bottom.

  188. Spoken like a true BS artist. Someone whose assertions fail to hold up to the slightest bit of online scrutiny.

    The self-described “free encyclopedia that anyone can edit” has fared similarly well in most other studies comparing its accuracy to conventional encyclopedias, including studies by The Guardian, PC Pro, Library Journal, the Canadian Library Association, and several peer-reviewed academic studies.
    Wikipedia entries are generally in the forefront of preliminary web research on almost any topic.

  189. And where is the minority rights report?

  190. As a community project with no central review committee, Wikipedia certainly contains its share of incorrect information and uninformed opinion. And since it presents itself as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia can sometimes seem more trustworthy than the average website, even to writers who would be duly careful about private websites or topic websites. In this sense, it should be treated as a popular rather than scholarly source.

    https://ctl.yale dot edu/writing/using-sources/citing-internet-sources#Wikipedia

    It’s a tolerable place for people with zero background on a subject (like you on most subjects) to start to get a general idea what the subject is about and perhaps find some additional resources to explore (which in turn must be evaluated for credibility). And that is it. An uncredited and changeable source has no place in higher-level academic discussion.

  191. It’s not “marriage”; it’s MARRIAGE. Grow up.

  192. Typical magical thinking. #ThatsSoChristian

  193. Indeed. This is why young people are leaving your religion entirely.

  194. The same place as the biblical case for ssm. And we’re not likely to see either one materialize.

  195. American mainline protestant churches have transformed themselves into ordinary, for secular Progressive social activism,

    Case in point: The Lutheran church were I was baptized. Though still affiliated with ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, its Pastor and congregation engage in wholly pagan ceremonies. Here is the full story:

    After sending this to EVERY regional bishop, not a single one responded with comments related to theology! I can only assume that ELCA Lutherans don’t much care about their theology anymore…just like Epicopalians.

  196. “Church to accept & welcome LGBTQ folks:

    Yes, all humans, all of whom are sinners, are accepted and welcome in true Christian churches. Similarly, all are called to repent. Broad acceptance and normalization of sexual immorality is the opposite of calling for repentance.

  197. Peer reviewed studies cited in my prior link attest to you going full of it here. 🙂

  198. Whenever one goes against the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. The sin of same-sex marriage does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

    “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.” Ephesians 5:11 (NKJV)

  199. What does slavery have to do with marriage? So you agree that there is no basis for a church to consider two people of the same sex as a marriage?

    If God supported slavery, why did he free the Israelite from slavery? Therefore, I would suggest you read and comprehend the bible.

    So you are happy or hoping that the Church going against God? Why would you want the church to go against God’s word?

  200. Misleading article! Graham never said God would kills gays because God do not recognize people as Gay. He looks at sinful actions. Therefore, if you do not repent your sins. you will be with God. It is as simple as that..

    And if God supported slavery, why did he free the Israelite from slavery? I will wait on your answer!

    Therefore, anyone who thinks the bible supported slavery should be equated to anyone who thinks the bible supports marriage between two people of the same sex, agree?

  201. If God supports slavery, why did God free the Israelite from slavery? Therefore, anyone who thinks the bible supports slavery should be equated to people who think the bible support marriage between two people of the same sex. How do you equate treating people equally with recognizing marriage as between people of the same sex? If God wanted to recognize marriage between the same sex, he would have said so but he did not. So, you are grasping for straws because you are well aware that any church that recognizes marriage between people of the same sex is going against God’s word..

  202. Because they have no biblical scripture to support gay marriage. They are playing on human emotions to get the church to go against God’s word..

  203. That is your opinion that people are gullible, fraudulent, or power seeking! Your point? But, there is no scripture for any church to recognize marriage as between people of the same sex, agree?

  204. No the church belief conflicts with the bible which is why I say it is wrong. What biblical scripture is used to support marriage between people of the same sex? This has nothing to do with me..

  205. Well, tell me a scripture that someone can use to justify marriage between people of the same sex? Um, a church can make their own rules that can go against the bible. Can they not?

  206. Ask the members of the church. They certainly could tell you what they use for such things. You are not interested in such answers anyway. Only to attack those whose beliefs differ from your own.

    I would put that question on par with scripture used to justify democracy, free speech, religious freedom and civil liberties. Ideas that are so far beyond the mindset of Biblical writers that scripture would not be useful there. But one’s that people still find some scripture to justify them.

    There is no position which Christians of one form or another have not found justification for using scripture. The idea that there is no concept which cannot be so justified is a fiction. One borne of fundamentalist egotism in pretending only one interpretation (their own) ever exists on a given subject.

    “Um, a church can make their own rules that can go against the bible. Can they not?”

    You are the sole arbiter of all biblical interpretation? You seem to think so. “What goes against the Bible” seems to vary wildly from sect to sect.

  207. No, you can be more honest here. It conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible. Your view that the Bible is closed to all readings but your own personal one.

    “What biblical scripture is used to support marriage between people of the same sex? ”

    If you asked the members of that church you would find out. You can probably even find websites to affirming sects which would tell you. But you are not interested in such answers. Its not an issue I have to care about. I do not labor under the delusion that the Bible only validates my personal views first and foremost.

    “This has nothing to do with me..”

    You are a terrible liar. You are trying to pretend your personal bigotry has divine support. That all those who disagree with it are somehow “not biblical” or “not Christian”.

  208. There is no interpretation about God’s view on marriage. He only talked about male and female. So how can you interpret that any other way than between a male and a female? So, bigotry has nothing to do with this. If you insist it is bigotry, are you saying God is a bigot?

    Those who do not agree with the bible is not christian. But, you are a terrible liar! I would say you care because you are defending this Church when you have no idea what they think. You only have assumptions.

  209. Why are you engaging in this conversation when you can not defend the rule based on the bible or their view of the bible?

    Um, democracy, free speech, religious liberty, and civil liberties are from the constitution, not the bible. The bible says nothing about those things.. There are somethings that up for interpretation when it comes to the bible but marriage is not one of them.. Only religions with declining membership or very small religious organizations are the only sect that view marriage as between people of the same sex. So, what is your point?

  210. Like I’ve said before, Tater, you wouldn’t know a peer review from a pay-per-view.

    Here are some sound debunkings of Boswell’s ideas (from which ALL of the arguments for ssm-acceptance in the church are derived) from peer-reviewed journals:

    Hays, Richard B., Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell’s Exegesis of Romans 1, Journal of Religious Ethics 14 (1):184 – 215 (1986)

    Viscuso, Patrick, “Failed Attempt to Rewrite History”, New Oxford Review Dec 1994, 29-3.

    J. Robert Wright, “A Case Undemonstrated,” Anglican Theological Review 66 (1984)

    Wilken, Robert L, “Procrustean marriage beds — Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe by John Boswell”, Commonweal Sep 9, 1994

    Mendelsohn, Daniel, review in Arion, (3rd Ser), 3:2-3 (Fall 1995/Winter 1996)

    Lynne C. Boughton, “Biblical Texts and Homosexuality: A Response to John Boswell.” Irish Theological Quarterly 58.2 (1992)

    David F. Wright, “Early Christian Attitudes To Homosexuality,” Studia Patristica 18.2 (1989)

    David F. Wright, “Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of Arsenokoitai, Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984)

    Impressed at all by peer-review?

    I didn’t think so. Hypocrisy, thy name is undereducated liberal.

    However Wikipedia might compare to encyclopediae (much of it is probably copied FROM encyclopediae) it is as lazy and unprofessional to cite it as it is to cite an ACTUAL encyclopedia. Something you would have learned quite early on in college even if you failed to learn proper citation in high school.

  211. Now you are just flinging poo. Oh well. Have fun.

  212. No, you asked a loaded question to me and I am sending it back. I did not solicit your opinion here originally.

    You volunteered your view. One which relies on lying to me and pretending like your opinion is the sole interpretation of the Bible.

    “Um, democracy, free speech, religious liberty, and civil liberties are from the constitution, not the bible. The bible says nothing about those things..”

    That was my point. Yet I can think of several Christian sects which claim the Bible justifies such things.

    “There are somethings that up for interpretation when it comes to the bible but marriage is not one of them..”

    That is your opinion and one not shared by the entirety of your Christian faith. Most notably the church in this article. The problem is your dishonest blurring of your personal opinion with all possible interpretations of scripture. You can’t accept the idea that a church accepts marriage equality. That is entirely your problem. Not the rest of the world. Certainly not that church. Any claim that it is somehow unbiblical or unchristian is purely your own, but not one which has to be taken at face value.

    The wild diversity of Christian sects demonstrates nobody has a monopoly on what they claim scripture justifies. A diversity you want to pretend does not exist.

    “Only religions with declining membership or very small religious organizations are the only sect that view marriage as between people of the same sex”

    Which includes quite a few Christian sects. Ones which use the Bible to justify their beliefs as such. You have refuted your own argument.

    Now you are saying what you really wanted to:
    You despise such sects because they do not share your personal bigotry.

    “So, what is your point?”

    That anyone who claims to have a monopoly on scriptural interpretation, especially within the varied and diverse faith of Christianity is a liar.

  213. “There is no interpretation about God’s view on marriage.”

    Your opinion, not a fact or a statement which has to be taken seriously outside your own sect.

    “He only talked about male and female. ”

    Which is not an argument for exclusions of others. The Bible omits many ideas which make their way in modern existence. It does not mean they do not exist or cannot be justified.

    ” If you insist it is bigotry, are you saying God is a bigot?”

    You are saying you are God! No. You are simply spineless and think everyone else is just stupid.

    Like all people, you seek the religious belief which validates your personal views. Out of all the religious ideas out there, the hateful ones appealed to you. Its not God which is at fault, its you. All you. You simply invoke religious belief to pretend your opinion has divine authority.

  214. But, to say the bible talks about democracy and free speech does not go against the bible. However, recognizing marriage as between a man and a women goes against the bible’s definition of marriage. You are confused with the biblical justification of something that does not go against the bible and the biblical justification of things that go against the bible.

    Diversity exists but that diversity should not go against the bible. The only justification that this church has is it wants to extend an olive branch. See below. If so, being kind to someone does not mean to go against God’s word when it comes to marriage..

    “In grafting same-sex marriage onto the domestic rite, the church follows the pattern of
    God’s grafting wild, Gentile olive branches onto the domesticated olive
    tree of Israel (Rom. 11:24). “

  215. It was a backhanded remark that secular authorities can be much quicker to recognize human dignity and morality than churches.

  216. “If God supports slavery, why did God free the Israelite from slavery? ”

    Never heard of Southern Baptists or just pretending they do not exist? The entire sect was formed to promote the idea that slavery was supported by God. They have plenty of verses to choose from there. (A google search could come up with several if you bothered to look)

    “How do you equate treating people equally with recognizing marriage as between people of the same sex?”

    Have you tried asking anyone from an affirming sect? Of course not.

    ” If God wanted to recognize democracy, he would have said so but he did not.”


  217. Homosexuality is not a modern day existence. It is in the bible. So why did God exclude same sex couples from marriage? Are you saying you know more than God?

  218. I am defending the bible since homosexuality is not a modern existence. Why is God not a bigot when he excluded same sex couples from marriage when loving, homosexuals were in existence during those times?

  219. “But, to say the bible talks about democracy and free speech does not go against the bible. ”

    “To go against the Bible” here means goes against your personal interpretation of the Bible. I am still not letting you get away with the dishonest notion that you are the sole arbiter of scripture interpretation.

    You are trying to pretend you have a monopoly on what the Bible means. You are also pretending absence in one instance means a ban, even though absence in other instances hardly means that. You are double talking trying to validate personal opinion by pretending its God’s word.

    “Diversity exists but that diversity should not go against the bible”

    All Christians must share the same prejudices as yourself. You do not respect diversity of belief. Just your own.

    “does not mean to go against God’s word when it comes to marriage..”

    Except it isn’t God’s word when it comes to marriage. Just your opinion of what you claim is God’s word when it comes to marriage.

    This entire discussion exists because of your egotistical and dishonest inability to understand the concept, “Your mileage may vary”.

  220. You are looking to validate your own personal prejudice in a dishonest fashion by claiming it has divine authority. You are also trying to pretend your opinion of scripture is the same as the sole meaning of it. There has not been a single honest expression from you here.

  221. Meaning it is something outside of the thinking of Biblical writers. So therefore something which could not be forbidden. But also something which could be justified indirectly. Much like how all Christians justify things in the modern world.

  222. Okay, does that make the Southern Baptist correct on this issue? Your problem is that you are going by what man says instead of what the bible says.. Those scriptures were about how to treat slaves. Western Slavery did not follow God’s laws when it came to slavery. Slavery in the bible was no built on race. It was built on economics. Some people sold themselves into slavery pay off debts or provide for their families..

    1. Leviticus 25:39-42 I “If your brother with you becomes so poor that he sells himself to you, you are not to make him serve like a bond slave. Instead, he is to serve with you like a hired servant or a traveler who lives with you, until the year of jubilee.

  223. So the bible does not recognize human dignity and morality?

  224. Homosexuality was not outside the thinking of Biblical writers. How can you say that when homosexuality was occurring when the bible was written? There is nothing in the modern world that is different from the biblical times.. Yes, we use different tools for things. Ex, walking to another town vs driving a car. But, the result is the same which is getting to another town.

  225. The bible says nothing about marriage between two people of the same sex. If you can not prove me wrong, then how can it be personal prejudice? Could it be God prejudice?

    Do the bible not talk about male and female in terms of marriage? Does the bible not restrict sex to marriage? I think you are trying to twist God’s word for your own gain. But, it will not work because you have provided not a single biblical scripture that COULD support marriage between people of the same sex..

  226. What is your interpretation of marriage? It seems like you are trying to say this is my personal belief of the bible. But, you have not provided your interpretation of the bible when it comes to marriage?

  227. Explain how YOU, who reject the Bible, determine which “(i)deas … are so far beyond the mindset of Biblical writers that scripture would not be useful there”.

    You are the sole arbiter of all biblical interpretation?

  228. You are a terrible liar. You are trying to pretend your personal bigotry combats bigotry. That all those who disagree with you are somehow “fundamentalists”.

  229. Ah, the old “flinging poo”.

    How we missed it.

  230. “’Only religions with declining membership or very small religious organizations are the only sect that view marriage as between people of the same sex’”

    Which includes quite a few Christian sects.

    Enumerate them for us.

    Then total their membership.

    Then place that number as numerator over the denominator of the world’s Christians.

    Amazing, isn’t it?

  231. As the former Soviet Union and North Korea repeatedly demonstrated.

  232. You are looking to validate your own personal prejudices in a dishonest fashion by claiming they are “enlightened” or “progressive”.

  233. Are you speaking from the perspective of an expert in biblical interpretation or from the perspective of a bonobo flinging poo?

  234. Marriage is defined by civil laws. Religious institutions which want to consecrate it, do so according to their rules. Your mileage may vary here. Besides the question was how the Episcopals justify their view of marriage.

    As I said at the start, you should ask them. I don’t rely on proof texting biblical scripture to justify my beliefs. I merely have been pointing out the inherent dishonesty of your question.

    Fundamentalist Christians find self serving ways to interpret the Bible primarily to justify attacking others.

    People who claim to have a monopoly on interpretations of religious scripture are not interested in debate or discussion. They are looking to stroke their ego and validate their personal beliefs. They have no respect for beliefs besides their own.

  235. Actually it was. The very concept of sexual orientation eluded its writers and thinking on the subject until fairly modern times.

    Interpretations as to the “gotcha” passages frequently cited by bigots are hardly as cut and dry as they believe. It’s just they don’t care to hear anything to the contrary. Jesus said absolutely nothing on the subject. Christian bigots stretch their own interpretation to fit their prejudices. Usually through false equivalencies and claiming personal takes on a given section are the only ones available.

    Your own argument here has been deeply dishonest. Pretending omission is the same as condemnation. Wildly stretching a famous passage about divorce into the definition of marriage. Ignoring various prior definitions of marriage in the Bible which have fallen by the wayside of history.

    Your take on what the Bible says about marriage is as creative and self defined as any other Christian or church. You won’t ever admit to that. Hence this discussion.

  236. Only if you choose it to do so. It is definitely not inherent or unambiguous there. In fact the Bible is frequently used to justify attacks on human dignity and immoral acts.

    Bear in mind sectarian bloodshed between Christian sects only diminished with the rise of secular civil authority.

    Nobody ever needs religion to justify acting morally. One can always count on religion to justify immoral acts.

    Your purpose here was to use the Bible to justify immoral reviling and slander of another sect. To attack human dignity. So you already knew the answer to the question. You just didn’t want to hear it.

  237. Correct in a moral sense? Never. Correct in a scriptural sense? Sure, same as every other Christian sect in defining their belief Their interpretation of the Bible are the same as anyone else’s. Self serving and self defined. Nobody denied they are Christian any more then Quaker abolitionists.

    “what man says instead of what the bible says”

    Same thing. Man defines what the Bible says. You only claim the Bible is closed to interpretations because you want to support your personal views.

    Your claims as to what God or the Bible says is entirely defined by your personal views. You chose the ones which fit you. Out of all the ones out there.

    Your interpretations as to the differences in types of slavery are personal hair splitting. All slavery, including Biblical versions, are immoral. Christians found ways to support it as well as oppose it on their own. To claim the Bible was clear on the subject is a flat out lie.

  238. The sin of not believing that Jesus died for your sins offends god. It doesn’t really bother you.

    God hates divorce. But hey, we understand.

    And so on.

  239. And yet you voted for Grabby McPussy, right?and vote republican every time. Got any divorced people in your church?

  240. I’m talking documented history here, not your fairy tales which completely lack any historical or archaeological evidence outside one book.

    It’s very well documented that American slave owners used the Bible to justify slavery. If you don’t know this, then you really ought to learn a thing or two about American history.

  241. Describe your homophobia some more, Bob.

  242. God does not exist. You just like persecuting innocent people for no reason.

  243. You only have assumptions about what God thinks, based on the words of fallible men.

  244. “the priest of the parish can still conduct the ceremony, requesting “pastoral support” from a bishop in another diocese if necessary.”

    In other words, “Screw the old-fashioned, Bible-quoting dinosaur Bishop. Johnny and Joseph are gonna get married regardless of what the Bible and it’s ancient supporters believe.”

  245. The way I read this, the Bishops who hold the traditional perspective have essentially be asked to shut up, resign, or preferably, die.

  246. He’s cribbing that baloney off someone who read Matthew Vines, who in turn cribbed it off poor John Boswell. However, Plato and Aristotle both wrote of same-sex attraction being inborn, as did Soranus of Ephesus, a contemporary of Paul, who wrote that the desire for the same sex was “generated in the act of conception.” Another 1st century text, the Carmen Astrologicum, also wrote of same sex attraction being inborn but mistakenly attributed it to the stars. 🙂

  247. Easy. He cribbed that idea off someone who read Matthew Vines, who in turn cribbed it off John Boswell. The problem is, it’s demonstrably false.

  248. Is “actaully” the name of the book or the language it will be written in?

  249. Imagine something Spuddie wrote being demonstrably false.

  250. Just imagine!

    Clearly we must be “lying” again. ?

  251. God forgives our sins….thank God!

  252. Why bother then even having bishops if the bishops’ consent is not required? St. Ignatius of Antioch must be rolling in his grave.

  253. I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church–which is part of the Apostle’s Creed. As such, if you are a Christian too, you will find these positions taken by Episcopals to be a direct challenge to your Faith.

  254. “I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church–which is part of the Apostle’s Creed.”

    And there are about a billion Christians who do not. Half the entire faith at last estimate.

    “As such, if you are a Christian too, you will find these positions taken by Episcopals to be a direct challenge to your Faith.”

    Because sectarian animosity and lack of respect for beliefs of others besides one’s own is inherent to major elements of the Christian faith. From inception as an organized church, Christians sought to brand other Christians as heretics or a challenge to their faith.

    Most of the discussions here seem to stem from the inability of some to understand or appreciate the differences various sects have with each other within the same faith.

    “Your mileage may vary” is more than a cute expression here, it encapsulates the best description of the beliefs among Christians and their myriad of sects.

  255. Re: your first two questions, slavery and marriage were and are related by the existence of Catholic doctrine. “As recently as June 20, 1866, the Holy Office had upheld the slave trade as moral. The justification was based both on philosophy (natural law) and on revelation (divine law). Various quotations from Scripture were cited in support of this position…The Fathers of the Church and local church councils, laws, Popes, and theologians were cited in the attempt to show that the approval of slavery was part of an unbroken, universal tradition” (Thomas Bokenkotter, A CONCISE HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, pp. 487-488). Furthermore, the 1917 Code of Canon Law “maintained the positions set out in the old law that a free person contracting marriage with one believed to be free but in fact a slave contracted invalidly; and that slavery was an impediment to the reception of holy orders” (John T. Noonan, Jr., A CHURCH THAT CAN AND CANNOT CHANGE: THE DEVELOPMENT OF CATHOLIC MORAL TEACHING, p. 117). “Also close to the era of Vatican II, Karl Rahner…published the thirtieth edition of ‘Denzinger’. This authoritative and convenient handbook, first produced in 1854…contained the teaching of popes and councils from Clement I in the first century to the date of the edition…Not a single word repudiating or condemning slavery occurred in the collection” (Noonan, p. 117). Jesus upheld the morality of slavery (cf. Lk 12:45-48, etc.), and official church doctrine maintained this position. On the other hand, Jesus said nothing about sexual orientation or same-sex sexual relations. His teaching on marriage was in response to questions about the only kind of marriage known by his listeners, to wit, heterosexual marriage. In other words, Jesus’ audience knew only about the morality of slavery and the existence of heterosexual marriage. Jesus’ teaching took into account time and place.

    Re: your third question, the Jews had slavery. For information, see

    Re: your last question, if God (as revealed by Jesus) supported slavery, i.e., their humane treatment if obedient to their masters, then we must abolish all man-made laws prohibiting slavery. All blacks and other minorities must be returned to slave status. Why? Because the Bible (apparently not all of which you comprehend) says so. After all, you and like-minded folks don’t want “the Church going against God,” do you? On the other hand, Jesus said nothing about same-sex marriage, and the Old Testament’s *purported* references to ‘homosexuality’ are just that, “purported”. Sodom and Gomorrah deal with a community’s ill treatment of travelers, not with homosexuality (if you disagree, see Matthew 10:5-15, especially the last verse). Indeed, most *educated* Western Catholics (to cite but one group) approve of same-sex marriage because it is not condemned in the canonical gospels, acknowledged by the church as “the heart of all the Scriptures ‘because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior'” (CCC-125). So, if Jesus did not condemn faithful, lifelong marriage between two persons of the same sex with their God-given sexual orientation, then you and like-minded folks must settle the controversy once for all by relying on his *lack of teaching* on the matter to condemn such marriage???

    The Bible doesn’t answer all our life situations.

  256. It seems to me that the only people that want the Church to drop to the bottom are the ones on top.

  257. Human sinfulness manifests itself in nearly all human endeavors–including our efforts at fellowship and worship.

  258. Bobose, the ammunition of the latter is your primary source of food.

  259. So the Episcopal Church is no longer a church but a social organization.

  260. Hmm. I will have to steal your middle sentence there, for future RNS battles. “If God supported slavery, why did He free the Israelites from slavery?”

    Yes, a very good biblical jumper there. Very astute. Consider it stolen, please. 🙂

  261. Actually, the slave owners stopped using the Bible for justification, after Darwin’s theory of evolution started trending. They switched over and subscribed to Evolution to justify the American slavery horror show.

    That way they didn’t have to worry about all those pesky Bible prohibitions about oppressing slaves, mistreating slaves, and kidnapping people in order to enslave them (which was a death-penalty offense, by the way!).

  262. Now that is incredible irony from habitual li​ar Bobose Arnzen Carioca.

  263. They sure have. Looks like LCMS still hanging in there, though.

  264. Learn your history, floyd. There are an absurd amount of historical proof that slaveowners used the bible to justify owning slaves. Also, “On the Origin of Species” was published shortly before the Emancipation Proclamation. When the theory of evolution started catching on, America abolished slavery. I’m not claiming the two are linked, but the timing is certainly in direct contradiction of your alternative facts about slavery.

  265. Your mileage may vary as to what constitutes sinfulness. Sin has nothing to do with morality. Merely the arbitrary rules religions impose for the sake of unity.

  266. Why bother having bishops when said bishops opt to protect pedophiles and sexual predators under their watch?

  267. 1. I didn’t solicit your opinion, you gave it to me regardless.

    2. If you find offense to the concept that people may have religious beliefs differently from you, then you probably shouldn’t engage me in conversations.

  268. Only if you ignored everything I was saying and made up your own version of my arguments. Which you appeared to have done. (I block Bob, his opinion is even more useless than yours)

    Besides, their opinions are less important than yours on the subject because? You don’t like them. That’s all.

    Any pretension that religious belief has a rational or fact-based support is pure fiction. Self-serving wankery to pretend one’s personal opinions have divine clout and therefore need to be taken seriously.

  269. Since “any pretension that religious belief has a rational or fact-based support is pure fiction”, why are you fighting tooth and nail on matters of religious belief?

    The fact that I ask you questions is the real reason you “block Bob”.

  270. I read everything you said and I’ve read both Boswell and Vines which is where your patently false assertions originally come from. Since we all know you don’t read and make a habit of begging others for arguments to pass on, it’s safe to assume you are running true to form here as well.

    And no, I neither like nor dislike John Boswell or Matthew Vines. They simply did not make their case. The ancient record is full of writings that clearly indicate that same sex attraction was believed to be an inborn tendency long before the time of Christ. There are even ancient Jewish oral and written traditions that refer to same sex marriage.

  271. Everyone knows that, whether they admit it or not.

  272. This entire brouhaha started because I said, “Their church, their rules”.

    I have been telling you self-important delusional bigots to discuss the theology of their rules with them. Evidently you are not interested in hearing such answers. Somehow that difference in opinion deranged your fevered self-important mind into declaring that church a bunch of heretics.

    I doubt you read either of them. More likely read criticism from the fundamentalist echo chamber about them. You certainly have claimed their views are somehow not Christian at all because they conflict with your personal prejudices. More importantly is that you miss the entire concept that Christianity does not revolve around your opinions. You should probably form your own church if you continue to feel that way.

    Nobody has to debate you or even make factual claims to support their religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are not rational, they are not held to standards of rational discourse.

  273. “…discuss the theology of their rules with them. Evidently you are not interested in hearing such answers.”

    Ready and willing at all times. They are not interested in GIVING such answers, or, alternatively, supporting them when they do give them. I never addressed you at all; you would have done better to speak to whoever spoke to you, or better yet stay out of a mix to which you have absolutely nothing to contribute.

    “More likely read criticism from the fundamentalist echo chamber about them” — Do you judge everyone by yourself, Tater Tot? That’s a great way to get your patootie handed to you in any given debate. I love books. You love little screens — and unfortunately, it shows.

  274. Why are you citing catholic doctrine instead of the bible? The one biblical scripture you mentioned in no way upheld the morality of slavery.

    Jesus did talk about sexual orientation and marriage. Did Jesus not say a man shall not lay with a man like a women? Did Jesus not refer to marriage as between a man and a a women? Did Jesus not say any sex you should only have sex within your marriage?

    Where in the bible does it mention, heterosexual marriage? It only talks about marriage. Your problem is that you think man dictates the bible; but, it is the other way around..

    When in the bible does it says black should be slaves? Why are you saying things about the bible that is not true?

    Jesus refers to homosexuality when he said a man shall not lay with a man like a women. There is not such thing as same sex marriage. It is marriage which is between a man and a women. The word homosexuality came around in the 19th century. But, homosexuality refers to men laying with men like a women..

    God did not make people gay. If he did, why did he deny ALL same sex couples the ability to have kids from each other?

    There is nothing to settle about faithful, lifelone marriage between people of the same sex because it goes against God. But, why are you speaking for God? If God wanted to approve of same sex couples, he would have done it. However, there is not need to talk about any other type of marriages when you defined a marriage between a man and a a women. Therefore, anything outside of a man and a women, God does not recognize it..

  275. “Ready and willing at all times”

    LOL! I already mentioned what passes for a “polite and respectful discussion” with you when dealing with differences in scriptural interpretation. Now we are looping back to the same fictions. 🙂

  276. Who has any proof that same sex attraction is inborn? Plate and Aristotle are not in the bible..

  277. Please provide proof that God approves of gay marriage or homosexuality?

  278. There is no proof, but that is not the point. The point is that Tater is claiming that biblical teachings on sexuality should be disregarded because inborn sexual orientation is something that never occurred to the ancients — which is demonstrably false. Many ancients believed exactly that.

  279. Nobody is interested in what you think passes for a polite and respectful discussion. I’ve yet to see you attempt one.

    The point is, no one produces the goods because there are no goods. End of story.

  280. They exist. Where’s the proof that God exists?

  281. The psych industry, that’s who. Read the DSM.

  282. You don’t recognize that not all sex is about breeding, because you are stupid.

  283. They do not know! Read below..

    The reason
    some individuals develop a gay sexual identity has not been definitively
    established – nor do we yet understand the development of
    heterosexuality. The American Psychological Association (APA) takes the
    position that a variety of factors impact a person’s sexuality

  284. So you have no proof that God approved of gay marriage, Got it!

    How was life created? The big bang theory! lol

  285. Homosexuality is not nothing new and there is still no evidence that sexual orientation is something inborn.. If sexual orientation was inborn, Jesus would not have said a man shall not lay with a man like a women.. I only care what Jesus thinks!

  286. But you are not now nor have you ever dealt with differences in scriptural interpretation.

    You’re on the record that scriptures are nonsense.

  287. “I have been telling you self-important delusional bigots to discuss the theology of their rules with them.”

    Really? Can you cite ONE post along those lines.

    You say “Religious beliefs are not rational, they are not held to standards of rational discourse.”, so why are you involved at all?

  288. Now your are left with flinging poo. Whatever. Have a good evening. 🙂

  289. Aliens, bro. You have no proof that any god exists.

  290. You do not know how your heterosexuality developed, FTR.

  291. Plenty of straight sex is not about breeding, FYI.

  292. Without man made preventitive devices it is or was at one point in their life reagardless of if they wanted to be or not. But, is gay sex ever for breeding?

  293. No one knows… Maybe you need to study people who are in jail

  294. And you have proof that Aliens exists? lol

  295. Maybe you need to worry about your own sex life, instead of minding other people’s business.

  296. Thanks for letting everyone know that you still live in a time period when women were considered property.

  297. lol A website! What is the difference between that website with information about aliens and the bible which has information about God?

  298. Cant answer the question?

    Who said anything about women? Can a man not use condoms? Wow!

  299. Compared to what?

    Are you saying that their message keeps changing? If so, they did not know what they were talking about in the first place which makes it less creditable

  300. Yes, men do use condoms, including gay men. It’s a good thing for society that sex is not all about breeding anymore.

  301. Describe the bible some more. How many times has it changed, over how many editions and translations?

  302. the bible changed for translations. So what? The information is still the same..

  303. LOL, virgin birth never happened. And Jesus did not condemn gay people. You just made that up for attention.

  304. Gay men only use condoms to prevent STDs. Breeding was never thought of when it comes to gay sex.. So, I am not sure why you are talking about gay men and breeding!

  305. I’m not sure why you’re taking about gay men at all. You clearly don’t know any.

  306. Ask yourself that, every day and every night.

  307. I know at least two! My brother and uncle…

  308. Sure, you do. If they really exist, I’m sure they can’t stand you.

  309. Then, explain how the first humans were born?

    Jesus condemned people who have sexual relations with the same sex. But, since the word gay now refers to people who lay with men like a women, I would say gay people fits the bill.. agree?

  310. No, you just made that up for attention.

  311. Not at all.. They even say what they do is against God’s word just like other sins.. But, they do not care

  312. Nobody else cares, either. Get a new hobby, already.

  313. Keep making crap up for attention, since that’s clearly all you’re good for.

  314. They also say it is a choice. My uncle was married for 10 years and have 3 kids. My brother was never married but has 1 kid. Both say they are now gay

  315. We agree that slaveowners sought to use the Bible to justify their mess. But your argument blatantly ignores ANOTHER part of slavery history. After all, as points out, “a plain reading of the Bible shows that humans all came from one single origin.” The Bible’s position is called “Monogenism.” Made it difficult for slaveowners to defeat Biblical Abolitionists.

    So slaveholders wanted a much more friendly, much less biblical source. Darwin’s “Origin of Species” was 1861, and “The Descent of Man” was 1881, but in both cases, key ideas of what Darwin wrote was what slaveholders were ALREADY hearing and adopting (between 1830 and 1859), especially to fight Biblical Abolitionists. The pre-Darwin label was “Polygenism.” A so-called “scientific” basis for slavery, to get slaveowners off the Bible hook. They loved it.

    (Readers can stop here if desired. That’s the basic history lesson. This next part is just some supporting quotations; they are a bit lengthy.)

    “A decade before the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859), Samuel G. Morton stated flatly that “the question of the origin of species is [ a question or the origin] of the human species.” In the years between 1830 and 1859 the scientific theory known as polygenesis―which held that humans were divided into races, each with a separate origin and with fixed characteristics―had come to dominate the understanding of human history. Advocated most vigorously by a group of naturalists and doctors which came to be known as the American School, the polygenic theory of human origins was openly acknowledged by some of its proponents as a scientific justification for slavery. It was used against the abolitionists, who often turned to the biblical account of humans having one single origin, or monogenesis, to support their cause.”

    — “Darwin, Slavery, and the Species Question”, B. Richardo Brown, PhD, Pratt Institute

    First, although the Concord abolitionists found a modicum of support in Darwin’s ideas, they already had strong moral arguments against slavery, and at any rate had almost no influence on the conflagration that began in 1861 but had been smoldering for decades. Second, Darwin’s ideas gave ammunition to the pro-slavery movement as well, for “social Darwinists” simply co-opted Darwin’s idea of competition among groups in nature to argue that whites had outstripped blacks in the struggle for existence.

    — Evolutionist Dr. Jerry Coyne

    “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.”
    — Stephen J, Gould, The Mismeasure of Man

  316. Lucky them. For many others, it is not a choice, however.

  317. Who knows! But, there is no evidence to say people are born gay or straight.. In the past, I never heard the scientific community say people are born straight. But, they now say people are born gay.

    Why is that?

  318. I am good for proving you wrong and asking questions you can not answer…

  319. The gay advocates cares which is why they silence people like my uncle and brother…

  320. No, you just make crap up for attention.

  321. Because you don’t move in scientific circles, now, do you?

  322. I reply by paragraph:

    1. I’ve cited the Bible, specifically Luke 12:45-48. I also wrote “etc.”, the abbreviation (from the Latin) for “et cetera” meaning (in English) “and others”, i.e., other scriptural sources. I have a hunch I know the Bible as well as you, perhaps even more so. As for non-Catholic sources, see, for example,

    2. Your second paragraph only reinforces my earlier point, namely, that Jesus commented on heterosexual marriage because such a relationship was the only kind known by his listeners. Jesus seemingly could have told them about planes, trains, and automobiles, but he would have “lost them” in the process. They were not ready to embrace, much less understand, future developments in technology — or moral doctrine.

    3. Of course, heterosexual marriage is mentioned in the Bible (see # 2). So you think God “dictates the bible”? No, God did not “dictate the Bible” (note the proper use of capitalization for the “Good Book” itself). God, instead, *inspired* flesh-and-blood human beings to pass stories down from generation to generation, eventually putting them down in writing. (NOTE: The word ‘inspiration’, so widely used by Catholic and non-Catholic biblical scholars alike, does not mean “dictatation”. For more information about the term, see .)

    4. Contrary to your assertion, I did not write earlier that the Bible states that blacks “should be slaves”. I wrote, instead, “All blacks and other minorities must be returned to slave status. Why? Because the Bible (apparently not all of which you comprehend) says so.” To clarify, the focus is on slavery, not on ethnicity, etc. In Jesus’ time, slaves came from many geographic areas. In the antebellum South, slave owners could justify slavery of black people by recourse, inter alia, to scripture’s references to “servants”. Contrary to your accusation, I’ve written nothing about anything not in the Bible. My source is the Bible.

    5. You write that “homosexuality refers to men laying with men…” No, it does not. The Bible, as you know, does refer to men laying with men. Such a statement does not refer to homosexuality (and the term’s 19th century introduction to discourse has little if anything to do with the matter). The term ‘homosexuality’ refers to much more than “men laying with men”. It embraces the entirety of human identity, not just observable behavior. If you are heterosexual but cannot have intercourse with a woman, you remain heterosexual because your self-identity encompasses much more than the “sex act”. If a lesbian has intercourse with a man to get pregnant, for example, so she and her female partner can become parents, the woman remains a lesbian. Her whole being is *oriented* to same-sex self-identity in all its facets. You assert, “There is not such thing as same sex marriage.” Obviously, you’ve not been paying attention to the news, much less growing public (and not just Catholic) support. In the USA, we *have* same-sex marriage, a legal institution regulated by the State, not by the Church, thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges rendered June 26, 2015. Same-sex marriage is the law of the land. If individual churches, including the Church of Rome, do not want to allow same-sex marriage within their bodies, such is their right.

    6. You write, “God did not make people gay.” As a person of Christian faith, I disagree with you. From a scientific perspective, most reputable scientists are convinced that sexual orientation, whether gay or straight, is real, not chosen. As scientists, they do not allow their religious beliefs to dictate the content and conclusions of their observations. For them, religious belief is one thing; empiricism is another. Unlike a relative few folks with advanced degrees (MDs, PhDs, etc.) belonging to NARTH, for example, reputable scientists do not prostitute their professional training and experience to religious beliefs, even if they themselves do not approve of same-sex marriage. They acknowledge and maintain a responsible boundary between religion and science. Although science has not discovered any cause (or causes) to explain sexual orientation, the consensus apparently sees this phenomenon as a result of nature interacting with nurture. Finally, just because a man cannot become pregnant and just because a woman cannot impregnate another woman does not mean that a same-sex couple cannot become responsible parents. God knows, there are more than enough heterosexual biological parents whose children have been removed from their homes by the State after a determination they were unfit to exercise parenthood.

    7. Same-sex marriage is not contrary to God’s will. You are entitled to hold and express your beliefs, of course, but they are unpersuasive in light of authoritative information I’ve shared with you.

  323. 1) If you ready luke 12:35-48, you will that Jesus is talking being ready when he comes back.

    2) Again, homosexual relationships are not knew. Therefore, his listeners knew of homosexuality.. Are you saying that homosexuals never knew how to be in life long committed relationships until now?If so, why is that? According to some, Jesus made people gay and straight. So why would Jesus delay gays the ability to love and be in committed relationships?

    Why did Jesus say a man shall not lay with a male like a women? What does a different form or transportation have to do with anything?

    3) God does control the bible. Is he not telling us how to live for his return?

    4) the bible does not say no one should be a slave

    5) lol Homo-sexual = people who have sex with the same sex. But, As long as homosexuals do not lay with people of the same sex.. Then, they are ok.. You can self identify as anything you want.

    A few people in robes did not create marriage and they can not change the definition of marriage. The polls means nothing as you can see from our last presidential election. Most states voted marriage as between a male and a women. Do not fall for the media propaganda!

    6) There is no scientific proof that people are born gay or straight. Read the article below to educate yourself

  324. I know sometimes the truth hurts. But, it is still the truth.

  325. The fact that being gay is not a choice for most must hurt you very badly, for some reason.

  326. Stop persecuting gay people just for existing. It’s just common human decency.

  327. So telling the truth is persecuting people? Are you afraid of the truth?

  328. Yes it hurts me that they believe a lie when the scientific community never said people are born gay. Why would someone believe a lie about people are born gay?

  329. I reply by paragraph:

    1. Jesus, whatever his purpose for teaching, is using a practice common to his day and place. He says it is OK to “beat” or even “severely beat” disobedient slaves. How do we conclude that Jesus says slavery is OK? Because he gives the punishment due disobedient slaves. The implication? No need to punish obedient slaves. The Christian Church, relying on scripture, upheld the morality of slavery for centuries.

    2. Contrary to your assertion, Jesus’ listeners did not know of “homosexuality” as this term is understood today, thanks to the observations of social and other scientists. No doubt there were men and women in Jesus’ time whom we today would identify as “homosexual”, but the people back then would have considered only the “sex act” and not other human variables that make a person gay or straight. In Roman society, it was not unusual for otherwise straight males to have sex with other straight males, i.e., slaves. Such behavior was a manifestation of one’s *power* over others. You ask, “So why would Jesus delay gays the ability to love and be in committed relationships?” Did Jesus/God do any such “delaying”? No. No doubt, there were males and females who truly loved their partners. Times may change, but basic human nature does not change. The same observation, by the way, can be said of heterosexual couples. Fidelity is not found only in straight relationships. It is a decisional behavior found among gays, as well. I’ve already addressed your question about Jesus considering the level of understanding of his audience. Also, his listeners posed questions about straight marriage, and Jesus answered accordingly.

    3. You write, “God does control the Bible.” This sentence, sorry to say, lacks clear meaning. Controlling does not mean dictating to a scribe. (Muslims, on the other hand, believe the Koran is the literal word of God.) While we believe as Christians that the Bible is the *inspired* word of God, we know from simple human experience that it does not address many moral/ethical questions confronting us today. Take slavery: the Bible says it’s OK. Today we condemn the practice.

    4. You write, “[T]he bible does not say no one should be a slave.” Since two negatives make a positive, you are stating, “The Bible says someone/anyone should be a slave.” What’s your point?

    5. You assert, “You can self identify as anything you want.” Let me offer you a suggestion: Don’t let your feelings get in the way of clear and honest thinking. Sexual orientation is real. Your objection to this reasonably settled conclusion does not change the truth here. If you want to pretend, for example, that you are gay, you can do so. However, assuming you are really straight, you would be dishonest to present yourself as gay. Sexual orientation, whether gay or straight, relates to much more than vaginal or anal intercourse. You either don’t accept this statement, or you cannot comprehend it.

    Contrary to your assertion, a few people in robes *have changed* the definition of marriage, which, in a pluralistic society, is a matter of law, not of religion.

    You contend, “There is no scientific proof that people are born gay or straight.” I never asserted there is “scientific proof”. Sadly, you are again letting your feelings/frustration get in the way of clear thinking. Read again what I wrote earlier, “Although science has not discovered any cause (or causes) to explain sexual orientation, the consensus apparently sees this phenomenon as a result of nature interacting with nurture.”

  330. Telling the truth is not oppressing anyone. Being a heterosexual is a choice, a preference, and a lifestyle.. Since sexuality is not noticeable, how can anyone’s sexuality be oppressed? Black people were oppressed. But, the last time I checked, gays did not go through half the things some people did to oppress blacks..

  331. 1) According to Exodus 21:5, some people loved being slaves. Therefore, slavery is different than the slavery than we know of today because NO one will love being a slave.

    2) But, why did Jesus say a man shall not lay with a male like a female if he approved of gay sex or gay marriage? There was no question asked to Jesus when he talked about the sexual laws in Leviticus. Therefore, there was no need to ask about gay marriage when Jesus said a man shall not lay with a male like a woman. So, the level of Jesus audience in my opinion is more logical.

    3) The bible does address morality. If slavery was so immoral as we know it, why would some people want stay a slave or love their master? The same morality issues we face are the same morality issues they faced.

    4) Where does the bible say anyone shall be a slave? Jesus was direction was how to treat a slave. But, again, if slavery was as we know it, why would some people want to be a slave or say they love their master?

    5) There is no such thing as sexual orientation. But, it is real that people commit sexual actions with the opposite sex and the same sex. However, that does not make it of God. There are some people who engage in incest. Is that of God? There are some people who might like to have sex with a mother and her daughter. Is that of God? So, there are many sexual activities that people engage in with each other. But, that does not make it of God. If there is no scientific proof that people are born gay, what are you basing your conclusion that people are born gay?

  332. Everyone always forget Exodus 21:5 when they talk about slavery and the bible. Why is that? Again, if slavery is how we know it, why would any slave say they love their master and not want to free? There is no one in today’s time that will want to stay a slave or say they love their master…

  333. What moral issue do we face that people in the bible did not face?

  334. Is pedophilia a sexual orientation that can not be changed? The Center for Addition and Mental health think so! Read below. This is a prime reason why these professional organizations are only spreading an agenda..

    “We do not choose to be attracted to children, and we cannot make that attraction go away,” Sounds familiar? Could you substitute the word “Children” with “Men, Women or Both?” You need to be careful about spreading the ideology that people are born gay or straight. No one is born gay or straight

  335. Polygenism has nothing to do with evolution. In fact, Darwin was the ultimate proof that polygenism was bull. Implying polygenism had anything to do with evolution is completely disingenuous.

    I’m not arguing that abolitionists didn’t use the Bible, or that slave owners weren’t being hypocrites by using the Bible this way. I’m not arguing that they were correct to do so with today’s subjective interpretation of the Bible. I’m saying they DID it. They used the Bible to justify slavery. It happened. It is historical fact.
    Here’s Christianity Today admitting it:
    Here’s Time Magazine discussing it:
    And CNN:
    Here’s an interesting one originally posted on Forbes about how the need for a Biblical justification for slavery shaped Evangelism:

    The Bible was used to justify slavery. It happened. You can try distracting me from that fact all you like, but it doesn’t change the fact that it happened.

  336. When asked which is the greatest commandment, the Christian New Testament depicts Jesus paraphrasing the Torah: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind,” before also paraphrasing a second passage; “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

  337. Homosexuality is not pedophilia. We are discussing the former, not the latter. Perhaps scientists have a better insight into pedophilia as suggested by THE STAR’s report. I don’t see society ever approving pedophilia. Homosexual orientation, unlike age orientation, i.e., pedophilia, does not interfere with individual and societal functioning. Except for their *natural* attraction to persons of the same-sex, gays and lesbians are like heterosexuals in all other respects. Sexual orientation is a multifaceted reality.

  338. This is not about Jesus’ listeners being “at a higher spiritual level.” This is about people today having an awareness — and, over time, growing understanding — of homosexual orientation that Jesus’ listeners did not have nearly two thousand years ago. They knew nothing of planes, trains, and automobiles, just as they knew nothing of a different sexual orientation from that of the majority of folks.

  339. (The “Good Book” is spelled with an upper case “B” like any other proper noun.)

    You write, “if slavery is how we know it…” What about it in Jesus’ time? Masters could treat slaves in any fashion whatever. Rome recommended humane treatment of slaves both to minimize chances of escape or rebellion as well as to encourage or maintain work output. How slaves were treated varied. Being a slave in a wealthy household with a decent master could have advantages over trying to live on one’s own. It was entirely possible that slaves could “love their master” if he provided well for them.

  340. I reply by paragraph:

    1. See my earlier reply, to wit: “Being a slave in a wealthy household with a decent master could have advantages over trying to live on one’s own. It was entirely possible that slaves could ‘love their master’ if he provided well for them.”

    2. Perhaps God did not teach about same-sex orientation because the people of Jesus’ time were unaware of it and were unprepared to receive it. A high school freshman, for example, is not going to be taught courses offered to college juniors and seniors. There must be a *learner readiness*, i.e., preparation. We have planes, trains, and automobiles — even space ventures — that people of Jesus’ time would not have been able to comprehend.

    3. You write, “The bible [sic] does address morality.” I did not write otherwise. As for the morality of slavery “as we know it” and a slave’s love for his master, see my other replies.

    4. Contrary to your statement, I have not asserted that “the bible [sic] say[s] anyone shall be a slave.” Slavery existed in Jesus’ time and place. Period. Given Jesus’ teaching re: the legitimacy of corporal punishment for disobedient slaves, one can conclude that Jesus would have otherwise approved humane treatment of obedient slaves. The Church based its approval of slavery on scripture.

    5. “There is no such thing as sexual orientation.” Well, then, you appear to be in the minority. You are allowing religious belief to override what is known from observation, both ordinary and scientific. As human beings, we can believe and we can think. You are confusing the two. Based on God’s teaching, we believe that rape, incest, adultery, etc. are morally wrong. Based on science, we think that these same acts are harmful to individuals and to societies. To put it another way, even if a person believes that incest is OK on religious grounds, human law-making has concluded that incest is harmful to individuals and society. As for some people being “born gay”, we are speaking in general terms. Science has concluded that homosexuality is a real human orientation. To date (as demonstrated in your USA TODAY link), science has not conclusively identified the specific cause/s of same-sex attraction. Science builds on itself. It appears to me that heterosexuality is Mother Nature’s default orientation and that, for reasons unknown to us, God is challenging us both to (a) learn more about same-sex attraction and (b) to love our neighbors, in this case, our brothers and sisters who are different from the majority in their sexual orientation.

  341. People in Jesus time was aware of people sleeping with the same sex and opposite sex. Why are you advocating the people in Jesus time did not know about sex? Sexual Orientation is only a fancy word to define sex. If people were not aware of sexual orientation, why does the bible talk about having sex outside of marriage, sex with the same sex, and having sex with animals, etc?

    Jesus dis not approve of corporal punishment of slaves? If so, where did Jesus say put disobedient slaves to death?

    Definition of Sexual orientation: a person’s sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.
    The bible talks about same sex sexual relations and opposite sexual orientations. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Do you think if you give actions a formal name that it redefines that action?

    How is incest between two people of the same sex harmful to society? Please explain! But, it is also evident that human law-making can simply change their opinion to make incest not harmful to society. This was done with gay actions and transgender ideology.

    lol We do not need science to tell us that people are sexual attracted to the same sex and opposite sex. That is talked about in the bible. Why would God challenge us to learn more about same-sex attraction when we do not understand opposite-sex attraction? Do we know why people are attracted to the opposite-sex? Why would you say mother nature default orientation is heterosexuality?

    God is challenging us to stay true to his word when it comes to many things including sexual orientation. He also said beware of false prophets. They will come to you in sheep clothing ;but, inwardly, they are wolves…

    Yes, Jesus wants us to love our neighbors. But, loving your neighbor does not mean accepting sexual actions that are against God. You are basically turning your back on God and saying, we as humans, know more than God.

  342. No slaves could not treat their slave in any fashion during Jesus time. Are you not aware the Jesus told the master to treat your slave as to how you wanted to be treated? I question of the bible. It seems like you have a personal agenda to distort the bible..

  343. I’m not distorting anything in the Bible. Both history and scripture support what I’ve shared with you. (And the word ‘Bible’ is spelled, properly speaking, with an upper case ‘B’.)

  344. Homosexuality was going on in the bible. Did Jesus not say a man shall not lie with a man? Are the actions of having sexual relations with the same sex in the bible? Sodom and Gomorrah is in the bible. The purpose of me bring up Sodom and Gomorrah is to prove that homosexual activity was going on in the bible. Now, some people say that example was about lustful homosexuality. I am not here to debate whether is it lustful or not. I am simply pointing out that people in Jesus days were aware of homosexuality..

  345. You mean people having sexual relations with the same sex and the opposite sex? The bible already address those issues when it comes to heterosexuality and homosexuality. Since heterosexuality is a sexual orientation, are you saying people in Jesus time did not understand having sex with the opposite sex?

  346. gay and lesbians are not like heterosexual in all other aspects. No gay or lesbian can procreate from each other like heterosexuals..

  347. Yes, you should love thy neighbor. But, that love does not mean you should encourage something that goes against God. If you love someone, you would not encourage behavior among them that goes against God. There is no scripture that says love thy neighbor and support actions among that neighbor that goes against God’s word..

  348. Homosexuality is a choice just like heterosexuality. No christian murdered because God says thy shall not kill. But, if they do kill, God forgives. However, no Christians has murdered gays. That is apart of another religion..

  349. Because God said a man shall not lie with a man.. What proof do you have that Jesus condones sex between the same sex?

  350. If you equate telling the truth about what God says with oppressing someone, then God is oppressing you as well… Take that up with him

  351. Where in the bible does it say a master can treat a slave in any fashion? Since you are telling the truth, you should be able to find it in the bible.. Scriptures supports how to morally treat a slave.

  352. I reply by paragraph:

    1. I did not assert or suggest that people in Jesus’ time were unaware of folks sleeping with the same or opposite sex. Contrary to your uninformed opinion, the phrase “sexual orientation” is not “a fancy word to define sex.” There is much more to sex than engaging in “the act”. Since I do not know your educational level, I won’t offer anything more on this point.

    2. I did not assert, contrary to your opinion, that Jesus approved of putting disobedient slaves to death. This is not to say that disobedient slaves might not have been executed (a matter I’d have to research). The Gospel simply portrays Jesus approving punishment — short of death — for disobedient slaves.

    3. Re: definition of “sexual orientation” — no comment.

    4. I’ve no problem understanding references to sex acts, same and opposite, in the Bible. Your problem, however, is thinking that the “sexual act” is all there is to sex. Sexual orientation, you clearly fail to understand, is much more complicated a subject.

    5. How is incest harmful to society, you ask? The dangers of inbreeding come to mind.

    6. Of course, the Bible illustrates same-sex and opposite-sex relations. After all, the Bible was written by flesh-and-blood human beings — lol!!! You ask, “Why would God challenge us to learn more about same-sex attraction when we do not understand opposite-sex attraction?” Perhaps because we need to learn, that’s why. If you don’t understand something brought to your attention, you are challenged to learn about it, right? You ask, “Do we know why people are attracted to the opposite-sex?” Is your question a religious one or a scientific one? As to heterosexuality being the default orientation, most folks have opposite-sex attraction (which, by the way, is far more than sexual desire if you understand this fact).

    7. Re: wolves in sheep clothing, “By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:16). Of course, some folks, being ignorant or illiterate or both, may not recognize their being duped, for example, by religious figures promoting the so-called “Prosperity Gospel” (no doubt, just one of many examples today).

    8. Is homosexual orientation “against God”, as you contend? Let’s take another example, to wit, slavery. Jesus taught it is OK to be a master over slaves. Over the centuries, Christians would gradually come to condemn it. Today, we think slavery is “against God”. So, who gave us the truth, (a) Jesus who said slavery is OK or (b) Christians who condemned it? Was Jesus wrong?

  353. A slave, by definition, is property of the master. As property, the slave could be treated humanely or otherwise. Slaves in the mines, for example, endured harsh living conditions. Slaves in wealthy homes, on the other hand, might be treated with a measure of respect or disdain, depending on the sensibilities of the master. Rome encouraged humane treatment of slaves both to (a) reduce chances of rebellion and (b) encourage production of goods and services. In his teaching, Jesus acknowledges, for example, the right of a master to beat or even severely beat disobedient slaves. Jesus also acknowledged a master’s right to sell such a slave along with the slave’s wife, children, and property in order to recoup what was owed the master.

  354. Below is your reply asserting or suggesting the people in Jesus time were unaware of folks sleeping with the same sex or opposite sex. So you are either a liar or unaware of what you are writing

    “2. Perhaps God did not teach about same-sex orientation because the people of Jesus’ time were unaware of it and were unprepared to receive it.”

    But, God did not approve of executing slaves. So, just because people said he approves of executing slaves, there is no evidence to back their claim.

    Again, a brother and a father does not procreate. So, inbreeding is not a factor. Did you read where I referenced two people of the same sex?

    We need to learn about same sex attraction because you say so! Got it.. lol

    No, no, no, answer the question: is homosexuality orientation against God? When did Jesus say slaver was okay? He only taught how the master how to threat the slaves. But, I would say Jesus was correct and the Christians were wrong since some people loved their slave master and did not mind being a slave.

    You problem is you keep thinking of the way the west or U.S. treated their slaves which was wrong in God’s eyes. Did God teach slaves master how to treat slaves how the U.S. or the west treated slaves? I think not!

    God NEVER taught slave masters to treat their slaves how the U.S. treated their slaves. He also never said to determine whether someone is a slave or not based off skin color.

    So, Jesus gave us the truth because when he talked about how to treat slaves because some slaves loved their slaves and wanted to stay a slave. But, if you treat your slave how you would want to be treated, how is that wrong? If a slave master treated a slave how they wanted to be treated, would that not mean the slave master would free the slave because he would want to be free and see the pain of slavery?

    Your twisted logic on slavery in the bible is a plot to get people to accept homosexuality which is against God. However, that tactic will not get people to say homosexuality is of God because no one in today’s society would want to stay a slave or will love their master due to the harsh treatment that we know happened to slaves in the U.S. But, again when did God say it was okay or not okay to be a slave master?

  355. Okay, but the question one must ask is why or how did those people become slaves?
    If those masters treated their slaved immoral, those slaves masters were going against God’s word, agree?
    There is nothing wrong with Jesus saying that a slave and the slave’s wife and children must be sold together. Actually, that is the moral thing to say because of the pain that will be caused of the family being sold separately. But, did the U.S. Christians sell the slave along with the slave’s wife and children when they sold slaves?

    You problem is that you are concentrated on the word “slave” and not how Jesus told the masters .Again, slavery in the bible is something you can not understand because people loved their master and did not want to be free. This is something today’s society can not understand because of the harsh treatment of slaves which went against everything Jesus said about treating a slave. Jesus wanted the slave master to treat their slaves like a human and with dignity..

  356. Can you please reference Jesus saying it was okay to sleep with the same sex or teachings on homosexuality relationships? Ex, Jesus said talked about what sexual actions he condones among heterosexuals. Heterosexuals can sexually lust just like homosexuals can sexually lust.

  357. No, humans said that. Didn’t Jesus love everyone, unlike you?

  358. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Christianity is a lifestyle choice that you could snap out of at any time.

  359. Correct and so is homosexuality. So people need to snap out of the homosexual lifestyle if they want to follow God’s word

  360. No one is obligated to follow your religion.

    Hail Satan.

  361. You do not know the bible. Yes Jesus loves everyone. However, he does not approve of all human actions. So are you saying that I must approve of all human actions to show I love everyone?

  362. That is your choice! May God bless you..

  363. That is evident! Tell me something new. Jesus talked about that in the bible..

  364. No, someone unfaithfully transcribed words that he never spoke.

  365. I’m saying that you should stop preaching your hateful religion, which no one is under any obligation to care about.

  366. How is it hateful? Is it because God does not condone all human actions?
    Any why should anyone stop preaching their religion when homosexuals promote their lifestyle? Why can homosexual do it and not christians?

  367. I will let Jesus handle Satan.. Jesus has my back

  368. What evidence you have to back up that claim?

  369. It was thousands of years ago. They didn’t have audio recording devices or accurate translators.

  370. I can handle my own problems, unlike you.

  371. You seem to have confused the concept of “promoting one’s lifestyle” with simply being alive.

    Why can Christians do it but not LGBTQ+ people?

  372. Gay people can do it and they are doing it. what are you talking about? No one is killing gay people. Is the pride flag not promoting the gay lifestyle? Blacks never had a flag that the government raised and the black suffered more harm than gay people. So, I think you are the one thay is confused

  373. You think you can but only God can handle Satin. You are human which means you are no match for Satin or God

  374. Then do not throw out claims you have no evidence to validate your conclusion

  375. I am perfectly capable of handling Satin, thank you very much.

    You are a weak man. You are nothing without your religion. Take your Christian privilege away, and you have nothing.

  376. All the time? You find one article and say blacks kill gay and trans people all the time.. I know a lot of gays and trans black people who were not killed by other blacks.. Have any statistic on how many black kill gay and trans people or are you basing your conclusion on one or a few articles?

  377. I am nothing without God. But,How can you handle something that has more power than you? If you can handle satin you would not turn your back on God. Satin wants you to turn your back on God and denounce God’s word… I am confident you can not handle Satin or God.

  378. I’m basing my conclusion on having grown up in the South, attending inner-city public schools in Mobile, AL. It’s a well-known fact that blacks hate queers. ‘Moonlight’ won an Oscar about it.

  379. I am confident that you cannot spell “Satan” correctly to save your life, nor recognize when you are being trolled. Are you Russian, perhaps?

  380. I am not Muslim.. But Gay and trans kill people as well Do they not?

  381. Blacks do not support that lifestyle. But, they do not always kill gays. If they did, why is the law not locking them up. To not support a lifestyle does not mean you hate that person, you hate their actions or behavior.. You problem is you can not see gay as an action which is what defines being gay. Gay equates to actions towards the same sex.

  382. Christian equates to intolerance of anyone who isn’t Christian enough to please you personally. F*ck off and die.

  383. Source? No? You’re just making that up for attention. #ThatsSoChristian

  384. Sure, you are, with a name like “Tom Rogers”. You’re totally Russian.

  385. lol Is that suppose to be an insult? The Russians did nothing to me…

  386. Yeah, sure, whatever. You’re probably on their payroll.

  387. Are Christians killing non Christians? Are Christians killing gays?

  388. Who cares? Most of the American do not care

  389. I said no such thing. You just put words in my mouth. #ThatsSoChristian

  390. Your hashtag “#ThatsSoChristian” gives it away

  391. Got any proof that god exists? No? Take it on faith, then.

  392. The proof is how did life start? If humans are born dependent on an adult to live, how did the first humans survive? That is my proof! i know it may be a higher level of thinking for you lol

  393. You don’t even believe in evolution, LOL.

  394. I provided evidence to back up my claims

  395. No such thing as evolution! Are you saying babies evolved to become dependent on an adult humans? Evolution is a code word for BS..

  396. But, most people agree with my opinion..

  397. lol Until most churches accept same sex marriage, I would say they agree with my opinion. Only a small percentage go against God’s word and say two people of the same sex is married,…

  398. Dont hold your breath for most churches to accept something that is against God

  399. Actually, more and more churches are welcoming LGBTQ+ people. And if the rest don’t want to get boycotted and/or protested, they will do the same.

  400. They were always welcomed. It is about accepting homosexuality behavior and not that many churches are accepting gay behavior. None of the Churches or denominations with large members are accepting gay behavior. Only the churches with small members are going against God

  401. No church cares about being boycotted or protested because they will not go against God. How can you boycott a church? Please explain?

  402. When has any Church said people who engage in gay behavior re not welcomed? They want people to come who sin so they can bring them closer to God..

  403. No, your churches want their money, for sermons which shame them for not breeding enough to please your god.

  404. You can not attend or give them your money, duh.

  405. lol People will not do that because the Church will not go against God.. You are smoking something if you think they will

  406. They take money from opposite sex couples who do not have kids. So, are those same sermons intended to shame opposite couples who do not have kids? However, a church dedicated to God will knowingly take money from people who want them to go against God..

  407. Churches take money from everyone, and they don’t pay taxes. They’re a leech on society.

  408. lol If you think because a few non-relevant religious organizations accept same sex marriage as acceptable to God, you are smoking something.. The religious organizations that says gay marriage is of God have about a million members each. But, they will lose more members because of their decision to embrace gay marriage.

  409. So do other non-profits! You point? How are they a leech when no one is forced to give churches any money?

  410. They don’t pay taxes on their exorbitant church properties. If they did, public schools wouldn’t be so poorly funded and dependent on children doing fundraisers for their own classrooms.

  411. Actually, the opposite is true. You people are on the wrong side of history: “Homophobia now, homophobia forever!!”

  412. I am sure Christians would rather be on the wrong side of history and the right side of God! Who cares what man thinks of Christians… lol

  413. The Church does not pay taxes. But, the members of that Church pay taxes..Agree?

  414. Do you really think the Christians would turn their back on God to please man?

  415. Depends on the members.

    The Church of Satan pays taxes, because they have better ethics than you.

  416. Who cares what Christians think? Nobody, that’s who. LOL

  417. I would say a lot of people care which is why they want to change the church’s biblical view of marriage and sex. If they did not care, there would not be this big push to change the hearts and minds of Christians…

  418. lol All Church members pay taxes. Do they not buy things? So they pay a sales tax. So because they pay money to the government, the Church of Satan is ethically superior? What about the social services the real churches provided to the community?

    So is the Church of Satan ethically superior to the boys and girls club? They do not pay taxes… lol

  419. Yes, they do, and yes, they are ethically superior to you, not that that’s saying much.

  420. I think they care more about Christians abusing, disowning, and murdering their own children, just for being gay or trans. No ethical religion would condone these things.

  421. So anyone who does those actions are Christians? Any evidence that Christians did those actions?

  422. How and they are a tax exempt organization? lol

  423. So is God not ethical? He condemned sex outside marriage between A man and a woman?

  424. No religion condones these actions. What religion condones these actions? Please explain

  425. As long as Christians are following God’s word, I think that is all the approval they need

  426. Christians turn their gay and trans children out of their homes all the time. This is why young people want nothing to do with you.

  427. No, that’s just outdated prudeness from a time when women were considered property.

  428. Actually, there’s these things called laws, including laws against child abuse and endangerment.

  429. God’s word does not call for child abuse or endangerment. Many Parents still discipline their kids by beating them, or taking things they like away.

  430. The Church of Satan is not a tax-exempt organization.

  431. Yes, from my own and others’ experiences.

  432. When did God consider women property? Did he teach that? I thought he told man to respect his wife.. I am confused! lol

  433. That is not true. Most of those kids leave because their parents will not accept that lifestyle. My son engages in same sex sexual behavior and I have not thrown him out of my house. However, he knows not to bring that in my house.. I know many of young people who love the church and religion. But, the Church will not turn their back on God to fill the seats.

  434. abusing and disowning their kids occurs regardless if the parents are Christians or not. You have some bad apples among Christians. Just like you have some Churches that condones same sex sexual relations even thought God said it is against him. But, the Church does not condone abusing, disowning and murdering kids because they engage in same sex sexual behavior..

  435. I was talking about the Boys and Girls club.. lol

  436. The whole Garden of Eden narrative paints Eve as secondary to Adam. This is why no one cares what Christians think.

  437. lol A parent has a right to discipline their kids.. If the government do not like it, they can take care of all the kids which is not something the government wants to do

  438. Adam is the protector of Eve. But, I am not sure what you mean by secondary!
    But, Why does society looks down on a man who hits women but it is more acceptable for a women to hit a man?

  439. So you want to let a selected few define Christians? There are a lot of gay men who engage in sex with minors and have HIV. Shall people say ALL gays have sex with minors and have AIDS?

    What is the statistic on parents killing their kids who are gay? Yes, it happens just like gay men engage in sex with minors. You point?

  440. My point is that homophobia leads to parents killing their children, just for being gay.

  441. So, you condone child abuse. #ThatsSoChristian

  442. What do you consider child abuse? Child Abuse is subjective!