A Failure of Courage

http://index1.ciopda.com >blue collar comedy tour one for the road
http://index1.dityns.com >faux tile floors

http://index1.ciopda.com >blue collar comedy tour one for the road
http://index1.dityns.com >faux tile floors

http://index1.biolop.com >qvc outlet
http://index1.rfrltk.com >neutrogena advanced solutions fred meyer kennewick

http://index1.biolop.com >qvc outlet
http://index1.rfrltk.com >neutrogena advanced solutions fred meyer kennewick

http://index1.biolop.com >qvc outlet
http://index1.rfrltk.com >neutrogena advanced solutions fred meyer kennewick

http://index1.niopil.com >whitepagss
http://index1.oiloin.com >home inspection franchises

http://index1.niopil.com >whitepagss
http://index1.oiloin.com >home inspection franchises

http://index1.niopil.com >whitepagss
http://index1.oiloin.com >home inspection franchises

http://index1.napoir.com >florida marlins and pax
http://index1.diopst.com >never make a pretty woman your wife lyrics

http://index1.weewra.com >ww.southwest
http://index1.erojin.com >care for primrose

http://index1.weewra.com >ww.southwest
http://index1.erojin.com >care for primrose

http://index1.weewra.com >ww.southwest
http://index1.erojin.com >care for primrose

http://index1.ariopr.com >j.s. tokarski
http://index1.quikop.com >quotes for health insurance

http://index1.ariopr.com >j.s. tokarski
http://index1.quikop.com >quotes for health insurance

http://index1.8shtuk.com >kama sutra book
http://index1.eroint.com >princess diana death picture

http://index1.8shtuk.com >kama sutra book
http://index1.eroint.com >princess diana death picture

http://index1.8shtuk.com >kama sutra book
http://index1.eroint.com >princess diana death picture

http://index1.smytiw.com >16 mini helmet dispaly case
http://index1.dfitbv.com >masterbrand cabinet

http://index1.smytiw.com >16 mini helmet dispaly case
http://index1.dfitbv.com >masterbrand cabinet

http://index1.smytiw.com >16 mini helmet dispaly case
http://index1.dfitbv.com >masterbrand cabinet

http://index1.9poilo.com >female escort services in alabama
http://index1.stityg.com >loss prevention manager seattle

http://index1.9poilo.com >female escort services in alabama
http://index1.stityg.com >loss prevention manager seattle

http://index1.9poilo.com >female escort services in alabama
http://index1.stityg.com >loss prevention manager seattle

http://index3.xovits.com >comworldsex.om http://index1.xovits.com >posters of women in bikinis http://index2.xovits.com >methuen massacgusetts police

http://index3.xoyits.com >girlfriend has baby against boyfriends will http://index1.xoyits.com >girl photo http://index2.xoyits.com >50 cent dvd movie label

http://index3.zinimi.com >pamela andersonnude http://index2.zinimi.com >jeff dunham video clips http://index1.zinimi.com >columbus high school class of 1995

http://index3.zinimi.com >pamela andersonnude http://index2.zinimi.com >jeff dunham video clips http://index1.zinimi.com >columbus high school class of 1995

http://index1.wotini.com >slitz porn http://index2.wotini.com >free porn xxx no fees no charge http://index3.wotini.com >wife experience others

http://index1.wotini.com >slitz porn http://index2.wotini.com >free porn xxx no fees no charge http://index3.wotini.com >wife experience others

http://index1.wotini.com >slitz porn http://index2.wotini.com >free porn xxx no fees no charge http://index3.wotini.com >wife experience others

Sorry, but what is kimerikas?

Jane.

http://1.lm4nmu.com >dockers mailing address

http://1.lm4nmu.com >dockers mailing address

http://1.lm4nmu.com >dockers mailing address

http://1.lm4nmu.com >dockers mailing address

http://1.mster6.com >new chevrolet

http://1.mster6.com >new chevrolet

http://1.mster6.com >new chevrolet

http://1.mastr6.com >portland zip codes

http://1.poshlo.com >suzzane russo brass

http://1.poshlo.com >suzzane russo brass

http://1.poshlo.com >suzzane russo brass

http://1.poshlo.com >suzzane russo brass

http://index1.scukam.com >exploitation films

http://index1.scukam.com >exploitation films

http://index1.scukam.com >exploitation films

http://index1.scukam.com >exploitation films

http://index1.7umini.com >us army corp of engineers

http://index1.7umini.com >us army corp of engineers

http://index1.typguide.com >cat pics

http://index1.typguide.com >cat pics

http://index1.typguide.com >cat pics

http://index1.typguide.com >cat pics

http://index1.typguide.com >cat pics

http://index1.morun5.com >boy scout camp forestburg

http://index1.morun5.com >boy scout camp forestburg

http://index1.morun5.com >boy scout camp forestburg

http://index1.morun5.com >boy scout camp forestburg

http://index1.tolant.com >best wsternhotels

http://index1.tolant.com >best wsternhotels

http://index1.tolant.com >best wsternhotels

http://index1.tolant.com >best wsternhotels

http://index1.lopste.com >chambersburg hospital

http://index1.lopste.com >chambersburg hospital

http://index1.lopste.com >chambersburg hospital

http://index1.lopste.com >chambersburg hospital

http://index1.lopste.com >chambersburg hospital

http://index1.uramim.com >effects of katrina on mississippi

http://index1.uramim.com >effects of katrina on mississippi

http://index1.uramim.com >effects of katrina on mississippi

http://index1.hrumst.com >novelty doorbell ringers

http://index1.hrumst.com >novelty doorbell ringers

http://index1.hrumst.com >novelty doorbell ringers

http://index1.hrumst.com >novelty doorbell ringers

http://index1.no-4um.com >data com

http://index1.no-4um.com >data com

http://index1.no-4um.com >data com

http://index1.no-4um.com >data com

http://index1.semrua.com >winsock

http://index1.semrua.com >winsock

http://index1.semrua.com >winsock

http://index1.trum4u.com >aol greating cards

http://index1.trum4u.com >aol greating cards

http://index1.trum4u.com >aol greating cards

http://index1.trum4u.com >aol greating cards

http://index1.trum4u.com >aol greating cards

http://index1.gnusmu.com >dob

http://index1.gnusmu.com >dob

http://index1.gnusmu.com >dob

http://index1.umsung.com >meridian cabana

http://index1.umsung.com >meridian cabana

http://index1.umsung.com >meridian cabana

http://index1.umsung.com >meridian cabana

http://index1.umsung.com >meridian cabana

http://index1.rast4u.com >washington dc capital

http://index1.rast4u.com >washington dc capital

http://index1.rast4u.com >washington dc capital

http://index1.rast4u.com >washington dc capital

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

http://index1.tuffik.com >jewish beef brisket [url=http://index1.tuffik.com]jewish beef brisket[/url]

http://index1.tuffik.com >jewish beef brisket [url=http://index1.tuffik.com]jewish beef brisket[/url]

http://index1.tuffik.com >jewish beef brisket [url=http://index1.tuffik.com]jewish beef brisket[/url]

http://index1.tuffik.com >jewish beef brisket [url=http://index1.tuffik.com]jewish beef brisket[/url]

http://index1.pemise.com >victoria beckham http://pemise.com >ass trip

http://index1.batoho.com >tattoos of gypsy girl http://batoho.com >asked question

http://index1.batoho.com >tattoos of gypsy girl http://batoho.com >asked question

http://index1.batoho.com >tattoos of gypsy girl http://batoho.com >asked question

http://index1.batoho.com >tattoos of gypsy girl http://batoho.com >asked question

http://index1.batoho.com >tattoos of gypsy girl http://batoho.com >asked question

http://wupiwy.com >fresh news http://index1.wupiwy.com >fetal development

http://wupiwy.com >fresh news http://index1.wupiwy.com >fetal development

http://wupiwy.com >fresh news http://index1.wupiwy.com >fetal development

http://wupiwy.com >fresh news http://index1.wupiwy.com >fetal development

http://index1.bubify.com >chipawhoo boots

http://index1.bubify.com >chipawhoo boots

http://index1.bubify.com >chipawhoo boots

http://index1.bubify.com >chipawhoo boots

http://index1.bubify.com >chipawhoo boots

http://kysaky.com >india life expectancy for male and female [url=http://kysaky.com]india life expectancy for male and female[/url]

http://kysaky.com >india life expectancy for male and female [url=http://kysaky.com]india life expectancy for male and female[/url]

http://kysaky.com >india life expectancy for male and female [url=http://kysaky.com]india life expectancy for male and female[/url]

http://kysaky.com >india life expectancy for male and female [url=http://kysaky.com]india life expectancy for male and female[/url]

Hello! Good site!

Thank you!

SMODNUK THARK THNUH YURKA MODABA

Just to correct some errors I have seen while reading through some of the responses.

-Gays are not evil. They are simply sinners...as are we all.
-No one is saying that gays should be excluded from the church. Just that they should be excluded from the ministry. Would you accept a pastor / minister / bishop that was engaged in a continuing extramarital affair?
-The entirety of the Bible is inspired. The black text is just as binding as the red text.

Judeo-Christian tradition includes the Bible, Talmud, and Rambam (Maimonides) who explicitly permit female-female couples.

The Hebrew Bible DOESNT prohibit female samesex relations. Not in anyway.

The Hebrew Bible prohibits a specific form of idolatrous ritual involving male-male prostitution.

In agreement with Jewish tradition, the Christian Bible also DOESNT prohibit homosexuality. The Greek technical term (arsenokoitos) that is sometimes wrongly translated as "homosexual" infact means "male sacred prostitute" and is used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew technical term (Kadesh). The Christian Bible condemns a specific idolatrous sex ritual, and doesnt forbid homosexuality.

The Christian Bible does not in any context forbid female-female sex.

Interestingly, the Talmud forbids male-male anal sex, but doesnt forbid other forms of male-male sex. Oral sex and frot (rubbing penises together) are fine.

Homosexuality is fine according to the Bible.

Not by any stretch of the imagination is there a "universal" prohibition against homosexuality in the Judeo-Christian traditions.

In fact, explicit prohibitions against homosexuality are surprisingly recent, starting to appear around the 16th century AD (such as in the Sulkhan Arukh).

Misled Christians are persecuting innocent gay women and men ... in the name of God.

To commit crimes against humanity is evil.

To commit crimes against humanity in the name of God - how can such a criminal even begin to repair the damage to God's reputation?

Give me a break!

Misled Christians are the ones who are persecuting innocent gay women and men! Legally, socially, financially.

Even if it is true that misled gays are persecuting Christians, obviously, the Christians started it!

It sounds like Christians are victims in America of the powerful homosexual lobby.

"Christian business owners are being forced to reproduce pro-homosexual propaganda. Christians are being arrested for exercising their freedom of speech and freedom of religion if they say homosexuality is sinful."

Please share some of the details of (what must be many) incidents stated above. If people's first ammendment rights are being trampled - as simply as is stated - then, I'm with you on this...

Well, here's a chance to take a stand against this so-called "chosen homosexual behavoir." Apparently, the bluster doesn't rise beyond common rhetroic.

It's difficult to understand the validity of people's points if all they do is state them as fact and then move on...

AL M

Two men are walking down the street and they are holding hands. Are there laws in effect that legitimize that homosexual behavoir? If so, what are those laws and what changes would you propose making to remedy that situation?

"It wasn't "intolerance" of "differing opinions" for religious or racial minorities to fight against discrimination or concentration camps or slavery."

Linguist, there is no comparison between a chosen sexual behavior and being a prisoner in a concentration camp or being a slave. I'm surprised you didn't try to make a comparison to mixed-race marriage, like many others do, but I guess that isn't quite dramatic enough, so you had to take it up a couple of notches.

What people who make these kinds of arguments fail to realize is that the problem we have with homosexuality has nothing to do with homosexuals and who they are as people. It has everything to do with the behavior they have chosen--behavior that, until the last few years, has been universally understood to be sinful (for those of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and just plain wrong for those of other belief systems). And now, this behavior, which everyone in the past understood was wrong, is being sanctioned by law. Our kids in public schools are forced to learn that homosexuality is acceptable and normal and equivalent to heterosexuality. Christian business owners are being forced to reproduce pro-homosexual propaganda. Christians are being arrested for exercising their freedom of speech and freedom of religion if they say homosexuality is sinful. Mayors are being fined if they refuse to sign proclamations for "Gay Pride Week".

Do you still wonder why so many of us are against laws that legitimize homosexuality? We don't care what you do in your bedroom, but when you bring it out into the public square and try to force the rest of us to endorse your behavior, THEN we have a problem!

http://supergirlssex.biz/map.html
>

http://supergirlssex.biz/map.html
>

http://supergirlssex.biz/map.html
>

http://supergirlssex.biz/map.html
>

http://supergirlssex.biz/map.html
>

While I won't comment on individuals posting here, it does seem to be increasingly common as a debating tactic of many on the religious or political right to claim "intolerance" (or worse) when gay people speak out and demand fair treatment by society.

It wasn't "intolerance" of "differing opinions" for religious or racial minorities to fight against discrimination or concentration camps or slavery. It isn't "intolerance" for gay people to point out distortions of their lives (I "chose" to be gay, I am "promiscuous", my 25+ years relationship poses a "threat" to married heterosexuals, and so on).

Or for us to demand that society treat ALL of us fairly. Even us awful gay "sinners".

Ah, but persecution looks an awful lot like punishment. The difference between the two seems to boil down to "it's punishment when it happens to everyone else, persecution or a test when it happens to us." I'll start listening when they figure out some objective way to tell the difference.

Ah, but persecution looks an awful lot like punishment. The difference between the two seems to boil down to "it's punishment when it happens to everyone else, persecution or a test when it happens to us." I'll start listening when they figure out some objective way to tell the difference.

The bible says they will be persecuted so they see persecution everywhere. They have to. They are required too. Their cognitive dissonance demands it.

Sure, Chris, permitting homosexuals to have sex with each other without legal consequences is imposing on you. Permitting them to work without being fired for being gay is also a huge imposition - just like doing the same for blacks, women, and - wait for it- CHRISTIANS is.

Wake me when you are legally required to perform fellatio on another man, then I'll buy your overwrought claims of persecution.

So, continuing to focus back on the issue of this hypocritical approach to sin...

Why is has there been no political pressure from the Southern Baptists on the Right Wing Conservative Republicans to "save marriage" (and the U.S. in general) from Divorce? Jesus said himself that Divorce is a sin and the justification for bringing Homosexuality to the forefront is that it is a sin.

Have we established that God is clear that Homosexuality is a worse sin (maybe THE WORST SIN) than Divorce?

Christians do demonic evil in the name of God when they persecute innocent gay women and men.

THE BIBLE PERMITS HOMOSEXUALITY

According to the Bible, homosexuality is fine. The Bible does not prohibit homosexuality.

Two verses in Leviticus are often abused to harm innocent gays. These verses forbid idolatry. They do not forbid homosexuality.

The Hebrew term often translated as "abomination" (Toeva) specifically means "idolatrous ritual".

In context, the plain meaning (pshat) of these verses forbid a specific Canaanite idolatrous fertility ritual. The idolatrous ritual is called the "lyings of a woman".

A male "sacred prostitute" (Kadesh) would dress in female clothing and offer anal sex to represent the Canaanite fertility goddess Ashera (who was also called Kadesh).

A male patron who worshiped Ashera would then have sex with the goddess, via the prostitute who served as the divine "spiritual woman". The patron hoped that sex with the goddess would intensify his own fertility, in the form of more children, more wealth, etc. He gave an offering of money to the sacred prostitute, who in turn gave the offering to the shrine.

Leviticus does not forbid homosexuality. It only forbids this specific idolatrous ritual, called the "lyings of a woman".

The Hebrew literally says (Leviticus 18:22, similarly 20:13):

"You will not lie the lyings of a woman with a male; it is an idolatrous ritual".

Unfortunately this verse is usually translated sloppily in English, losing the original intended meaning: "You will not lie with a woman as with a man; it is an abomination".

The Leviticus verse explicitly forbids idolatry only. In context, the verse occurs between two other specific Canaanite idolatrous rituals. The preceding verse (18:21) prohibits a ritual for human sacrifice. A parent would slaughter their adult child to the Canaanite god Molekh and cremate the corpse in a fire. This Canaanite ritual is called "passing your seed to Molekh" (elsewhere called "passing thru fire"). Avraham performed this Canaanite ritual unsuccessfully, when he attempted to the slaughter his adult son Isaac to God (rather than to Molekh). But Jephthah performed this ritual successfully slaughtering his adult daughter. Leviticus forbids this Canaanite ritual.

The following verse (18:23) mentions yet another idolatrous fertility ritual. A woman represents the fertility goddess Ashera, by "standing" before sexually aroused "cattle" for a "hybriding".

Archeology finds these idolatrous fertility rituals depicted frequently in Canaanite iconography. The goddess Ashera appears in the "lyings of a woman" ritual as a nude woman lying in a bed (often in the form of a figurine). Similarly, Ashera appears in the "standing before cattle" ritual as a nude woman standing before erect bovine males (especially ibixes).

The Bible violently opposes idolatry, specifically these enduring Canaanite rituals, and formally assigns the death penalty for idolatry.

These verses in Leviticus that mention the "lyings of a woman with a male" explicitly forbid this specific "idolatrous ritual" (toeva).

The Bible does not prohibit male-male sex.

Likewise, the Bible absolutely does not prohibit female-female sex.

Per Bible, homosexuality is fine.

Chris J.,

Your message is full of hatred and scorn. You make accusations that you cannot substantiate, merely to humilate others (Methodists?). Would you consider your attitude to be Christian?

Please keep in mind Jesus' instruction to love one another (John 13:35) and to love your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:31). Also remember that Jesus instructed to judge not or you too will be judged (Matthew 7:1).

Finally, please read Romans 14. Unless your faith is grounded in love and humility before God, you are a modern-day pharisee.

Mr. Semes, conservative Christians like Pastor Mohler and I do the right to impose our beliefs on you. You have imposed your anti-Christian, bigoted beliefs upon us for years. It is called democracy. A quick story about divorce. A Methodist freak Pastor, just before performing a marriage ceremony, told my buddy it was o.k. to divorce. Well, what a boondoggle for that crank! He can get his lawyer buddies on either side to fight the divorce and then remarry both schleps and dig into their wallets again! What a SCAM! The more divorces the better for these pagan goonbahs masqueraiding as Christian misnisters!

120 years of psychobabble and the percentage of loons has increased ten fold. I will admit, I am a hypocrite. I sin everyday, several times. The difference between a Christian and others though is that I confess my sin to a great God, Jesus Christ, who wants me to know Him more and to love Him more. Not in a SanFranSicko kind of love but a genuine love that seeks to sacrifice like He sacrificed for all of us. What sickens me is that we are lied to by these creeps in the MSM everyday. We are told that accepting homosexuality is no big deal. We are told that this will not lead to an accepting of pedophilia. Tell that to the sickos at the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association. They have people writing articles about accepting intergenerational love just as they had freaks 35 years ago writing about accepting sodomites. According to the MSM, the Catholic Sex Scandal was about priests and little boys and girls. In fact it was about gay priests seducing boys! This is what happened when the Church went wobbly in their seminaries about sodomy.

i too am a happy person because of a divorce. After 25 years of misery. I left. It took having all that hate and fear being turned against myself...of thinking about suicide, for me to leave.

I started over at the age of 40. I had a hard time of it, thankfully my two kids were grown , I took it until they were. So I did not drag them into homelessness with me. But I made it. Found a job, a room to call my home and I made it.

I met my Jack and 6 years later we got married. That was 12 years ago...and I thank my lucky stars that I had the experiences of the failed marriage to show me how good a good marriage can be, not to take it for granted and never to lose appreciation for my hubby.

Divorce is better then sticking with an unhappy distructive marriage. I wish I had of done it sooner...my children would have been better off seeing one happy parent, and knowing what that is, then seeing two miserable ones. Now they see what a happy partnership is. But my believeing that they needed a father under the same roof caused them difficulties that should not have been.

When I buy something that does not work or is the wrong size, I take it back. We should not have to live all our lives wioth mistakes.

Hurray for us Lepi! We got new chances to make it right. We did it!
terra

Wow! Liberalism is truly the home of bigotry, censorship and ignorance! Liberals passed a law limiting free speech right before an election, they refused to show pictures of the evil Muhammad and they want to pass a "fairness doctrine" which would kill talk radio(because Americans intuitively turn off liberal talk radio drivel)! Hitler could only come to power in Germany after the Lutheran church had been emasculated and the bigoted doctrine of Darwin(survival of the fittest applies to humans too! Darwin thought blacks to be glorified apes!)could be fully implemented! I'm sick of Christians navel gazing and not fighting these sickos.

After reading most of these posts, I want to say only a few things.

First, Dr. Mohler is absolutely right when he states that this dialogue did not start with homosexuality. No, the slippery slope started long before that. If we are truly followers of Christ then all sin must be handled as just that, blatant sin and disobedience to God. It must be dealt with as such. If the sin continues, as brethren we must go to the guilty party and ask then to repent and be brought back into the fold. If the guilty does not repent, then they must be to be brought before the church for repentance. And if still no repentance after that, banished from the church until repentance has happened.

We as followers of Christ know that this is the Biblical way to deal with outwardly blantant sin. But few churches and few ministers deal with it in this manner. Compromise has occurred and now there is as much sin in the church as outside the church. It is difficult and hurts people to deal with sin in this manner. But what we have been lured into believing is that there is no pain as a result of the sin. What a lie that is. Tell the children of divorce that there is no pain in divorce. Tell the spouse that has been wronged by adultery. Tell the family that there is no pain in the drunkeness of the father. Homosexuality is no difference. The sin is lust. Tell the spouse who has been left because of lust that there is no pain. Tell the ones dying of AIDS that there is no pain in the sin. There are always consequences established by God for all sin. We choose to ignore them. The churches and clergy must reinforce the consequences.

We as follows of Christ must return to Biblical principles and Biblical actions. We must not placate the sinner in out midst, but honestly proclaim to them that we were once as they, but now we are the righteousness of God only by Christ's death and that they too can have His righteousness if they want it. While we do not condone the sin, we must love the sinner.

Also, this issue is separate from the battle against homosexual marriage being fought in the political realm. This battle is fought within the walls of churches and in the clergy.

I'm always amazed by the assertion that if society normalizes homosexual relationships, it'll be on a slippery slope, and sanctioning pedophilia will be the natural next step. A consensual sexual relationship between two adults who treat each other as equals is very different from a sexual relationship in which an adult takes advantage of a child. Pedophilia will never be considered "normal" in our society.

Robert Buechler writes: "I support any and all legislation that would put an end to adulterous practices and sexual immorality, including porn of all kinds, etc."

In order to enforce this genius idea of yours, we're going to have to install video cameras in YOUR bedroom so that your sexual morality can be monitored and verified. Despite your implicit claim of sexual morality, I'm simply not convinced. You're fine with that right?

And yes, I fully support gay sex in the church. Preferably on the altars and pulpits on Sunday mornings. Those two things have been used to invade the mental posteriors of adherents for so long that they'll be well suited to physical buggering as well.

BOB BUECHER:**I have never met a divorced person who is "proud" about their actions and insists upon the goodness of divorce.**

Pleased to meet you.

I am ashamed of neither of my divorces. Both of my previous marriages were mistakes, and never should have happened.

The first divorce occured after I had a television thrown at me. Why? Because he had gotten extremely intoxicated at a party, and when we got ready to leave, he got out his car keys, intending to drive home. I told him I would drive (After he walked into a coat closet, thinking it was the exit), and he insisted he was fine. At that point, HIS friends told him that he had two choices - to give me his keys, or they would hold him down and take them from him. He acquiesced, but whe we got to the car, attempted to take them from me again. In the process of firghting him, my shoulder was partially dislocated, and my plam cut by my grip on the keys. Because all this took place in the parking lot of an apartment complex during a pre-hurricane thunderstorm , no one could hear my cries for help. He finally gave up trying to take the keys from me, and I drove us home, steering and shifting a 5-speed with an injured shoulder and hand. When we got hime, he went off on me again about how I had caused him to lose face with his friends, and now they would think he couldn't control his woman. I told him that if he wanted something he could control, there was a leash on the wall and he could take the dog for a walk. That's when the tv became airborne. It was not the first incidence of abuse, but I had not left before because the abuse had not been physical, and I had worked very hard to convince myself that this relationship was salvagable, even after I found lipstick on his underpants while doing the laundry. I cannot tell you how much time I spent praying for him to change, for God to intervene, before this happened. I am quite PROUD of the fact that I finally got off my knees and onto my feet before my attempts to save that marriage cost me my life.
I remarried about a decade later, and left that marriage as well. When I mareid him, I had a dughter that had been conceived with a good friend during a rebound relationship aftr the divorce. I had sense enough not to marry him just because I was pregnant. After we married, my second husband took the position that his authority over my daughter should be equal to mine. I felt that his authority over my daughter should be as much as I gave him, exactly as it had been when we were dating. Whne he threatened to spank her for behavior that he found unacceptable. There were two problems with this - first of all, I had already told him that I did not spank - period. And second, the behavior over which he wanteed to strike my child was behavior that I had always allowed, and did not consider problematic. I felt that in cases where my daughter was concerned, if he and I could not find an acceptable compromise, then my wishes should prevail, since I was her parent and he was not. He felt that his wishes should prevail, since he was the man, and that's the way his parents had always done things. He felt that I should put being his wife at a higher priority than being my child's mother. I told him I didn't want his parents' marriage. I finally left when it became crystal clear that I was not going to be able to be the mother to my child that I felt I needed to be as long as I was married to him. I am PROUD of the fact that I chose to be the mom first.
When the man to whom I am now married proposed, I made it clear to him before I accepted that, until she was grown, I would be my daughter's mom first and his wife second, and that if he couldn't acept that, then we needed to say goodbye. He looked at me quizically and said, "How shallow and selfish would I have to be to expect you to put me before your child? Of course, you're her mom first." I also made it clear that ALL parenting decisions were mine and mine alone. He agreed completely.

Here's something I posted elsewhere recently:

I will explain exactly how I feel about the right wing 'Christians' attempting to establish a theocracy. I am a veteran, 1968-1970. Berlin, not 'Nam. I took an oath at entry into the Army, and it began thusly: ""I, (Name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same......"" The rest of the oath is about obeying superior officers. The latter part no longer applies, but I still hold to the former part. Any attempt to run the government by religious standards qualifies in my book as a domestic enemy, and I will, by God, lay down my life, if necessary, to defeat such a thing.

Robert Buechler writes: "I support any and all legislation that would put an end to adulterous practices and sexual immorality, including porn of all kinds, etc."

Let's be clear what Mr B. is advocating. The power to "legislate" is confined to those branches of government composed of elected representatives. The legislation Mr B. supports is based on his personal opinion as to what a "deity," as he and like minded others conceive of such a "being," commands of all human beings. Thus, his religious beliefs should be imposed on all Americans through the power entrusted to our elected representatives by all voting citizens.

Mr. B, and others of like mind, simply want to co-opt the democratic process to impose theocratic rule. This is just a kinder, gentler Talibanism, and I agree with Dodger and others that this should be on the minds of all lever-pullers and chad-punchers come election day. For an in-depth view of this theocratic initiative, see Michelle Goldberg's, "Kingdom Coming: the Rise of Christian Nationalism."

May I insert some information:

Under Hitler, homosexuality was punishable with severest punishment, and I remember very well the "175er" (§175) suspicion against anyone whom you wanted to get moved out of the way. Hitler was not even referring to the bible, lol! You really are in splendid company, bigot homophobes!

(btw, Norrie, that would indicate that I might be even older than you, lol!)

Ad hominem attacks sometimes are inevitable: To read a guy (conservative catholic) who says "all non catholics will go to hell" forces me to the conclusion that only a completely demented idito can write something like this. (Misspelling to avoid being censured! haha!)

PaganPlace,

I will admit that I was tired, sleepy, frustrated, and feeling a bit sorry for myself. Also had one beer too many.

The difference in our approaches here seems to be that I can read someone's post telling me how to live my life (by their standards) and laugh, while you get p.o.'d. Often, of course, you have a right to do that because of ad hominem attacks aimed at you. When you get in this mood, it is difficult sometimes for me to understand you.

seattledodger - I give Robert Buechler credit for at least preaching against it. Maybe, through this dialog, he'll understand that there may just be a double standard at play. Saying something is wrong is quite a few levels of effort different than organizing a campaign to change the constitution to make it illegal.

Pls one more question - how does one come to understand the hierarchy of sin? Like, how do you know (where is it written in the bible) which is the worst sin and then which is the next worse, etc?

Er, that should read Southern Baptists and their worldview.

It seems to me that "spong is wrong" is one of the few people on here who's approach to this is consistent -- although, I too wonder what the deal is about referring to being against "Frivalous Divorces" as opposed to just Divorces. It's like being opposed to Notorious Lesbianism as opposed to just being opposed to Lesbianism :) However, not voting for somebody because they're divoced is not quite the same as actively working to ammend the Constitution to outlaw divorce...

Er, that should read Southern Baptists and their worldview.

It seems to me that "spong is wrong" is one of the few people on here who's approach to this is consistent -- although, I too wonder what the deal is about referring to being against "Frivalous Divorces" as opposed to just Divorces. It's like being opposed to Notorious Lesbianism as opposed to just being opposed to Lesbianism :)

> AJ - does Robert Buechler have direct control
> over divorce laws?

No. Does he actively work to protect marriage from it by trying to pass legislation? Or, is that particular stance reserved for homosexual-related issues?

> Most conservative Christian churches discipline members who engage in fornication
> or frivolous divorce and remarriage.

Frivolous divorce and remarriage? So, there's frivolous and non-frivolous? Is that a distinction made by Jesus? Please define.

It appears to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that most conservative Christian churches act locally when it comes to divorce, but act globally when it comes to homosexuality. And, it's not just the kind of homosexuality where a man lieth with a man, but where two men are in a platonic loving relationship. That's confusing to me. Can you elaborate?

> They would outlaw it if they could. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

Hey, if pigs could fly...

It's not that they would outlaw it if they could. It's that they are not applying this righteous zeal to protecting marriage from it.

> It's like saying that conservative Christians should support legalized murder
> of adults since they've failed to outlaw abortion.

Analogy makes my point exactly (thanks) At least, conservative Christians tried to outlaw abortion. Please make reference to any recent activities by conservative Christians to outlaw divorce...

>Another important point - divorcees and adulterers aren't holding parades trying to
>convince people their sin is not in fact sin.

They don't have to. It's not an issue for them because they (a) can't be fired because of it; (b) can't be denied housing because of it; (c) don't get attacked because of it.

> They're generally ashamed of it.
Nah, come on. I know plenty of divorced people who feel just fine about it. As far as they're concerned, they have a "right" to do whatever they want with their life. I doubt very much that you can back up that statement with any kind of facts. Despite any wrangling about numbers however, the fact is that they have all the legal rights needed to get divorced and to remarry.

>Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Yes - thanks for addressing these issues directly. It's giving me a much better idea of the Southern Baptists and how their worldview.

Robert Buechler: "I support any and all legislation that would put an end to adulterous practices and sexual immorality, including porn of all kinds, etc."

i'd like to note that NEITHER Robert Buechler nor Spong is Wrong will answer the question of whether they support a constitutional amendment to outlaw divorce. they waffle and make excuses and prevaricate, but they don't answer the very simple question.

how can they? it would be political suicide and they know it. their megachurches are full of folks who are divorced and have no feelings of remorse or shame. their very own presidential candidates have had more wives than anyone can possibly count!

come on lads. be brave. do you support a constituional amendendment to outlaw divorce? simple question.

i rest my case.

Oh,and I should say to seattledodger that I do not support any of the candidates for President. I do not believe they walk the walk. In fact too often they prove they don't.

Peace in the Lord!

spong is wrong: "I'm not really political or an activist, but I would support measures to reduce frivolous divorces, and to prevent remarriages in that case (so the couple would have to live unmarried if they decided to persist in sin)."

FRIVOLOUS divorces?!?! and you would 'support measures' would you? which of the divorces jesus refers to do you consider 'frivouous' and which not? you better go read your bible and pray to your god that he will forgive you for your persecution of his children, for remember: what you do to the least of these, you do unto him.

so is that a yes or a no? do you support an amendement to the conmtitution as your lord commands? it doesn't appear so. how could you? it's easy to pick on gays, but how do you get rid of what, 25 per cent of your own congregation? what a load of horse manure.

yes, that is hypocracy. and very ugly it is. when you get up on your soapbox and tell the world that rudi guliani is a sinner and an adulterer and that he is as bad as any homosexual, then maybe you can be seen as someone without a political agenda.

until then, save your bigotry and hatred for each other and leave the rest of us alone.

seattledodger said: "we all know the answer."

Friend, if you know the answer then why ask the question?

I support any and all legislation that would put an end to adulterous practices and sexual immorality, including porn of all kinds, etc.

Now I will ask you a question. Do you support gay sex in the church? If so, why? If not, why not? The issue before us is not what is going on in the state, but what is allowed in the church. I quite agree that divorce has been given too much leeway in the church and the main line churches have largely given into the world on the easiness of divorce and divorcing and remarrying.

However, I will agree with Spong is Wrong. I have never met a divorced person who is "proud" about their actions and insists upon the goodness of divorce. No. They mostly are ashamed. They know the wrongness of the act and seek repentance and forgiveness. However, there are quite a few advocates of sexual immorality here who not only are proud of their behavior, but insist upon its goodness and upon the church proclaiming it to be so. That cannot be done.

Peace in the Lord!

spong is wrong, you said: "I hope you do seriously want answers and aren't just going to rebel and bolt when you get valid answers, simply because you don't like them."

we're all waiting. do you support an amendment to outlaw divorce? jesus said in mathew that divorce was adultry. period. so i ask again. are you a hypocritical bully who just picks on those whom he preceives to be weak and defenseless?

or will you stand up and say that the majority of the candidates running for the republican nomination for president are sinful, unrepentent adulterers?

where, oh where are you, my brave soldier for christ?

seattledodger, I'm not a hypocrite. I was against Dole because he was divorced and remarried. He is just as much a hypocrite as Gene Robinson. I would sadly agree with you. Many 'conservative' Christians are hypocrites. But please don't let that influence you - that should have no effect. If you were transported to the 19th century south where everyone around you believed in racism, you should still stick to your guns and deny it. We're living in dark times, but we cannot abandon principles, even when so called 'conservative Christians' turn out to be phonies.

I do love these people because the BIBLICAL definition of love involves rebuking people for their sin (Lev 19:17-18 = Mt 19:19).

I'm not really political or an activist, but I would support measures to reduce frivolous divorces, and to prevent remarriages in that case (so the couple would have to live unmarried if they decided to persist in sin).

"Another important point - divorcees and adulterers aren't holding parades trying to convince people their sin is not in fact sin. They're generally ashamed of it."

Politicians and moralizers aren't trying to pass constitutional amendments to outlaw divorce.

I think I understand why.

There's a reason why gay people have come to the conclusion that same-sex orientation isn't a sin:

Because they've actually thought about it --a lot-- and know what it means to be gay.

And what it means to be a good and honest person.

"With respect, it is the point. You would like to make an allowance for homosexual sex if it is monogamous, life-long, and caring. However one wants to "do it" it is still sin. One could argue the same for adult incestuous relationships or for adultery of any kind."

This isn't about "making allowances" for sin. This is about understanding what sin IS and what it ISN'T. Morality isn't plumbing.

Let me ask you: Why is adultery a bad thing?

And let me further ask you this: If you were to encounter two people engaged in an activity that you had never encountered before, and had never heard of or read about, and that isn't on your list of proscribed activities, how would you go about determining whether it was moral, immoral or morally neutral?

I believe that morality has to be principled to be meaningful. And, according to principles that I can argue, adultery is immoral. A longterm, monogamous and caring relationship between two men or two women isn't. "Plumbing" isn't morality.

"...The point is that every one of us wants to justify, and make excuses for why the Lord's word doesn't apply in this or that instance..."

Sigh. No. I am not making excuses for anything. When I do something wrong, I am pretty upfront about it. Indeed, as a gay person, I have learned that my integrity is vital to my well-being. I sometimes fail in terms of what I expect of myself. We all do. That's not what this is about.

I first realized I was gay at age 10. I wouldn't so much as hold the hand of someone I was in love with until I was 30. Are you suggesting I came to my conclusions lightly or as some kind of excuse? If you are, you are terribly mistaken.

"...I don't excuse it or justify it. I repent, ask forgiveness and seek to live in obedience..."

I don't make excuses either. When I do wrong, I do my best to make amends. I don't try to justify the things in my life that I've done that are wrong. I strive not to do them again.

Committing to live my life faithfully with the person I treasure is not something I "make excuses for". It is something wonderful, and wondrous. If I stole an apple, I'd repent. Having the most wonderful helpmate in the world isn't something to repent over--it's something to praise God for.

Finally, you wrote, "Please consider your lives."

I realized I was gay by age 10. I spent the next 20+ years of my life in a sincere and sometimes agonizing effort to understand what that meant, and what I was to do with that realization. I read, I discussed, I underwent counseling, I prayed.

I did "consider my life", over the course of my life. And I continue to, every day. I take my life and the decisions I make extremely seriously. That, in fact, is one of the reasons I feel obliged to speak up when people distort what it means to be gay, and one of the reasons I live my life honestly and with integrity today.

Robert Buechler.

my, my. how brave. you preached 'against' divorce, have you? that's not good enough. your lord spoke clearly in Matthew about divorce. don't try to weasle out this.

same challenge i gave spong is wrong: do you support a constitutional amendment to outlaw the adulterous practice of divorce, as your lord commands you? or are you a hypocrite?

we all know the answer.

spong is wrong: "Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any other questions."

ah, feel the love. you MUST be one of those christians we've been hearing so much about.

well, i have a question, so don't run off now. which of the adulterers, er, i mean republicans will evangelicals be supporting next year?

matthew tells us what jesus said about divorce. does you church allow divorced people to hold any offices? what about public censure?

divorecees don't have to march for equal rights.

let's cut to the chase. do you support a constituional amendment to outlaw the adulturous practice of divorce, as your lord commands, or are you the hypocritcal politician we all know you to be?

AJ - does Robert Buechler have direct control over divorce laws?
Most conservative Christian churches discipline members who engage in fornication or frivolous divorce and remarriage. They would outlaw it if they could. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. It's like saying that conservative Christians should support legalized murder of adults since they've failed to outlaw abortion.

Another important point - divorcees and adulterers aren't holding parades trying to convince people their sin is not in fact sin. They're generally ashamed of it.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any other questions.

I hope you do seriously want answers and aren't just going to rebel and bolt when you get valid answers, simply because you don't like them.

For instance, Arminius: this guy saying my life belongs to his God, thus he can decide what kind of life he's going to figure, in his own interpretation, someone living might have 'considered.'

Can you even *hear* yourselves?

Mr. Buechler?

What is that, anyway?

Do you *really* think I lived all these years on Earth without thinking, till someone like *you* came along to talk down at me about what to make of your ill-treatment?

Really?

Gods.

Buy the clue.

I wrote: "That people don't do what the Lord says is very true."

Linquist replied: "With respect, I don't think that's the point. (At least it isn't my point.)"

With respect, it is the point. You would like to make an allowance for homosexual sex if it is monogamous, life-long, and caring. However one wants to "do it" it is still sin. One could argue the same for adult incestuous relationships or for adultery of any kind.

The point is that every one of us wants to justify, and make excuses for why the Lord's word doesn't apply in this or that instance. We know what the word is, we simply don't want to do it. That is part of our nature...our sin-nature.

I will not attempt to justify my breakages of the commandments. Actually, I have been guilty of breaking the Lord's commands about lust of the eyes as well. I don't excuse it or justify it. I repent, ask forgiveness and seek to live in obedience.

There is no one I know on the orthodox side who is saying that divorce is not a sin. There is no one I know on the orthodox side who is saying that we don't need to obey the Sabbath (actually, as a Pastor the fact that Jesus makes allowances for doing his work on the Sabbath is found in Scripture).

As for someone who asked me about divorce, the fact is I have continuously preached against it and have received great outcries for doing so. It is a shame that divorce is so easily given for the slightest offense, and yes too often the reason to leave is to indulge in sin.

Please consider your lives. They belong to Christ who has called all Christians to holiness of life; sexual purity (which means either heterosexual, monogamous, life-long marriage or celebacy); and love of neighbor which includes seeking out sinners and calling them to repent.

Peace in the Lord!

" Arminius:

"I give up. The Pagans are busy bashing the Right Wing crowd, and those benighted 'Christians' are frantically replying. The moderates such as I are forgotten. Kinda like politics in America now."

Could it be, Arminius, that 'moderates' are too busy attacking people who disagree with the radicals as 'not understanding all Christians' instead of *actually taking a stand against the "Right Wing crowd"* to be actually *saying anything?*

Right now it sounds like you want praise for trying to hit innocent people less-hard.

To Robert Buechler:
Please respond directly to my point rather than dancing around it. By allowing divorced people to remarry, you're raising a sin - specifically mentioned DIRECTLY by Jesus - to a blessed state.

Why is that?

Ahem! What's elevated physician?

"That people don't do what the Lord says is very true."

With respect, I don't think that's the point. (At least it isn't my point.)

The author and, apparently many posters here, see the lives of gay people, including longterm, monogamous, committed couples who take their vows before God and promise to be faithful to one another and care for one another in sickness and in health as something terrible that they need to repent of. THAT they see as sin.

They do NOT see as sin going to K-Mart on the Sabbath. Or working there.

Or divorcing their third wife.

Or a host of other things that are delineated as SIN with far more clarity in the Scriptures than committed same-sex relationships ever are.

Why is that? Or do you yourself think you are sinning if you work on Saturday (or Sunday, if you stretch the definition of "the seventh day")?

That people don't do what the Lord says is very true. That is a reflection on the sinfulness of all. That is not an excuse for any of us to actively disobey, nor for that matter endorse sinful behavior. That would be to add wrath to wrath.

What then is to be done? Repent,confess, ask forgiveness, and walk in newness of life. That means all of us.

Peace in the Lord Jesus Christ!

"So, divorced people are not getting married? Every day? In large numbers. You do nothing to uphold God's direct admonishment of such things. How convenient."

Not to mention the 4th (3rd for Catholics) of the "Ten Commandments" that conservatives want posted in public buildings:

“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates."

How is it that literalists --those who are busily attacking gay people's private lives-- manage to work (not to mention shop) on the holiest day of the calendar, the Sabbath?

Honestly, it's amazing how one can selectively decide what God wants for others in a way that doesn't put a crimp in one's OWN "lifestyle".

I find it interesting that this article raises such hackles. This is not a "conservative" vs. "liberal" issue. Not really. For I know many "conservatives" who have no problem with gay/lesbian/choose your flavor sex. I know "liberals" who are appalled at all sexual immorality and only support heterosexual, monogamous, life long marriage.

The issue is rather an "orthodox" Christian, verses a "revisionists, secularist, Gnostic" perspective. It is not particularly conservative in the political sense to insist upon a God given natural ordering of sexual behavior. It is, however, an orthodox view not withstanding political positions.

Therefore let everyone understand that whatever Dr. M's position on other issues, he is quite correct here in stating that the orthodox line...the view of sexual behavior held by Jesus himself and the apostles (whence came the orthodox view) is being abandoned.

As to whom shall we hurt? (It was a question asked of me). I would much rather hurt someone's feelings now in the hope of their eventual redemption than say nothing, or even support their immorality, and have them deal with eternal punishment. Pain that leads to life is no act of sin, but rather of great benefit. I would rather have a doctor tell me the truth and work on the cure, then tell me to continue doing damage to myself and live a life that will ultimately lead to my doom.

Peace in the Lord!

> However,no one anywhere is saying that greed, hatred, gluttony, theft, murder, and the like
> are to be raised to a blessed state. That is why the focus is on this topic.

So, divorced people are not getting married? Every day? In large numbers. You do nothing to uphold God's direct admonishment of such things. How convenient.

I give up. The Pagans are busy bashing the Right Wing crowd, and those benighted 'Christians' are frantically replying. The moderates such as I are forgotten. Kinda like politics in America now.

Farewell.

Well, Liguist, try not to let it get you down too much: I observe that certain types *teach* that there's nothing to sex but 'bestial gratification,' 'selfish pleasure,' and 'sin,' ....and that's probably why certain people go right ahead and live down to that view.

Unfortunately, they think it gives them the legal right to marginalize minorities, too.

Linguist,

All I can say is, Diogenes, put out your light. The honest man has been found.

Keep it up. God bless.

"None of the BGLT people I know are suffering from same-sex sexual behavior..."

Indeed. What's always absolutely mindboggling to me is having others TELL me about my life, as if they know more about it than I do:

That I "chose" to be gay (I didn't; and I was there).

That I was "molested as a child" (I wasn't; and I was there).

That my father was distant and my mother cloying (they weren't; and I was there).

That I just need to break free of my "addiction" (I knew I was gay by age 10; I was celibate---a "virgin" until age 30; I show no more signs of "addiction" than my very stable, happily-married heterosexual brother).

That I am "promiscuous" (I've been in one, very longterm, strictly monogamous relationship for decades).

That I have a "lifestyle" that I "need" to break away from, usually with broad references to the "bar scene", alcohol, drugs and sex. Lots of sex. (I hate bars. I haven't been to one in three decades, and that one wasn't a gay bar. I still hated it. ;-))

And the list of distortions goes on and on and on.

Instead of TELLING gay people things about us that aren't true, why don't they simply ASK. The one thing I can assure them of is that I am honest. As a gay person, I long ago decided that honesty and personal integrity were more important to me than the approval of others. Ask me, and I will be more than willing to tell them just what it means to be gay. And what it doesn't mean.

Finally, I've thought about morality and what it truly means to be moral for an awful long time. Others may think it's so trivial that it all boils down to a "Plumber's" manual.

I take morality --and my relationship with God-- a whole lot more seriously than that.

I think you're right, Lepi.

I think a big question is, why are all these 'righteous' and 'at peace' people suffering from the idea someone *else* is having same-sex sexual behavior?

**those who suffer from same-sex sexual behavior to*8

None of the BGLT people I know are suffering from same-sex sexual behavior. Many of them are, however, suffering from toher people's attempts to legislate them into permanent second-class citizen status.

" am an ELCA pastor, and to watch the continual decline of Scriptural authority in this denomination is sad.

"He makes an excellent point too. Ultimately this is not about sex. It is about whether or not Scripture is the final authority over matters of life and faith. "

And how many real people are you willing to hurt for this?

Reverend?

Yeshua Believer:

Your feet are on the path. I do disagree a bit with one thing you said - "He wants you to worship, honor and praise Him. Love Him with all your being.". OK, that is the First and Great Commandment. Don't forget the second one!

What Dr. Mohler has written is tragically true.

I am an ELCA pastor, and to watch the continual decline of Scriptural authority in this denomination is sad.

He makes an excellent point too. Ultimately this is not about sex. It is about whether or not Scripture is the final authority over matters of life and faith. It is therefore about whether or not we will care enough about those who suffer from same-sex sexual behavior to reach out and lead them out of a way of living that left unrepented will lead to damnation.

It is true that homosexual sex is not the only sin that when committed continuously and self-affirmingly will lead to destruction both in this life and the next. However,no one anywhere is saying that greed, hatred, gluttony, theft, murder, and the like are to be raised to a blessed state. That is why the focus is on this topic.

By supporting sexual immorality, the ELCA has invited its clergy and membership to enter into a relationship whereby they reject Jesus Christ, and the teachings he has given to the apostles. The ELCA has become apostate in view of this vote, and many must consider whether or not it is time to affiliate elsewhere.

Peace in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Dear Conservative Catholic,

I used to be Catholic. No longer am I Catholic but, rather am I a follower of Christ in whom is The Rock. When Jesus was speaking to Peter of upon This Rock I will build my Church. Jesus was speaking of himself. Jesus is the redeemer not the Roman Catholic Church.

Throughout history there have been unholy tyrant Popes who behead, torture and burn people at the stake because they do not believe the way they do, "THE WRONG WAY" might I add. The Roman Catholic church still has this stuff done to people in South America.

Read your history and Book of the Martyrs.

Jesus came so that humanity would have a savior and salvation comes through no other than Jesus himself, not Mary or the so called Saints or anyone else except for Yeshua.

Jesus was asked by Nicodemus how to get to Heaven; read this and you shall live. You must be spiritually reborn. You do not get that way by practicing some empty religion but, you get that way by recognizing that Jesus came to take away the sins of the world but, you first must repent. You are not automatically in The Kingdom because you joined some church. You get in the Kingdom by confessing Jesus Christ as Lord and repenting from your sins. That means... Do not go back to your sinning. Are you doing that? it is a process.

To all who hear... Today while you still have breath. Know this Jesus is God in human flesh He Lives today and he is not interested in you following man or man made religion He wants you to worship, honor and praise Him. Love Him with all your being.

For more infomation go to: http://www.levitt.com

Victory in Christ

"Homosexuality is neither a liberal or conservative issue. It is a human issue and to frame it otherwise is to lie and show yourself to be a child of the father of lies."

Homosexuality is not an 'issue.'

It's people's lives.

If you stopped treating it as a mere 'issue,' Hy You,

...you might find the lies have no purchase.

Courage... is not in trying to conrol the world for the 'right' cause.

Courage... Is in *not controlling.*

And being here, anyway.

All the way.

The Catholic church is not a 'liberal' organization. They have a homosexuality problem. Neither are the Republicon homosexuals who are constantly outed. The preacher of that large Church who was caught recently in the homosexual scandal wasn't even close to being 'liberal.'

Homosexuality is neither a liberal or conservative issue. It is a human issue and to frame it otherwise is to lie and show yourself to be a child of the father of lies.

Courage is not in words or flags or books, or in scorning others.

Courage is in the heart.

Courage is in he heart *when* Love and Justice are more important in action than the words we might have clung to to define 'enemies' to fear or hate or suppress.

Ever dropped a bomb on someone cause you thought you were "Ultimately right?"

That's not courage.

Courage is looking at their widows and orphans after.

Courage... Is in *not clinging to the control over others that certain books promise.*

Courage... Is greeting life and each other as we are.

Courage is not in the Bill O'Reilly's and Rush Limbaughs, the Popes and megachurches of the world.

It's in the ones you don't hear about, or, generally, *from.*

Courage, is in the living.

You have more than you think. All of you. If you let yourselves.

Jeff,

Here's the full thing, which I posted on one of these forums earlier. Please send to others.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.15:19-24). The problem is, how
do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not
Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does
my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Why is it that every time I read doctrinal interpretation from conservative clergy it always comes down to exclusion? Look, while it is true that the Bible, castigates homosexual behavior in no uncertain terms it also does so (much more frequently) for greed and avarice which should I concentrate on, hating the rich or the Gay. Still, lets not get bogged down. The Bible places many expectations on the faithful; When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

But, when you get down to it, this isn't really about homosexuaity per se. It's about sabre rattling in preparation for the 2008 election.

If he can fan the fear flames - as has been done every election since the late '80s - high enough, he'll guarantee plenty of money and support for the Conservatives.

Sorry Mohler, how stupid do you think the American Public is? We're not buying it this time.

This is pathetic. The reason churches are losing parishioners is because they have become superfluous. Your griping is wearing thing. Always the homosexual thing. Enough with this whining and crying. Life changes. Go hole up in your comfy doctrine.

I just wrote:

"...They aren't "sins" because, well, because we choose to think Biblical passages that condemn those things are relevant..."

Make that "are NOT relevant".

Sorry about that.

"...Christians do love. We love enough to tell the truth. Yes, there is truth in the world."

I can’t speak for others, but I believe the major objections to Dr. Mohler's piece to be two-fold:

On the one hand, Dr. Mohler’s “Truth” is a very selective and convenient truth. He notices debatable Biblical passages about sex and applies them with a broad brush to include same-sex couples in loving, committed relationships that last for decades, making them out to be terrible “sinners” for living honest lives in committed relationships. Their relationships, though loving and caring, are lumped in with actions that hurt people...murders, adultery, and more.

But he omits a long list of other “sins”, far less debatable, but which most Americans, including most American fundamentalist Christians, conveniently think aren’t sins at all:

Divorce, amassing great wealth (remember the “eye of the needle?”), praying in public (remember the admonition NOT to pray on the street corners, but rather “go into they closet and shut the door and pray to your Father”?)…a long list of things that Christians do all the time but think nothing of. They aren't "sins" because, well, because we choose to think Biblical passages that condemn those things are relevant. We're too busy telling innocent gay people what "sins" THEY are committing.

And that’s the other hand: There is truth in the world. It includes the experience of many gay people, for example that they didn’t choose their sexual orientation (despite claims by fundamentalists that gay people do just that); that they live regular lives that are indistinguishable from heterosexuals; that they frequently are under attack, often brutally, in the name of “loving the sinner but hating the sin”.

Dr. Mohler appears to be less interested in THOSE truths than his own selective take on what’s important in terms of morality. “Plumbing” matters to him; treating people fairly and with respect, and accurately describing the truth of their lives…not so much.

"All of these benefits are available without getting marriage. ALL OF THEM."

So, now that people have given you examples of where the benefits are NOT available without marriage (feel free to research them independently if you don't believe them), do you admit that your statement above is wrong?

From Brooklyn, N.Y.:


VOTE (((((( Peace-Love-Rock-n-Roll-n-Rap, Mitt ROMNEY for Prez Ya! 2008 ))))))))

All same sex Couples & Gays welcome, Thank You!

To all of you who are so enraged by what Dr. Mohler has said, exactly what do you believe Jesus' message to be? I understand your hatred of "the hatred of conservative Christians toward homosexuals," but please read the Gospels in their entirety. I challenge you to read them. Yes, you're right about Jesus being a loving man, but did he not confront sin? Under your definition of acceptance, he was not a very accepting person considering how many times he challenged the views of the Pharisees, Saducees, and even his own disciples. This sin is the reason he died on the cross. He died in the place of sinners, and it is an offense to him to make light of his sacrifice for the sake of "loving acceptance of all people." Christians do love. We love enough to tell the truth. Yes, there is truth in the world.

Actually Brambleton, 6 of the 13 states you listed are Bible-belt states, and that does not include socially conservative states such as Ohio and Missouri. Utah is the most socially conservative state in the U.S., owing to its Mormon heritage. Almost all of the tens of millions of dollars that go into the anti-gay marriage intitiatives come from religious groups. The arguments against gay-marriage are dominated by appeals to the authority of Biblical mandates, even though some of it gets cloaked in code like "protection of traditional values." That cloak is far too transparent to conceal what lies beneath.

While there is, no doubt, some percentage of the non-religious who oppose gay marriage based on the so-called "ick factor," there is no escaping the fact that this is a largely a conflict between those who place religious dictates above all, vs. those who do not.

Your contention that the disparities between the pro and con vote totals indicate something akin to a static and fundamental position that the country has staked out is also unsupported. One would have to measure these disparities over time to see if there was a narrowing of those gaps, which seems quite likely as more young people gain their majority. Also, you might want to keep in mind that segregation was overwhelmingly supported in the south at the very time that it was being legally dismantled.

i'm truly sorry, Brambleton, if i've missed your more subtle point here.

i believe you are saying that anti-gay legislation is quite popular nationwide. we already know that, though support for these initiatives is declining, while pro-gay rights legislation has been quite successful here in my home state, for example. the fact that bigotry is popular is hardly a convincing argument for it's continuation. please.

my point is that the next generation has already decided that gays are people, too. you've lost, dude. go to any high school and you'll see what i mean.

the idea that your childern will be as successful as you've been at demonizing and making political profit off of these folks is ludicrous. you are a dinosaur. but, unlike dinosaurs, you won't have the good sense to evolve into birds and fly away.

no, you'll just have to lie back and try to think of something pleasant for the next few decades while america becomes browner, gayer, and begins to speak with a spanish accent. ole!

Brambleton, let me be more specific.

there's an ongoing effort by the repbulicans to reach out to conservative catholics and evangelical african-americans by playing the 'gay' card. this goof-ball preacher, along with hip-hop culture, both try to capitalize on the homophobic elements in black and hispanic culture.

but it won't work. besides just being plain despicable as a tactic (fostering hatred and descrimination against your fellow citizens), it won't work because you turn right around and lose the hispanic and black vote on immigration and civil rights.

i predict that 2008 is the year that this issue turns around and bites your republican behind. america is very close to losing patience with the bigotry than has become the hallmark of the republican party.

Seattle,

I appreciate your passion, but it is obvious that the gay marriage debate is not secular vs. non-secular. If that were true, you wouldn't have overwhelming support for such amendments and you certainly wouldn't see such support from states outside the "Bible" belt.

Whether or not you believe it is true is irrelevant. The statistics I cited were from 2004 - hardly ancient history or a "dying philosophy."

Brambleton: "I'm not really sure why the gay rights/marriage issue is such a hot topic on this board."

you can't? are you sure? come on, give it a try. Sally Quinn knows perfectly well why she pushes this stuff. same reason she puts Cal Thomas and Chuck Coleson out here.

gay marriage, immigration, terrorism -- all designed to activate the base through the use of bigotry, hate, and fear.

surely you can see the logic of it now, right?

well, it won't work this time. you conservatives have gone to well once too often and you're not going to get away with it in 2008.

check you stats again. see what the youngsters think about all this. they have no problem with gays. yours is a dying philosophy; it will be buried with our generation; and good riddence.

Arminius:

I am also largely optimistic about America's continuing to make progress in expanding the categories of people for whom we make the full realization of our founders' vision possible. Women, the property-less, non-first borns, African-Americans; the assertions of the Declaration and the protections of state and federal Constitutions have gradually been made to enwrap each. And, in each case there were outmoded but entrenched social, moral, economic, and political interests that were slowly overcome in the process. This same process is underway today, as more and more of our youth view homosexuals as entitled to the same rights as heteros. Those who stand in opposition today, do so on the wrong side of history.

Phaedrus:,

Your post has given me some hope for America and humanity in general. While I am an independent centrist with leftist tendencies (social issues, mostly), I have the highest respect for true conservatives who hold to their principles and do not have a moral axe to grind. You are one of those. I look forward to more of your posts.

I'm not really sure why the gay rights/marriage issue is such a hot topic on this board. Assuming not all voters are Christian, voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah have all approved marriage amendments to limit marriage to a man and woman. Even in Oregon, where gay rights groups have focused much of their money and effort, the amendment was passed by a wide majority of 57% to 43%. In all the states listed above, the amendments passed with a minimum majority of 60%, with Mississippi registering a whopping 86%. This doesn't include numerous states that have added stricter statutory legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage and states passing non-binding resolutions requesting Congress to pass a constitutional amendment.

The whole ministry is homosexual including Dr Mohler. Superstition is basically female. Ever see a minister that didn't exhibit a lot of female characteristics?

Come on out of the closet.

Anthropologists have discovered homosexuality cuts across lines of race and even species. In addition, evidence that homosexuality has genetic causes is becoming more convincing every day. Could this evidence, based on reason, trump the superstitions of uninformed people written thousands of years ago?

This issue aside, homosexuals are also God's creatures. Church--any church--is not the place to teach hatred.

"All of these benefits are available without getting marriage. ALL OF THEM."

Social security benefits. Gay partners, even legally married ones in Massachusetts, are speficially barred from ever receiving the benefits of their partners/spouses.

There are lots more. But this alone shows your statement is wrong.

What many see this issue boiling down to is one of whether faith is a static adherence to immutable laws that were laid down for a small, nomadic group in the Middle East several millennia ago or a living, breathing and evolving thing. Jesus, himself, frequently held those who adhered closely to the old laws up to ridicule. Do you eat milk and meat in the same meal or wear clothes made from two fabrics? Do you believe people should be stoned for adultery? Is it OK to keep slaves or to sell your own children as slaves? Is polygamy OK? Or do you believe it is more important to love your neighbor as yourself than any of those things? Do you believe in a New Testament or an Old Testament God?

While it is true that Lutherans and Presbyterians have had more difficulty dealing with some of these issues than have (most of) the Episcopalians, it seems absurd (and hypocritical) for a theologian from a group that until very recently opposed civil rights for African-Americans to preach to other groups about concerns with their own orthodoxy.

Worry about your own orthodoxy and leave others to theirs.

What many see this issue boiling down to is one of whether faith is a static adherence to immutable laws that were laid down for a small, nomadic group in the Middle East several millennia ago or a living, breathing and evolving thing. Jesus, himself, frequently held those who adhered closely to the old laws up to ridicule. Do you eat milk and meat in the same meal or wear clothes made from two fabrics? Do you believe people should be stoned for adultery? Is it OK to keep slaves or to sell your own children as slaves? Is polygamy OK? Or do you believe it is more important to love your neighbor as yourself than any of those things? Do you believe in a New Testament or an Old Testament God?

While it is true that Lutherans and Presbyterians have had more difficulty dealing with some of these issues than have (most of) the Episcopalians, it seems absurd (and hypocritical) for a theologian from a group that until very recently opposed civil rights for African-Americans to preach to other groups about concerns with their own orthodoxy.

Heal thyself.

Papagorgio: "...All of these benefits are available without getting marriage. ALL OF THEM. It is untrue to suggest otherwise and the gay rights groups know it but they push this lie on the public because this is about validation, not benefits for gays. And you repeat the lie here."
======
One of many:

"...Tenancy by the entirety is a type of concurrent estate available only to married couples, wherein ownership of the property is treated as though the couple are a single legal person..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_estate

Paul writes:
"Assuming that homosexuality is what the so-called conservative-Christians claim it to be, it is still a sin. As such it is for God to condemn according to his plan. Our conservative-Christian brothers do great damage to the message of Christ in their crusade against Christianity. I'm quite sure they appeal to man, and increase their ranks, and fill their plates, but make no mistake - the message contains no hint of love, no hint of forgiveness, no hint of reconcilliation, no hint of selflessness, no hint of Christ."

Paul, I too have been a life-long conservative, if you define that as fiscal responsibility, strong defense, and Jeffersonian social policies. What I am not is Christian, or religious in any sense, and there is seemingly no room for people like me in the "new conservatism" that exploits existential and social fears by demonizing differences between peoples according to supposedly inerrant Biblical mandates, and then projecting one's own aggressive motives onto "them." jefferson would be appalled at these tactics and the awful consequences they bring, especially when man's understanding of nature is subverted because it increasingly exposes Biblical thinking as being inextricably tied to the times in which the books were actually written. No timeless truths therein.

Conservatives' condemnation and suppression of scientific inquiry is so obviously medievel in quality that even those not well-educated in the sciences are beginning to notice. This bodes ill for the new conservatism over time. Of course, maybe I am too optimistic?

The facts are that gays do not need forgiveness for being who they are. They do not need the subtle insult of being "tolerated" in spite of their "sin," because there is no sin in being what you are, as long as you do not hurt anyone else. They do not require reconciliation, or any especial exercise of Christian love beyond that which any other living thing is worthy. The simple fact is that homosexuality is the result of a series of naturally occurring events, rare in the manner in which artistic genius or extreme height or genetic coding for obscure diseases is rare, which is to say statisically less probable. No more than that. I address your comments because there is less distance between your position and that of my own, than is the case with the types of far-right Christians you, properly in my view, decry. But, the distance that is there between your view and mine, is still important to recognize.

The authors of Biblical texts were locked within their own social and historical contexts, and their moral prescriptions and proscriptions bear this out. Human social mores evolve based on many things, scientific understanding key amongst them. Biblical inerrantists nail their foot to the floor of ancient mores, and are increasingly at odds with advancing societies. In the near future, moral condemnation of gays will seem as ill-contrived as that of the mentally ill, or the left-handed (remember "sinister?").

Papagorgio: "Christians are largely RE-acting to what gays are pushing."

"Christians" have been burning innocent gay people at the stake (literally or figuratively) for centuries.

They didn't wait until gay people stood up and said, "Enough."

With all due respect, you are blaming innocent victims. I'll repeat: innocent victims. Gay people are among the most stigmatized group of innocents in our society. Our language probably has more terms of abuse to hurl at them than it does for any other group of innocent people.

I don't find name-calling either "Christian" or "moral" behavior. Attacking gay people, either physically or with words, came well before any "Gay Liberation" movement. And, I fear, it will continue long after gay people acquire full rights in our society.

As others have pointed out, it is remarkably convenient that non-gay "Christians" point to a few problematic lines of Scripture that are completely irrelevant to the way THEY live THEIR lives, yet choose to ignore reams of passages that WOULD affect them, were they to read the Bible honestly. Everything from prohibitions on clothing and food to when they can be intimate with their spouse, to obligations to marry their deceased brother's wife, to injunctions against divorce to ACCUMULATING WEALTH. It's ALL in there for anyone to read.

Somehow, they'd rather tell gay people what THEY need to do to get right with God.

Forgive me if I don't take them at their word.

GJKBEAR YOU WROTE:

What agenda is there in wanting the same rights as anyone else? The right to be there when a partner is ill? The right to security when that partner dies?

The truth:

All of these benefits are available without getting marriage. ALL OF THEM. It is untrue to suggest otherwise and the gay rights groups know it but they push this lie on the public because this is about validation, not benefits for gays. And you repeat the lie here.

Anon: "It's football season again. Time to get my 'Leviticus 11:7-8' banner out of the garage and head out to the stadium to protest."

You don't have to wait for football. Every Sunday when the Nats are in town, you can go to the game and wait for the 7th inning stretch, at which point the announcer will say "Now will everyone please rise, remove your caps, put your hands on your hearts and join us in singing God Bless America?"

Uh, slightly unclear on the concept?

As a Christian, I find this intermingling of church and state distasteful. It debases the church, reminding me of the ol' country sayin':

"Never mix ice cream and horse puckey. It don't improve the horse puckey, and it plumb ruins the ice cream."

And BTW, I wouldn't be taken aback if the two gay guys sitting in front of me stood up and placed their hands on each others' tushes instead of over their hearts.

Just couldn't help but comment to Papagorgio - a GAY AGENDA?

What agenda is there in wanting the same rights as anyone else? The right to be there when a partner is ill? The right to security when that partner dies? That is all Gay Marriage is.

Hate Crime laws? So, it should be OK for Christians to kick a gay person to death? Or tie him to a fence and kill them? Drag them behind a car? Or, perhaps like some of the good Christian KKK members of old, just hang them from a tree, burn a cross on their lawns and then go sing in the choir the next day.

So, you would rather have kids in orphanages than allow two people of the same sex, who love each other and can provide for this child? Do you know any children that have been raised in this atmosphere? Well, I do. They are the same as any other children. They are healthy and well adjusted. They go to school and college and take their place in society just like any other teenager.

When I was growing up in a small town in TX, I did not know any gay people. We didn't have any black people either. I could not imagine what being gay would have been like but you are right, it was not discussed and no one knew about it. As I grew and left, I met all kinds of people. Gay/Straight; Black/White/Brown/Mixed; Rich/Poor - and you know what I discovered? People are just people. They all bleed' they have feelings - they have wants, needs and desires. Some are good and some are bad - but their character has nothing to do with their Love for another human being. Sex between 2 consenting adults and what people do in their bedrooms is pretty much their business and it does not influence their actions toward me.

So, I think that perhaps you are a bit off base on your GAY AGENDA. Yes, I do believe you would still love your son or daughter if you found they were gay. You might also just become a bit more accepting or then again you might just condemn them at every opportunity. I don't know which you would do - but then, that would be your choice to make.

In Dick Cheney's "Homeland" the words "Conservative" and "Christian" are an oxy-mormon. The exclusion and hate of America's Christian extremists is about as Christ-like as Priests abusing little boys. These malcreant sheep think that fear and hate from their pulpuits make Christ pround. Their idea a a "gay-hating-Jesus makes me wonder which scriptures they cherry pick to justify their bigotry.

GJKBEAR,

Why can't you hold firmly to Christ's truth and still minister to homosexuals and heterosexuals. Why do you need to abandon biblical truth in order to feed the sheep.

The real challenge is to accept God's truth and still love the sinner as if he were Christ. It is the ultimate test of Christian ethics and it can only make us better Christians, it purifies us. Running away from truth and busying yourself with social justice... Courage is accepting truth and still loving everyone.

Should it matter if Norrie loves gays or hates gays? Perhaps it is not that she loves or hates; but that she looks at people as individuals.
You are much more than whom you love. Love is a matter of choice, and it does not define whether a person lives a moral life nor an ethical life. Some of the gay people I know are kind, honest, ethical and lead lives that would make some so called "Christians" pale by example. They have been in committed relationships for many years. They have the same problems that all relationships have, but work to resolve them.
The problem with calling people GAY is that it relieves some people from actually knowing any. You can easily condemn someone if you do not know them. It used to be an abomination to for a white and a black to love each other. Almost anything can be an abomination unto the Lord - and it is used to exclude not include those we hate or disagree with because of fear.
I was raised Methodist and became Baptist during a marriage - all I can say is WOW what a difference! The Methodist church of today is not what I knew as a child and has become quite rigid in their beliefs. (And my ex-Baptist mother-in-law once told me that the Methodists were one of "those kinds of churches - they belonged to the World Council of Churches you know" - Methodism was way tooo liberal for her). I am now a Unitarian Universalist and I am proud to say that it is a church that believes in actually carrying out the 'work' of what I believe Jesus wanted us to - social justice. We teach our young people that people should be judged by their character, not whom they love.

Do you really think bankers are equivalent to gays overturning societal norms on homo-sex and gay marriage?

Can you show me anyone seeking to prevent free association? I am certainly not. Billy Graham is not. Pope Benedict is not. It is the gays who are pushing an agenda (gay marriage, hate crimes legislation, gay adoption, government benefits for same-sex relationships). Really, you must acknowledge, at least that we are RE-acting to their push. We didn't even know what "gay marriage" was 10 years ago!

You must not know any Christians to think we sit around plotting against God's children. I have to say you should take a deep breath.

My response to your string of nasty questions is simply this. I will LOVE my son if he is gay. I will not support or condone his lifestyle. I will continue to love him. Love the sinner hate the sin. That is the Christian ethic in a nut shell.

Ah, but Josh, you're missing the greater truth. If something bad happens to the other guy, it's a natural consequence of wrongdoing or the judgment of God for that wrongdoing. If it happens to us, it's most likely a tribulation sent to test our faith or persecution by Satan, unbelievers, or whoever the current scapegoat is.

Oh, who cares what this pompous fool says about Christianity or morality? He represents a group that thinks women should stay home under the "servant leadership" of their fathers and husbands. To accomplish this, they think women should be fired from their jobs in leadership positions in th church (depriving the family of income) and that churches should shut down their daycare centers (depriving families of affordable childcare). We're also talking about a group whose former president thinks that people who file a complaint against his church with the IRS deserve that their wivese be made widows and their children orphans for their crime against God. Good old fashioned family values, that.

It's football season again. Time to get my "Leviticus 11:7-8" banner out of the garage and head out to the stadium to protest.

Don't include me with the cheeky affirmations that toped the list of comments to R. Albert Mohler's diatribe. It's difficult from the article to determine exactly what upsets Albert Mohler most. Is it homosexuality or that other denominations don't agree with him?

Mohler's other writings reveal an obsession with homosexuality, which raises the question why? Is it all theological or is there something else lurking in the background?

If he would broaden his reading of the Bible beyond those sections that confirm his own phobias, he might stumble upon Luke 13:10-17 where Jesus is confronted by the Al Mohlers of his day with breaking at least 6 behaviorial norms -- the worst of which is that he healed a deformed woman on the sabbath no less.

Was Jesus compromising and eroding the doctrinal foundations of his faith? Or was he simply teaching us that to be truly Christian we need to rise above our fears and prejudices?

Sadly, it appears that fundamentalist pigs have hijacked Christianity. Since they control the airwaves through their paid programming, many people equate "Christianity" with "radical fundamentalism." The fundamentalist pigs even delight when non-fundamentalist churches experience decline. They hate Catholics, mainline protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, eastern orthodox, not to mention Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus.

Why do we non-fundamentalist Christians tolerate this? Is there not some way for non-radical, non-hateful Christians to pull together to resist the hateful fundamentalist pigs?

http://xxxdomainsex.biz/map.html
>

In this issue, I fully agree with Dr. Mohler.

I agree completely with Rev. Mohler, and Christians in churches and Denominations that do not believe and follow God's Word, I have just one word of advice----Get Out!!!!
To me, God's Word is clear on the subject of homosexuality, and Romans, chapter 1, is God's answer.
Charleston, West Virginia.

oh jeus maria dude what century do you live in. your homophobic
moneygrabbing church is gonna loose, yes you are right there!
alboi repeat after me 3 times:
"RELIGION IS THE PROBLEM AND NOT THE ANSWER"
your church is run by fear its a scam you guys are the new american taliban!
you dude tells woman what to wear and what to do with their bodies tell people who to love and not to have sex with!
get a life loose some weight and take a deep breath and sign up for the war in iraq which you admire so much!

It's amazing that this man uses hypocrisy in the first sentence of his hateful essay. He is using the same argument of segregation that his predecessors used to form the Southern Baptists. I thank God everyday that I was able to escape from such a hateful, bigoted and un-Christlike organization 30 years ago. If the editors of this paper chose the headline then they are no better.

So, if "this is further evidence of why the liberal denominations are in such a decline in terms of membership and influence", I understand that even the Southern Baptists are losing membership and their numbers are also declining. What is the excuse for the Southern Baptists and other denominations who aren't liberal for their declining membership?

Here's the real question everybody should be asking: "Why is it that R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is focusing the discussion on homosexuality right now?"

IT'S THE 2008 ELECTION. If he can make the dialog be about homosexuality, then the real dialog (Bush, the war, the Southern Baptist agenda, stem cell research, Creationism, the mess the U.S. is in around the world,etc) won't be happening.

He totally had me hooked. I'd forgotten how the Right Wing Conservatives/Moral Majority/Christian Coalition have used this page directly from their play book.

Don't buy into this tactic! Challenge him to talk about real issues!

My guess is Bush will soon bring up something about homosexuals too - to shift the focus away from what's going on there. As will other Conservatives and Fox News.

Anybody want to start a betting pool on how soon the rest of the crew starts the homo war chant? I'll bet at least two conservative news shows and a dozen talk radio shows by this time next week. Anybody else want in?

> fine for conservatives to take over the Southern Baptist Conference

Brillant strategy though. We can thank Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed for that. My guess is, this is all about cranking up the machine for the 2008 vote.

Actually, that makes perfect sense. That's why they're playing the homo card now. It's the first salvo in rallying the troups...

> I bet he cheats at golf, too!

Ad-hominem attack! Now, you've gone too far!!

> he makes me feel good about being an atheist!

See - everybody has a purpose. Proves there's a God. Oh wait - nevermind :)

It was perfectly fine for conservatives to take over the Southern Baptist Conference and run roughshod over anyone who disagreed with them - what a hypocrite.

No wonder religion becomes more and more irrelevant. "Those big, bad homosexuals are violatin' the bible!!!" Is the sky really falling?

Hate disguised with smooth language is still hate. I guess hate gives God's message of love and mercy a little bit of sex appeal. Hate is annoying on a personal level but at the policy level that R. Albert Mohler, Jr operates on, it is destructive of public peace and tranquility. Modern religion cannot seem to thrive without the need for that religion to vilify some group of 'others'.

Who cares whether homosexuals are ordained or not! Does anyone think God gives a flying donut about anyone's sexual preferences? People are murdering each other on the streets and R. Albert Mohler, Jr. whines about a "decline in terms of membership and influence." Influence with who? The Republican Party? What is the Southern Baptist Convention's membership? The Ku Klux Klan?

I'm not concerned with biblical doctrine, only the political ramifications of R. Albert Mohler, Jr's emphasis; his military metaphors and his strategic direction.

Anyone looking for the personification of pseudo-moral apostasy needs look no further than R. Albert Mohler, Jr. He sounds like a corporate recruiter for a security contractor. In a few sentences he comes across as hateful as any mullah. The difference is mainly style; he wears a necktie and uses slicker language.

Mohler junior makes me feel good about being an atheist! I bet he cheats at golf, too! Good grief...

:)

> What is the Southern Baptist Convention's word on Jews

Educated guess: express bus to hell

> Those big, bad homosexuals are violatin' ...

Usually, when somebody raises the rainbow flag, it's useful to take a look around to see what else is going on that they are trying to avoid. Look back on the web at news storys of what was happening in the Bush Admin immediately previous to his gay marriage pronouncements

> Does anyone think God gives a flying donut about anyone's sexual preferences?

Well, yes actually. There's been plenty of (non-Jesus-spoken, but biblically-based) talk about that here already. At one point God viewed it as an abomination to be followed by death. God still views it as an abomination, but he's changed his mind about what to do about it. Actually, I guess the jury is out on what God wants US to do about it. Maybe some of the folks on here can clarify that for us...

No wonder religion becomes more and more irrelevant. "Those big, bad homosexuals are violatin' the bible!!!" Better get out there and burn some crosses!

Hate disguised with smooth language is still hate. I guess hate gives God's message of love and mercy a little bit of sex appeal. Hate is annoying on a personal level but at the policy level that R. Albert Mohler, Jr operates in, it is destructive of public peace and tranquility. Modern religion cannot seem to thrive without the need for that religion to vilify some group of 'others'.

What is the Southern Baptist Convention's word on Jews, R. Albert Mohler, Jr? How about negroes?

Who cares whether homosexuals are ordained or not! Does anyone think God gives a flying donut about anyone's sexual preferences? People are murdering each other on the streets and R. Albert Mohler, Jr. whines about is a "decline in terms of membership and influence." Influence with who? The Republican Party? What is the All the Imperial Southern Baptist Convention's membership? The Ku Klux Klan?

I'm not concerned with biblical doctrine, only the political ramifications of R. Albert Mohler, Jr's emphasis; his military metaphors and his strategic direction.

Anyone looking for the personification of pseudo-moral apostasy needs look no further than R. Albert Mohler, Jr. He sounds like a corporate recruiter for a security contractor. In a few sentences he comes across as hateful as any mullah. The difference is style; he wears a necktie.

:)

No wonder religion becomes more and more irrelevant. "Those big, bad homosexuals are violatin' the bible!!!" Better get out there and burn some crosses!

Hate disguised with smooth language is still hate. I guess hate gives God's message of love and mercy a little bit of sex appeal. Hate is annoying on a personal level but at the policy level that R. Albert Mohler, Jr operates in, it is destructive of public peace and tranquility. Modern religion cannot seem to thrive without the need for that religion to vilify some group of 'others'.

What is the Southern Baptist Convention's word on Jews, R. Albert Mohler, Jr? How about negroes?

Who cares whether homosexuals are ordained or not! Does anyone think God gives a flying donut about anyone's sexual preferences? People are murdering each other on the streets and R. Albert Mohler, Jr. whines about is a "decline in terms of membership and influence." Influence with who? The Republican Party? What is the All the Imperial Southern Baptist Convention's membership? The Ku Klux Klan?

I'm not concerned with biblical doctrine, only the political ramifications of R. Albert Mohler, Jr's emphasis; his military metaphors and his strategic direction.

Anyone looking for the personification of pseudo-moral apostasy needs look no further than R. Albert Mohler, Jr. He sounds like a corporate recruiter for a security contractor. In a few sentences he comes across as hateful as any mullah. The difference is style; he wears a necktie.

Religion: a bizarre form of tyranny that advocates impose upon themselves...

:)

Wows, for once conservatives are not winning? Liberalism has not won a battle in years unless well after the time it should have won, civil rights, Vietnam, evolution, separation of church and state, all these and more are under attack by conservatives, conserving of what I don’t know. A new world were upside down is rightside up. the new dark ages where the church rules science and man suffers under religious domination?

Wows, for once conservatives are not winning? Liberalism has not won a battle in years unless well after the time it should have won, civil rights, Vietnam, evolution, separation of church and state, all these and more are under attack by conservatives, conserving of what I don’t know. A new world were upside down is rightside up. the new dark ages where the church rules science and man suffers under religious domination?

OK, let's say I agree with you. So, what can/should we do if we see two men walking down the street holding hands? It's not illegal (but it should be, right?) How do we protect our children from seeing that?

And, if we discover that some of our children are homo (which they shouldn't be, because we raised them with the right values), then what should we do? Let's say, after 6 months of reparitive therapy doesn't work? Should we cast them out as an example that we don't tolerate sin?

If you're an employer and you suspect one of your employees is queer (you know, he's not into sports and he talks a lot about Barbara Streisand), then you should be able to fire him right? Don't want THOSE kinds of people affecting morale in your office.

And, if you're the manager of an apartment house, ... well, you get the idea.

So, what practical steps do we take to stop these homo-sex uels? Let's say you've already taken it to the polls, but they still get their rights passed? What do we do then? What kind of action must we take?

I'm serious about these questions. How do you see us overcoming this defiant agenda?

Friday, August 24, 2007
Hypocracy is a serious charge and unwarranted.

Slowly but surely, churches are aknowleging the advances of science and learning to view doctrines to conform with reality. Laymen discover those contradictions as they interact within their own families and with society at large.

Literal interpreters understandably have the most difficulty with this process but they also bear a great responsibility to not mislead their followerers.

We know a little bit more today than we knew thousands of years ago, when some texts were being transcribed.

PAPAGEORGIO> homo-sex is sinful. Greed is sinful. Lying is sinful. No group is out there promoting lying or promoting validation of the "greedy lifestyle." However, there is a group that defiantly wants homo-sex validated in society.

Hmm, I thought the entire basis of our Capitalist Society is about accumulating wealth? (I guess that's not the same as greed)

And, what about the money changers? Bankers rights? How absurd!

Where is your outrage at the millions of divorced Americans who want to be treated equally? Wow, think we'll ever elect one of 'em as President some day?

But no, you're right. It's only about the homo-sex uals.

One who accuses other denominations of hypocrisy ought, at least, to speak the truth. The contention that the Presbyterian Church (USA) took action to "allow local jurisdictions (presbyteries) to ordain candidates for ministry who violate" the ban on active homosexuals in the ministry is simply and flatly false.

Even more disappointing, from the theological perspective, is not just the curious preoccupation with sex in general and homosexuality in particular expressed by Mr. Mohler but the desire to punish those who engage in those acts and by inference those who fail to follow the "doctrines" of his view of Christianity.

In point of fact, Mr. Mohler's ruminations about Christian doctrine are another form of tribalism and they are more about power than they are about the loving actions of the one known as Jesus. And, as frequently is the case, when tribalism and power become intermixed with doctrine, truth is lost and human beings are diminished.

Hate of queers, men's lust of other men, man's lust of woman, all sin. Love of Jesus forgives all sin.
Here's the truth. I heard the Word of God. With out going into all the details, here's what I heard."You are a good man.""All men have purpose.""You have purpose.""White man help the black man.""Organize."
Plant it in good soil or kick it in the weeds.

The Bible clearly describes the qualifications of those who would serve as elders, deacons and church officers in Timothy 1 and 2. These rules do not allow homosexuals (along with many others) to be leaders of the church. In the first formal declaration of church doctrine the only rules kept from the Law where dietary (so that Jews and Christians who still held to the Law could eat together) and the sexual behavior allowed and disallowed under the Law.

Yes human rights, poverty, and justice are to put in their place of prominence. These are some of the primary teachings of the word of God. In fact that's where many of these ideas have their founding.

But the church is more then some social movement. It is the means by God reveals His truth, whether you like it or not.

It is not OK to be prejudiced against Christians
and to hold MY faith up to ridicule, while anyone who disagrees with YOU is obviously an idiot or prejudiced.

Take the log out of your own eye, then you can help me take out mine.

homo-sex is sinful. Greed is sinful. Lying is sinful. No group is out there promoting lying or promoting validation of the "greedy lifestyle." However, there is a group that defiantly wants homo-sex validated in society.

Christians are largely RE-acting to what gays are pushing. If you see any intensity on the part of RE-active Christians it is probably because they are being pushed to abandon their beliefs and not vote their conscience.

i believe this is the same person who stated that homosexuality is not a choice

>Free yourself from the cult of Christianity, for that is all it is: the world's largest cult.

Sorry, only 2nd (or maybe 3rd) largest... :)

PAPGORGIO> It is not conservative to suggest that the sum of all the biblical points on homo-sex suggest it is sinful. This is not conservative it is reasonable.

OK, but then what biblical calculus weights it as one of the worst (if not THE worst) sin? Worse than divorce? Or ... [insert any of the deadly sins here]

Fundamentally, the problem here is that there are those who wish to assert that Bronze-Age mythology (the Bible) is infallible, and that it must be rigidly followed, no matter how absurd or harmful it may be. Clearly, this is nonsense! This will only lead to greater suffering and harm for everyone.

Please, eschew this poison of the mind, this virus of the heart and spirit! There is no God! The greatest virtue is objective reason, and the ability to think for oneself. Free yourself from the cult of Christianity, for that is all it is: the world's largest cult.

Speaking of hypocritical faux-Christian leaders, why isn't Mitt Romney being quizzed about how Jesus got it wrong when he admonished us to talk to our enemies? I'd love to watch his phony sincere-faced answer to this.

It is not conservative to suggest that the sum of all the biblical points on homo-sex suggest it is sinful. This is not conservative it is reasonable.

Washington Post Thought-Control Specialists: Lighten UP!!!!

your self-righteous cautions about how people should behave on your benighted blog are embarrassing to yourselves. Don't you trust your readers? If I come across a gross or impolite or obscene posting, I as an adult can recognize it for what it is. I have been to the big city. I am a grown up.

Further, having read thousands of posts here, I would say that the danger of my delicate sensibility being permanently damaged by the rough stuff here is about the same as it would be in a convention of librarians.

Grow up, Sally and Jon. What are you afraid of? Free speech?

I wonder - "If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed" but science is unable to find a successful treatment to change the sexual orientation to heterosexual...

What would this group be willing to do?

If the parents are Southern Baptists, would they consider abortion? (after all, God does prescribe death to the abomination)

There are many things in the old testament which are not followed today. I'm not a biblical scholar, but I know some of them are pretty outrageous.There are also more important "rules" which are being ignored such as stealing which is done all the time in the form of lying to the consumer about what they are purchasing (i.e., home loans, money lenders,) not loving your neighbor as yourself. I could go on indefinitely as any somewhat informed person knows. What a person does in their bedroom is not my business. Oh, yes, and what about "Judge not lest you be judged?" If people are attending church less, I believe it is because it is these other hypocrasies which are way more difficult to tolerate.

Mr. Mohler's comments about another denomination shows the arrogant attitude of the Evangelical toward other Christian religions. It would be better if he were to judge his own denomination. I'm Catholic and have also seen much contempt by many Baptists toward my denomination. Perhaps we shouldn't get him started on this tack ... I'm sure he wouldn't have much good to say about my faith, or Judaism, Mormonism, or any other non-Evangelical denomination. Mr. Mohler should try living in Northern Ireland for awhile & hang out with the Rev. Ian Paisley there to learn where his kind of intolerance will lead. In the future he shouldn't be allowed to contribute to this website - he's too inflammatory.

One can be liberal in politics and conservative in religion. The problem comes when we confuse the two.

> Mr. Mohler needs to hire a ghost writer

He already has one - the Holy Ghost (rimshot noise :)

What "biblical prohibitions" on homosexuality? The same ones (i.e. the old "it's an abomination" argument)that also prohibit the eating of shellfish? Why are you poisonous conservatives willing to turn a blind eye to eating shrimp but not to making love to someone of the same sex. They are both abominations (according to your great text) and there is no distinction between levels of abomination. If you want to live your life by the Old Testament, then do it right and have the guts to call yourself a Jew. If you want to live by the teachings of Jesus, then act like a Christian.

And in case you didn't notice, "Dont'ask-Don't tell" did work in the armed forces either!

Mr. Mohler's comments about another denomination shows the arrogant attitude of the Evangelical toward other Christian religions. It would be better if he were to judge his own denomination. I'm Catholic and have also seen much contempt by many Baptists toward my denomination. Perhaps we shouldn't get him started on this tack ... I'm sure he wouldn't have much good to say about my faith, or Judaism, Mormonism, or any other non-Evangelical denomination. Rev. Mohler should go live in Northern Ireland for awhile & hang out with Rev. Ian Paisley to learn where his kind of intolerance will lead. In the future he shouldn't be allowed to contribute to this website.

I'm aware of Mr. Mohler because of some of his previous attention getting opinions, especially the one about testing to see if a fetus was gay. That's why I read this column. But I have no idea what he's talking about here. I've read it several times and it makes no sense. Mr. Mohler either needs to hire a ghost writer or hire a new one.

For Christ's sake, someone get the man a drink. He is obviously mourning the loss of innocent delusion.

Amen

With all respect, R. Albert Mohler, Jr. has placed too much faith in a narrow reading of scripture and too little faith in the teachings of Christ. While the issue of homosexuality is one upon which reasonable minds can differ (to a very limited extent), the cross-denomination criticism is both unwanted and unwelcome. We Lutherans are committed to a full and fair discussion among our membership; recognizing our differences of opinion and interpretation, we have undertaken to engage in a prayerful and Christian examination of an issue that a minority in our ranks find troubling. We desire to invite our membership to participate to the fullest extent--but it is an internal discussion. I am of the personal opinion that the Southern Baptist brethren do not share the Lutherans' willingness to openly discuss issues of importance to a true and modern Church; they would benefit from keeping their opinions to themselves.

Human Being: I think they're trying to make the opposite point - that Jesus is a Conservative and would vote for George Bush

CECI: It's been shown here that it's ok to cherry-pick parts of the bible to dismiss as cerimonial or civil. So, the only way to get to the hub of the truth is to point to things said directly by Jesus. Otherwise, you're shot down before you start...

Try googling "The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church" It deals directly with Dr. Mohler's premise... It is right-on (to quote several other posters here :)

In Genesis 3, Adam and Eve suffer their fall from grace after eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Perhaps the fundamentalist pigs such as Mr. Mohler should stop and think about what this means, that the original sin was eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. More specifically, the serpent tempted Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil so they would 'be like God.' Only God should judge theological matters of good and evil. We are all sinners who should humble ourselves before God.

Since the fundamentalist pigs are always saying that mainline churches are 'unbiblical', perhaps they should ponder whether they are being unbiblical themselves. In judging others (be it mainliners, homosexuals, or any of a long list of other people and groups that they hate), fundamentalist pigs are eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Jesus taught repeatedly to love as God loves and not to judge others. Pauls letters are full of such instructions (e.g. Romans 14).

I am proud to be a member of the United Church of Christ, which has been leading the way for acceptance of homosexuals into the church community. Sometimes, the UCC's brave stance has led to acts of hatred against UCC congregations, such as a recent defacement of a UCC congregation neat San Jose, CA: http://www.ucc.org/news/sign-defaced-at.html

In light of this news and these postings, I have a question for the fundamentalist pigs: Do you support such acts of hatred? I also have a statement to the fundamentalist pigs: we will not be intimidated because we know that we are all one under Jesus.

If Mr. Mohler feels that the liberal churches are losing strength because of their approach to homosexuality, he should be pretty concerned about the response to his editorial.

If he was looking for a chorus of 'Amen, Brother!' he isn't finding it here.

The voices that are responding to his editorial are the voices of Americans; Americans of many faiths, colors, and at least 4 sexual orientations.

I suggest that Mr Mohler go pick up an accurate translation of the Bible and *study* the teachings of Jesus, because Mr Mohler clearly seems to have skipped over those parts of the Bible when he was supposed to have studied it. And after he *understands* what Jesus taught, he then go out into the world and practice what Jesus preached.

Because he sure isn't doing that now.

-- Bill

Leave us alone and do not mess with the blue states, we have our own understanding of God. Stay in the dark age if you want and in the South.

Given that the Washington Post provides you - an ignorant superstitious conservative - with a prominent position as a blogger, would you agree that the paper is not in any sense of the word liberal?

When more liberal catholic chruches address issues like gays or women rights and revise their doctrine to the norms of their congregation, it's not an issue of morality, it's about justice and rights, which is what Jesus was mostly about. He would be appalled at organinzed religion today that's become nothing more than the moral police.

This article should really be called the "Failure to Think!" The very name of your faith is Christ-ians, which I take to mean, Like Jesus, wanting to live their lives like Jesus. No where, does it say in the Bible that Jesus condemned Homosexuals, nor is it one of the 10 commandments. Many versions of the Bible exist. Each reflects the limited scientific knowledge, personal beliefs of its translators, and the social beliefs of the time period in which it was translated. Personal biases, and societies prejudices have unavoidably distorted the Bible's many translations. In addition, it is sometimes difficult to find a current word that accurately defines the Hebrew or Greek term in question. Unfortunately, this has resulted in the mistranslation of some of the more ambiguous text contained in the Bible. With that in mind, there are only a few passages in the Bible where
Unfortunately, some people have focused on rape as a sexual act, rather than an act of violence, and have missed the point completely. The reason for Sodom's destruction is made clear in Ezekiel 16:48-50. According to Ezekiel, the sins of Sodom were pride, laziness, being inhospitable, neglecting the needs of the poor, greed, and idolatry (the worshipping of idols). Nothing about homosexuality is mentioned, nor is it mentioned in any other passage of Scripture which refers to the account of Sodom.

If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they should surely be put to death.
Leviticus 20:13
First of all, the Holiness Code of Leviticus was written primarily as a ritual manual for Israel's priests. Christians today are not bound by the rules and rituals described in Leviticus. (Galatians 3:22-25) If Christians today insist on using this passage to condemn homosexuality, then they are also bound by the other rules and rituals described in Leviticus.
Among other things, the Holiness Code of Leviticus prohibits:
Sexual intercourse during a women's menstrual cycle, Tattoos, wearing certain types of jewelry, Eating certain kinds of meat, Wearing clothing made from blended textiles (cotton-polyester blends)Cross-breeding livestock, Sowing a field with mixed seed, Eating or touching the dead flesh of pigs, rabbits, & some forms of seafood, Men cutting their hair or shaving their beards, etc...The Holiness Code also endorses polygamy and requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath. Obviously, it is unfair to use these passages to condemn homosexuality, while ignoring the fact that most Christians do not follow the rest of the rules and rituals outlined in the
the Holiness Code of Leviticus.

Mr. Mohler said, "The only means of recovery is repentance and an affirmation of biblical authority. "Don't ask, don't tell" won't work in church."

The question I would ask, Who's biblical authority are you referring too, for if the interpretation is wrong, then the message is wrong and that makes the messenger wrong.
The Christian Church threw out history has and will, change antiquated laws,(except for men and women like R. Albert Mohler Jr.) change for the betterment of Jesus Christ followers. If this is liberal thinking, on my part, then I feel that I am in good company with Jesus Christ's teachings..

Isn't it obvious that spirituality is neither liberal or conservative. it's personal. Mr. Mohler offers nothing remotely near spirituality in his insipid condemnation of people he doesn't understand.

mrjaydc: "How much of this moralizing bilge are you going to foist on us, Sally Quinn?"

excellent bloody question. take a look at the archives for this year and you'll find about thirty postings under the 'catholic' category, while cal thomas and chuck coleson alone have thirty-four or so between them.

not like there's an agenda or anything.

well, folks like this are going to go full tilt at gays, blacks, immigrants, muslims, arabs, persians, pakistanis, atheists, anarchists, gays, lesbians, and all the rest in order to 'mobilize the base' in preparation for the amrmageddon that the 2008 elections represent.

bush is going to try and re-create weimar germany by using the 'stabbed in the back' defense for his catastrophe of a war. amazing isn't it - start a war, lose it, and then try to pin it on your political opponents. you couldn't make this stuff up.

but it's going to be full-scale kulture kampf with plenty of vicious and nasty attacks from bigots like this author. it's only just begun.

Isn't it obvious that spirituality is neither liberal or conservative. it's personal. Mr. Mohler offers nothing remotely near spirituality in his insipid condemnation of people he doesn't understand.

The overwhelming approbation here for Mr Mohler's complete lack of moral substance and compassionate understanding

is the most heartening sign i have seen for the state of humanity in a long time.

I love you guys.

Buddhists are forbidden from evangelizing,
but since I am a bad adoptive buddhist,
i can break the rules.

The Buddhists teach that loving kindness toward fellow humans who suffer (all of us) is the first and overriding moral precept.

Homosexuals have suffered much more than the rest of YOU.

Mohler is not a Christian. He is not a buddhist. He is not a moral man. He is a moral infant. We should have compassion from him and prevent him from harming the rest of the world.

Wonderful...it's always a treat to see that charming combination of ignorance, arrogance and evangelistic fervor slither out from whichever rock its been lurking under and come right out in the light of day to remind us just how crazy & dangerous religious fanaticism can be...whether it's jihad, fatwa or the blind christian superstition that gave us the crusades and the Inquisition, we can always look toward church/temple/mosque to remind us just how nutty those with the "answer direct from God" can be.

And for some reason the southern baptists seem to me to add a fine carnival spirit to that nuttiness...maybe it's the music...at least there's a beat.

Rev. Mohler - you are right on. The Lutherans and Episcopalians will not exist in 50 years. The people on this blog will always try to paint you or anyone else who is against "religion de jour" as extremist. Keep speaking for us.

I didn't think newsweek or the washington post catered to people this ignorant... Nothing like a person trying to impose his interpretation of a document written by anonymous authors centuries ago on everyone else. What a joke. This rediculousness is so out of place on the website of any news organization that takes itself seriously.

I didn't think newsweek or the washington post catered to people this ignorant... Nothing like a person trying to impose his interpretation of a document written by anonymous authors centuries ago on everyone else. What a joke. This rediculousness is so out of place on the website of any news organization that takes itself seriously.

AJ: "Is divorce really a sin? (can somebody quote JC on that?)"

JC by way of Seattledodger: "But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Matthew 5:32

Thanks. I'm not Christian, but am trying to understand some of the interesting logic I see espoused here. OK, so if JC said it, then it's no longer dismissable as cerimonial or civil, right? If Jesus explicitly calls out divorce, but never mentions homosexuality, then how exactly is homosexuality worse (sinwise) then divorce?

I'd have to conclude it's much worse, considering the amount of heat the topic is carrying...

JESUS SAID 'WHEN YOU PRAY, DO NOT BE LIKE THE HYPOCRITES, FOR THEY LOVE TO PRAY STANDING IN THE SYNAGOGUES AND THE STREET CORNERS TO BE SEEN BY MEN. BUT WHEN YOU PRAY GO TO YOUR ROOM, CLOSE THE DOOR AND PRAY TO YOUR FATHER' BUT NEVERTHELESS THE RIGHT-WING SO CALLED CHRISTIANS WANT OUR KIDS PRAY AT SCHOOLS, STADIUMS,ETC THIS IS AND ANTICHRIST PRACTICE.

Mr. Mohler is a Baptist. The churches in question are Lutheran. He should worry about his own church. One could also note that inasmuch as Mr. Mohler has taken a variety of positions that make a mockery of many of the sayings attributed to Jesus, he should be cautious about accusing other religious people of "institutionalizing hypocrisy".

I choose to act with compassion, tolerance and love. I will continue to ignore a church that ignores human nature, and turns it's back on love, whatever kind it is. I cannot imagine that Jesus would act like this. If it wasn't homosexuality, they would be afraid of race, political power for the masses, even reading the bible in the vulgar tounge. This is only the most recent in a long tradition that began with Jesus confrontation in the temple. Who do you think you are fooling?

Amen to that. Right now, the Christian world is too meek to stand up to evil. We had better stand up to it before it's too late. I guess that the Lord will have to come back to clean things up. I think that it could be at any time. Everyone should be ready and be doing what He would want us to be doing.
Political correctness is of the Devil.

How much of this moralizing bilge are you going to foist on us, Sally Quinn? First you accuse Bill Clinton of having fouled the nest, and now you use the Post to rub Chuck Colson in our face, and now this Baptist dinosaur. Let's all Google Sally Quinn's marital morals, then we'll see the irony in her playing a role in shoving this crap at us day after day.

I stopped believing in a god when Geo Bush said he talks to god. If god talks to Geo, then I guess god wants to destroy the world as Geo is doing a good job of that. I have decided I will not limit myself, or any other person, and consider myself a child of the universe, along with gays, conservative catholics and evangelicals.

AJ: "Is divorce really a sin? (can somebody quote JC on that?)"

"But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Matthew 5:32

isn't this a distressingly awful man? those quotations from him in the post above could have come from nazi germany. sheesh.

If you are a Christian and believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God (or it is inerrant) then you must accept its teachings. The standards set forth in the Bible are forever and are not to be changed as time goes on.

Actually, I think it is Rev. Mohler and his group of conservative’s who believe in the bible in literal terms that are the ones that should be most afraid of time. Gays are a good example to start with. What has happened with the Lutherans and Presbyterians is that they have actually met gay people, gotten to know them and have come to understand that they are not the demons Mohler and his group have lead them to believe. They also have basic science and reading skills and can research an issue like never before. Hence, they have learned that homosexuality, bisexuality, even transsexuals exist in many populations in the animal kingdom. Some are wilder than you can imagine. As knowledge grows on actual scientific facts more will understand that this is not a real issue. Further study in theology will reveal that to take the bible in literal terms would be to ignore actual physical history, literary history, art history, etc. Those that ignore such subjects can be described as nothing less than fanatics. If literal interpretation is really that important to them they should at least read the bible in the language that it was written. To say that it has been translated via God through man is hysterically funny, but can’t be taken seriously. Problem is once people understand Linguistics well enough to be involved in such a project, they already think of Mohler and his group as uneducated. So go ahead and attack the Lutherans and Presbyterians (of which an am neither) and claim that they lack courage. You’re the one that ignores reality and will ultimately fail as people become better educated. That in time is called the loosing side

R. Albert Mohler: Uneducated, uninspiring, and unChristian but, unfortunately, like other narrow minded, rigid, literalist fundamentalists--not unusual!

If your concerns are truly around church doctrine then one must ask why the only thing that we see in your statements are reflections on sexuality.

The bible and Jesus' teachings were far more concentrated around the evils of greed and poverty. I am disgusted with the lack of discussion in the church today around these issues.

If you truly want to reduce abortion, reduce poverty. It is that simple.

Jesus preached to all people as if they were the same. He stood in judgement of no one for the simple reason that all He was concerned about was individual spirituality. He spent far more time lifting people up and not blaming society for people's troubles.

Your reference to being either liberal or conservative is so dividing in its context. All Christians that do not fall into your definition of what a conservative Christian should be and you have no right to stand in judgement of their choices. They are God's children with just as great a voice as yours.

Your profound interpretation of topics deemed to be of less importance in the bible than topics you refuse to discuss leaves the question of hipocracy for your internal deliberation.

If you were to preach less of topics that win political capital and more of topics that have profound religious context, you may be taken more seriously by people who do not consider themselves to be fundamentalists.

My faith is strong and I do not agree with your politicization of God to further your beliefs. Compassion and empathy for other's views are something you seem to sorely miss in your mis-guided faith.

In 1987, I was a delegate to the Constituting Convention after spending a year working on setting up the three ELCA synods in Iowa. My participation in those efforts is probably the biggest mistake in my life.

The decision on pastoral discipline is just the latest in a litany of missteps by the ecclesiastical hierarchy that is more interested in imposing its liberal dogma on the faithful.

It is time for a return to a Lutheran church where decisions come from the people of the church, and not the people at 8765 West Higgins Road in the windy city.

My God - what is this drivel doing on the front page of the Washington Post?

Is divorce really a sin? (can somebody quote JC on that?)

What are some of the other sins that are specifically mentioned by Jesus, but ignored (or otherwise minimized) by the conservative churches?

Just so people know the mindset of this "religious" person:

"If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin,"
R. Albert Mohler Jr

...I would argue that we cannot condone torture by codifying a list of exceptional situations in which techniques of torture might be legitimately used. At the same time, I would also argue that we cannot deny that there could exist circumstances in which such uses of torture might be made necessary.
R. Albert Mohler Jr.

Mr. Mohler, I ask you:
Who would Jesus Torture and Genetically Engineer?

I can picture God looking down and seeing people who purport to be Christian attacking each other for not being Christian enough.

Everthing I've read in the Bible makes it clear to me that we were not placed here to confess each other's sins.

It seems to me we should be working on the logs in our eyes, instead of nit picking the specks in the eyes of others.

Attacking other churches seems like a desperate act. For me, I pray only to know God's will and the power to carry it out. And I carry that grace to any one of my brothers and sister that I help in any way.

Culture of Hate runs smack in the face of the true teachings of Jesus. Don't kid yourself, it is the conservatives southern baptists that are the ones "assaulting" the rights and dignity of human kind.

What they possess is Homophobia. They claim they cannot bestow rights on people who harm no one - and choose to live together even though they break no law and live by the golden rule.

Remember what Jesus taught: Love your enemies. If someone slaps you in the left cheek - offer them the right to slap as well. If someone is cold - take your cloak off and offer it to them.

It seems to me that Homosexuals, choose to live together in their own home, they do so with mutual consent. How are they "Harming" you? What buisness is it of yours to dictate to them what they can or can't do? Besides - "who is assaulting who?" You act like you are defending yourself from somebody, you act like you are under assault. No one is assaulting you. The only people who are assaulting anyone is the homophobic southern Baptist community. And the southern Baptists are comming from a place of Hate. It is clear they really don't pay attention to the teachings of Jesus. There is no love in any of the southern baptists heart - they come from a place of hate. Remember this - if you hate - it will consume you. Jesus preached love and dignity, you contort his ways and his speech by dignifying homophobia.

I'll bet you he's a Southerner. Southerners are really, really good at being hypocritical, accusatory, warmongering, outwardly pious, inwardly proud, and intellectually and spiritually incurious. In fact those things are what they "do" best.

Crazy words from a crazy man espousing a crazy and bloody cult religion with its origins stemming from people eating psychedelic mushrooms and believing themselves to have experienced god. It is not the blood of Christ that has established and extended this cult religion, it is the blood of the innocents. And I must be crazy even to respond to such egotistical craziness. Oy.

I'm a conservative lifelong Republican. I was raised and continue to worship in the Presbyterian USA denomination. I'm proud and quite certain the message of Christ is foremost on our minds as we struggle with todays issues.

Assuming that homosexuality is what the so-called conservative-Christians claim it to be, it is still a sin. As such it is for God to condemn according to his plan. Our conservative-Christian brothers do great damage to the message of Christ in their crusade against Christianity. I'm quite sure they appeal to man, and increase their ranks, and fill their plates, but make no mistake - the message contains no hint of love, no hint of forgiveness, no hint of reconcilliation, no hint of selflessness, no hint of Christ. To the contrary it is a self-righteous message delivered by fallible men - by sinners themselves - by hypocrites. So to am I for casting these stones. Forgive me God, please show me the way to let your light shine through me.

Crazy words from a crazy man espousing a crazy and bloody cult religion with its origins stemming from people eating psychedelic mushrooms and believing themselves to have experienced god. It is not the blood of Christ that has established and extended this cult religion, it is the blood of the innocents. And I must be crazy even to respond to such egotistical craziness. Oy.

Crazy words from a crazy man espousing a crazy and bloody cult religion with its origins stemming from people eating psychedelic mushrooms and believing themselves to have experienced god. It is not the blood of Christ that has established and extended this cult religion, it is the blood of the innocents. And I must be crazy even to respond to such egotistical craziness. Oy.

Crazy words from a crazy man espousing a crazy and bloody cult religion with its origins stemming from people eating psychedelic mushrooms and believing themselves to have experienced god. It is not the blood of Christ that has established and extended this cult religion, it is the blood of the innocents. And I must be crazy even to respond to such egotistical craziness. Oy.

Those who are perhaps correctly pointing out that the Bible prohibited this but not that, in their defense of homosexuality are, I think, missing the author's point: that the acceptance of certain practices is what is slowly killing more moderate Protestant churches. Personally, I am looking for a way to preserve the Presbyterian church, but I personally would never come out and condemn people I know who are gay. Never. At the same time, I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. To me, that is a no brainer. However, long-time gay couples ought to have access to many of the same benefits as heterosexual married couples. That to me is also obvious. So I think the government should provide long time couples access to many (perhaps not all) of the same benefits as married couples, while I think the church ought not be in the business of marrying anyone but a man and a woman. I disagree with the author about sin and homosexuality, but I agree with him that headlong acceptance of certain practices will do nothing but harm the church. Let's face it: there aren't enough religious gay folks to maintain a church.

Crazy words from a crazy man espousing a crazy and bloody cult religion with its origins stemming from people eating psychedelic mushrooms and believing themselves to have experienced god. It is not the blood of Christ that has established and extended this cult religion, it is the blood of the innocents. And I must be crazy even to respond to such egotistical craziness. Oy.

Sorry, Jesus always struck me as a big tent sort of person and I read a whole lot of admonition against greed in my copy of the Bible than I read against homosexuality. Purge the church first of greedy sinners and adulterers and maybe, I'll listen to your screed against homosexuals.

Sir, have you ever thought of checking yourself into some kind of a rehab center?

Good God almighty, has anyone ever told Mr. Mohler that Jesus was a "liberal?"

The problem with Southern Baptists is that they do not hold them under water long enough.

Mr. Mohler, not too long ago President Bush and key members of his inner circle behind closed doors laughed and made fun of the conservative religious right that supports them, and raightfully so. Most of the commentators on this web site are laughing too, as am I, because who can take seriously the kinds of indecencies that you preach toward your fellow human beings, your brothers and sisters on this earth? But we are not only laughing, we also feel great sadness and anger. And, if your God is watching, She too must feel the same!

"This runs right into conflict with biblical prohibitions"

Which ones? You mean the ones in Leviticus, right next to where it says it's also a sin to touch the skin of a dead pig?

Statements like yours show your colors: you already believe the liberals are doctrinally wrong (and you do so based on picking the parts of the Bible that are dear to your heart, and ignoring many others....or do you still think the heavens revolve around the earth?)

Flat, ill-conceived statements like this are also a reason that liberal-minded citizens are staying away from what they rightly perceive as increasingly close-minded churches.

As a Presbyterian, I am dismayed at President Mohler injecting himself into my church's internal affairs. I certainly understand his disagreement with the position of the Presbyterian Church. After all, if he agreed with us he would more likely be a Presbyterian than a Baptist. Being that he is a Baptist church official, why is he telling us how to run the Presbyterian Church USA?

I know that many Presbyterians disagree strongly with positions taken regularly at the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting. I cannot recall a Presbyterian official ever denouncing them in a screed similar to President Mohler's essay here. We seek to mind our own business in the PCUSA and tend to our own house. We keep busy listening to the concerns of our fellow Presbyterians when it comes to running the church. I respectfully ask that President Mohler tend to his own seminary and denomination and we shall do the same.

"This runs right into conflict with biblical prohibitions"

Which ones? You mean the ones in Leviticus, right next to where it says it's also a sin to touch the skin of a dead pig?

Statements like yours show your colors: you already believe the liberals are doctrinally wrong (and you do so by picking and choosing which scripture to hold dea--obviously not the bit about "the heavens revolve around the earth", right?)

Flat, ill-conceived statements like this are also a reason that liberal-minded citizens are staying away from what they often rightly perceive as increasingly close-minded churches.

My dear friends:
Conservatives in every religion are using religion to enrich themselves - their ego, their pocket with money from poor as well as ignorant rich, their control over masses by creating fear from God.
Thank you.

It's unfortunate that you are peddling hatred - you sully the name of Christ and offend God with your taliban-style-branch of Christianity. May God forgive you, I can't.

So why should I care what this man believes? His church, the Southern Baptist Church, split from the Baptish church because of the Southern Baptists fervent support of slavery in the 1840s. Statements in the bible supporting slavery were used extensively to show that the disgusting practice was legitimate. Nowadays a few mentions in the bible are used to condemn homosexuality.

Again, why should anyone care what this man thinks? It disgusts me that he is so meddlesome in other people's personal lives.

If the battle is love versus hate, and you, sir, and the side of hate are losing, I say bully. I am amazed at how much hate is necessary to apply the Bible to one's daily life. Perhaps that is because the Bible is a compilation of Stone Age myths, with an admixture of Medieval superstition sprinkled in. We live in the 21st century. You can live any way you want, this is a free country. My life is guided by a search for ethical solutions, and I find that belief in myself, my fellow humans, and all life on this planet is my consolation. There may or may not be worlds after this one, and who knows? Blaise Pascal, a worrier, said "Le silence éternel de ces espaces infinis m'effraie." Blaise also said "Combien de royaumes nous ignorent." That's a worrier for you. If I love my fellow humans and life in all forms and do my best by them, then I will shift for myself in the afterlife. Would it not be amusing to find that the haters who lived by myth and superstition were the ones who don't make it to new realities?

I find it difficult to take Dr. Mohler's outrage over homosexuality seriously because he and his fellow evangelicals seem to ignore Christ's teachings on every issue EXCEPT homosexuality and abortion. If one listens to them, one comes away with the impression that Christianity is all about human sexuality and reproduction and nothing else. When was the last time any prominent evangelical leader expressed outrage over the fact that our government tortures prisoners? To the best of my knowledge, the correct answer to that question is: "Never."

Dr. Mohler and his colleagues suffer from exactly the same malady as the "liberal" religious leaders they criticize -- they treat the Bible as a cafeteria, taking from it only what they want and ignoring the rest. For the benefit of those readers who are ignorant of American history, Dr. Mohler's denomination was formed by congregations who broke from the national Baptist organization because they supported slavery. It's rather depressing to see that Mohler and his colleagues have learned absolutely nothing from that experience.

What a laugh. Conservatives have been on a 40-year quest for full-spectrum dominance in all areas, and finally with the Bush administration they achieved it -- and Christianist conservatives even got their snouts in the faith-based trough by turning themselves into a branch of the Republican National Committee.

Finally people had enough and started fighting back, and now the scribes and pharisees start yammering they're in the midst of trench warfare.

Get used to it. Now you can have a taste of the same medicine you've been shoving down our throats for the last generation.

I agree completely with Dr. Mohler's comments.

Excellent! The faster the churches fall apart the better. Religion is directly to blame for most of the conflicts in this world and directly to blame for descrimination and hate directed towards non-believers or persons such as homosexuals that do not conform to their religious beliefs.

Christianity, Judiaism, et al, all fighting over different versions of the fairy tale. Europe has gotten over God, Canada has too, northern US churchgoers continue to drop. The US South, the centroid of religious bigotry will be the last.

The sooner the better.

The reason our society is becoming more secular is because more people are realizing that these conservatives who dominate Christianity are merely using their religion as a socially-acceptable way to vent their prejudices and fears.....they're all about politics and fear now....not the love of Christ.

Who wants to be a part of a church where you have to check your brain and your compassion at the door??

The reason our society is becoming more secular is because more people are realizing that these conservatives who dominate Christianity are merely using their religion as a socially-acceptable way to vent their prejudices and fears instead of using it to promote the love of Christ.

Who wants to be a part of a church where you have to check your brain and your compassion at the door??

You religious are idiots. Religion is babysitting for the ignorant.

You religious are idiots. Religion is babysitting for the ignorant.

I think it's unbelievable that the Washington Post gives space to a person that is so intolerant of others.

S. T. Main says: "When they do the "love the sin, hate the sinner" ..."

I think this is you speaking about yourself, S.T. You are the one who loves the sin and then you hate the sinners who you trap with your cunning words. The whole purpose of your little pep talk is what? It is to convince a person that their situation is hopeless. Your little "love the sin, hate the sinner" slip up is a window into the condition of your heart. Trust me, it was not by accident that you said this in your posting tonight. You kind of ended up being convicted by your own words.

It's a kick isn't it. Hang cool and remember to laugh.

To lepidopteryx:

No, I was referring to Barnie -- Bush's dog.

I really wasn't sure what kind of comment to add after reading the majority of comments, who by the way failed to discuss what Dr. Mohler addressed. It's one thing to disagree with someone, but it's another to just post a rant for what ever reason.

Dr. Mohler, I truly wonder if the Church will ever again be able to to be a positive influence in society, yet I certainly hope she will, for she alone was called into being for such a purpose. Without the truth of Scripture, she fails to have any power to bring about both repentance and healing in a world overpowered by sin.

...Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Lk 18:8). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

So, Mr. Mohler, can you explain why your church no longer stones disobedient children to death? If you're so hung up on following Leviticus to the letter, why not go all the way? Like very other Christian you pick and choose what to observe and what to ignore. In another thread on this topic an anti-gay Christian goes so far as to explain how the slavery practiced in the Bible is a "different kind" of slavery and so not really a bad thing when it was pointed out that the Bible says not a single word against the practice. Is this what your faith is reduced to? You can't have it both ways, and it's not the ECLA that's committing the most egregious equivocation. It's those like Mr. Mohler who use the bible to defend bigotry, but can't explain why slavery and stonings are no longer socially acceptable. Who are the real hypocrites? Why not just admit that human society has evolved since the bronze age and some aspects of the Bible simply aren't relevant or acceptable two thousand years after it was written?

Yeah..just like the Church supported burning people at the stake for refusing to believe in Christianity. You are crazy and I mean that with all due respect.

In calling upon the ELCA and PCUSA to show courage by either changing their doctrines outright to allow for tolerance of homosexuality within the Churches or else act consistently to established doctrines, Mr. Mohler seems to assume that the only reasonable course of action is to stick to the established anti-homosexual doctrine.

That is unfortunate, because it happens to be a BAD doctrine- punishing people not for causing harm to others (although that is often and wrongly assumed to be a natural result of being homosexual), but for sexual preferences locked in by biology at birth. And Mr. Mohler offers no realistic solution for changing a church's bad doctrines- apart from rejecting piecemeal reforms from the ground up as acts of cowardice.

If a bad religious doctine is to be changed, then ideally it should be changed overnight. I, for one, would have been happy to skip over 1000 years of murderous anti-semitism in virtually all Christian churches, and I would love to wave a hand and cause Muslim anti-Christian and anti-Jewish doctrine to vanish.

Unfortunately, however, such wholesale reversals are very rare, if they even happen at all. What actually happens is that small pockets of saliatory neglect and tolerance grow larger and larger, finally becoming sufficiently large (if a counter-reformation is not launched in time) that they gather enough momentum to switch the viewpoint of the whole institution.

That requires years, and sometimes even centuries of dissent and often low-grade rebellion from people who know they cannot yet win an open battle. That so much progress has been made in so short a time by the ELCA and PCUSA is to their credit, and I can only hope that they become sufficiently confident of the rightness of their cause that they are able to carry the debate on homosexual tolerance to other former bastions of ignorance and prejudice.

Pastor Mohler is right on target.

Still hoping that Tripp will continue with the discussion and answer The Hermit's questions, e.g.

"what method do you apply to determine which clauses of which sentences still carry the weight of Divine authority and which do not?"

Where are you now, Tripp, when I need the answers the most?

This is nothing less valid in this universe nor sillier than
"biblical authority."
Serious people must stand up against the childish intellectual hogwash that fundamentalist religionists refuse to relinquish.
No wonder this country continues to make disastrous policy decisions both in domestic and foreign policy. We are a nation
that allows subhumans to be taken seriously. Just scream "national security" or "that aint how it is in the bible" and the voters line up.

This is nothing less valid in this universe nor sillier than
"biblical authority."
Serious people must stand up against the childish intellectual hogwash that fundamentalist religionists refuse to relingquish.
No wonder this country continues to make disastrous policy decisions both in domestic and foreign policy. We are a nation
that allows subhumans to be taken seriously. Just scream "national security" or "that aint how it is in the bible" and the voters line up.

This is nothing less valid in this universe and sillier than
"biblical authority."
Serious people must stand up against the childish intellectual hogwash that fundamentalist religionists refuse to relingquish.
No wonder this country continues to make disastrous policy decisions both in domestic and foreign policy. We are a nation
that allows subhumans to be taken seriously. Just scream "national security" or "that aint how it is in the bible" and the voters line up.

I'm sure others have pointed this out, but if homosexuality is really such a big item in Christian teachings, does it matter that Jesus said not one word on the subject? Jesus did speak clearly against divorce, but I don't hear the born-agains railing against divorce. I guess being a Christian really doesn't have much to do with the teachings of Jesus.

Thank God my Lutheran church is taking this important step. The spirit of the whole Bible clearly does not condemn love--yes, even physical love--between any two people.

I am a Christian. I do not agree with R. Albert Mohler, except on one thing. The Lutherans and Presbyterians do need to muster more courage to stand up fully for the inclusion of gay people just as they are. That would be consistent with the message of Jesus. Jesus never said one word about homosexuality or against gay people. He did call on us not to judge others. Conservative Christians have been throwing stones at gay people long enough. It's immoral and indecent. They must stop.

Mr. Mohler, as some here have pointed out, your Southern Baptist Convention took a stand in support of slavery some years back. Then you opposed racial integration. You were on the wrong side of those issues, and you are on the wrong side of this one. Your record of standing for morality is dismal.

Instead of throwing stones at gay people and at other denominations that fully support and include gay people, why don't you check out that giant log in your own eye? It may be blinding you.

To Bernie Schaeffer:

I applaud you for pointing out that the
Moral Character
of Reverend Mohler
is of the lowest type.

He won't listen to you because your name sound Yiddish, and Tripp thinks you guys are crazy to still be following those dietary laws instead of eating Big Macs like Jesus would (pardon me Jesus)

but you have hit the nail right on the head.

There are about 15 ways in his short post that REVerend Mohler displays his moral infancy.

R. Albert Mohler supports the "authority" of the christian bible on homosexuality.

Does everyone remember what the christian bible says on the subject? That practicing homosexuals should be put to death.

America Christian bigotry like Mohler's is a big reason the rest of the world fears this country.

I'd love to know how many people have stopped attending those conservative churches that celebrated the invasion of Iraq with fighter jets streaking across massive video screens and flags hanging next to the cross.

The Lutheran Churches, and all other religious organizations, would take a great leap forward toward peace, harmony, and enlightenment, if they simply adopted The Ham Sandwich Principle in relation to gay issues.

The Principle is this:

Spend no more time debating or being concerned with gay issues than you do debating and worrying about what should be done with clergy and parishoners who eat ham sandwiches.

Eating ham sandwiches, and being gay or having gay sex, have the same cosmic significance.

Act on that Principle and you'll be closer to attaining Salvation.

If the Bible was written by God, then let us bring back slavery and no work on the Sabbath (Sat. or Sun., take your pick). Let's stone adulterers, sell our daughter, all the other rules the Bible advocates, because, according to those true believers, God said so.
Let's look at the historical context: the biblical authors wrote against homosexuality for the same reason they wrote against Onanism (masturbation). It had to do with survival, not religion.
If the Hebrew community in one valley ended up with less people than say, the Phillistines in the next valley, they were in danger of being conquered by a superior force. Therefore, no opportunity to multiply could be threatened by sexual acts that produced no children. Got nothing to do with religion.
BTW, the Bible only mentions men lying with other men, nothing about women. Does that mean lesbians get a pass?

If I may summerize the views of millions: There's no Jesus, no God, just people trying to navigate a difficult existence. The more that the superstitious attempt to divide those people into us (pick a denomination or religion) versus them (everyone else), the more dangerous they become.

Yo, god is a fairy tale. You've devoted your whole life to a leap of blind faith. When you die there will be nothing. Instead of making a contribution to humanity, you're wallowing in a self-ordained agenda of denial, afraid to face the truth, too mentally weak to deal with life without the crutch of religion, and serving a purpose which only retards humanities ability to progress socially and technologically. There are those who are afraid to shake the yoke religion has on their lives, but acknowledge that the bible is a largely untrue depiction of 1st century BC minds, people who thought this earth was the center of the universe. In their everyday lives they see the ridiculousness of the church's positions on many things, and choose not to follow. This is why hypocrisy is institutionalized, because crutch-people only want to believe what's convenient. They are allowed to remain in the church because its the only way the churches can stay alive and raise money. This is a good thing, as it means the number of people who color everything in their lives with the beliefs of their imaginary friend named god are declining, and rational enlightenment is beginning to follow. It's time for Americans to reject arcane, social-luddites, and force them into the 21st century, where at least they can begin to live for the day and get the most out of their lives. We have to stop the cycle of "religous programming" that is imposed on children, so that one day our world will be free of the violence, greed, racism and judgmentalism that religion breeds.

/***
Thank you Dr. Mohler for speaking to these issues. It only comes after years of denial of Scripture.
***/

Let's see just who is actually ignoring Scripture.

I notice none of you right-wing christian hypocrites mind divorced people, and the ones who helped them get divorced (judges, attorneys), though Jesus was pretty damned specific about, "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder."

Ain't much grey area there. Not much to do with liberals, either. This is about hatred. You're lucky Jesus was just a great philosopher and not a deity, or he'd've slapped you silly by now for such hatred against homosexuals.

You see, homosexuality, like women wearing a hat on the Sabbath, is grouped into that "abomination" category in the bible; so really, unless there are "degrees of abomination," they really don't mean much, do they? ...unless women who don't wear hats to church should be similarly shunned by "right thinking" mental cases.

Jesus - *not* St. Paul the Misanthrope - was pretty damned specific about marriage, though. You divorce, you have violated God's blessing of the marriage. Talk about people to be shunned!

See how stupid you sound, when I use one of YOUR sacred cows as the fake "worst sinner ever" malarkey? Grow up.

How do you reconcile that with you beliefs?

You can't. You simply have a right-wing political agenda, and right now, homosexuals and immigrants have replaced the Soviets as government-induced whipping boys, so the brainwashed don't notice the creeping fascism in this country.

Even if you're christian - start condemning crap like this. Else, your "love your neighbor," your "judge not lest ye be judged" and all the other platitudes you mouth but don't follow are as meaningless as every religion on earth.

You gotta wonder at the (1) incidents or (2) desires concerning homosexuality by some of these same calculating "religious leaders" (Read: hate spewers)and other homophobes. They sure do protest a lot, methinks.

Placing the words of scripture in any translation (or one of the origial Hebrew or Greek MSS) above the Word which is Christ by the Holy Spirit is idolatry. Let the scriptural literalists take John Calvin (as distinct from too many "Calvinists") seriously when he wrote that Genesis is poetry and only the "inner testimony of the Holy Spirit" verifies the Word of God.
Alas the scritural literalists are setting themselves up as THE experts who must be believed, and OBEYED.
Abraham Lincoln learned English from the Authorized Version of his time, but was not a scriptural literalist, but a man of great faith in the power of God. 'The question is not whether we are on God's side, but whether God is on ours.'(Lincoln) The earlist Christians got it right in the first confession of faith : "Jesus Christ is Lord". And the new scriptures were not yet in being, the old scriptures not yet a canon, or rule of faith.

I watched the CNN special on conservative Baptists, & they are hypocritical. Like the "cafeteria catholics" who get hysterical about abortion but ignore the last two Pope's condemnation of the unholy Iraq war, the SB's opinions are incoherent but convenient. Dress up hate as religious, and you can get away w/ nearly anything.

These liberal denominations have taken a refreshing approach to theology in recognizing the difference between a.) spirituality in matters of the individual's relationship with God and the church, and b.) morality, which is an individual's behavior in the material world.

Morality is a pliable thing that changes with each generation and their circumstances. To take two easy examples, slavery used to be broadly accepted as moral, while mothers working outside the home used to be broadly condemned as immoral. Many, if not most people, use their religion and spiritual teachings to help resolve difficult questions of morality, but that doesn't always have to be so. A person can be good without being religious. Morality doesn't depend on faith. Conversely, religious people can be bad people, even (at times especially) when they strictly adhere to the teachings of their faith.

The fact that these denominations are trying, in halting steps full of contradictions inherent in big transitions, to divorce the seeking of the spiritually faithful from the judgment of the worldly moral, is a bold and courageous step that more conservatives should consider.

Isn't it going to be too nice a weekend to spend any more time with a person with the moral character of Mr. Mohler? Someone start up the BBQ. The drinks are on me! And, joy to the world(and I mean the whole world)!

I'm an atheist, and I couldn't have argued this better myself. I hope Mr. Mohler is completely correct in saying that religion, and all its associated bigotry and intolerance, is truly in decline. Mohler's battle is being lost because dialog--and with that understanding--is growing between formerly closeted groups and the so-called moral majority. Welcome to the information age. Many have finally begun to realize that religious intolerance really is just a euphemism (and excuse) for hatred.

It should also be said that Mr. Mohler's argument reads as if it were constructed by an 8th grader for a debate class. In fact, I seriously wonder if this is a joke? Is the Washington Post running out of good candidates for penning On Faith guest-columns?

To all my fellow gay people reading this, howdy! and ain't it strange that we're all still slogging through this nonsense?

And to all closeted folks (and younger folks, like I once was) reading this stuff in private, afraid that perhaps the religious conservatives are right: NO THEY'RE NOT. THEY'RE WRONG. They have a pinched and fairly rigid worldview and they can't operate outside it. Rest assured that the Living God does not operate only within those confined spaces.

It's a kick, isn't it? They were born innocent and unknowing, and grew up and discovered that they were attracted to members of the opposite sex. Lucky for them, their attraction was congruent with the culture around them. We were born, just as innocent and unknowing, but found we were attracted to the same sex. Oh well! No big deal, really, except that the culture (as well as its scriptural sources) is more congruent with their situation than ours. Oh well. Doesn't mean God doesn't love you the way ya are, trust me.

Meanwhile, until all this nonsense gets ironed out (in the next 25 years, I suspect), here's a few tips from an old hand:

1. When they do the "love the sin, hate the sinner" thing, just forget it. They don't really mean it. It's just a way to justify their discomfort with the fact that you're gay, and still feel good about themselves. Trust me, they don't mean it. They're not being wicked, they just don't really mean it.

2. Any time they try to frame the "debate" (I know, for them it's a "debate," for you and me it's our lives! LOL!) in complicated terms, and talk about "moral law, ceremonial law, religious scholarship," etc. etc., just remember that it all comes down to one fact: THEY'RE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH YOU. Trust me, no matter how they deny it, it's the rock bottom truth.

3. Find your friends among supportive people who are comfortable with who you are and care for you. And, incidentally, don't waste too much of your precious energy trying to prove what the Bible does or doesn't say or mean. The Living God is utterly free, wild-hearted and generous, and he's the wagon you should hitch to, not some Southern Baptist's ideas of the bible. Don't throw away the bible! Just don't think it's the end-word on God. NOTHING IS. To say otherwise constitutes what the bible correctly calls idolatry.

Hang cool and remember to laugh.
Steve

Stone the homos! Stone the sassy chidren! Stone the remarried woman! Stone the disobedient slave! Stone the clam eaters! Stone them who wear cloth of more than one fabric! Stone JESUS!

Tripp says:

Because Biblical exegesis and logic do not back up the pro-homosexual church movement, ...{snip}

I suggest, for anyone who agrees with this statement, the short but excellent book "What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality" by Fr. Daniel Helminiak, Ph.D.

By the way, I had no idea that the "liberal" churches were declining in influence. But then again, I'm not a Christian (and not an atheist either), so what do I know.

It seems to me Dr. Mohler has a reasonably good argument that the wavering commitment of the mainline Protestant denominations to the theology that defined them in the first place is strongly correlated to their declining role in American religious life.

There have always been and will always be people whose interest in a church is contingent on the distance between church doctrine and the beliefs and practices of the world outside the church not being too great. There are also people who see little value in any church that tries too hard to accomodate itself to the world's values. And people who have never been exposed to a church may be less likely to find its message attractive or even interesting if there is little to distinguish it from what they can find in the secular world.

It is worth asking, which kind of people are most numerous. It may also be worth asking if the mainline denominations that have shown forth their rejection of traditional social attitudes by turning away from an insistence on church doctrine, have contributed to the explosive growth of charismatic churches that retain conservative social attitudes but tend to be very loose on matters of doctrine -- from some points of view the worst of both worlds.

I wish people like Mohler would drop the pretense of religion and simply admit once and for all they just hate gay people.

The 'civilized' face of homophobia is still homophobia. If homosexuality is a religious issue, then remember that this is a country wherein ALL religions are allowed, not just yours. Fight progress all you like, but the majority of our society has learned to be tolerant and accepting of homosexuals, regardless of one's religious views. Somebody else being gay really isn't your business anyway. It is childish to not let adults be consenting with one another when it comes to sex. Get real. Your old views are going the way of the dinosaur. Oh wait, I forgot that the Bible denies the existence of dinosaurs too.
p.s. Looking at your pic, I would have to say that there is no gay guy interested in you, so what's your interest in them?

There's simply no need to push to "normalize" something that's already normal. Rather, what we liberals are pushing is an attempt to get you closed-minded bigots to realize that you and your Bible-based intolerance is wrong, cold-hearted, mean-spirited, inhumane, and unconscionable. Stop hiding your hatred behind a chapter and verse, and be honest enough with yourself to recognize that your feelings stem instead from your own baser self. Until then, you will remain a little man.

The 'civilized' face of homophobia is still homophobia. If homosexuality is a religious issue, then remember that this is a country wherein ALL religions are allowed, not just yours. Fight progress all you like, but the majority of our society has learned to be tolerant and accepting of homosexuals, regardless of one's religious views. Somebody else being gay really isn't your business anyway. It is childish to not let adults be consenting with one another when it comes to sex. Get real. Your old views are going the way of the dinosaur. Oh wait, I forgot that the Bible denies the existence of dinosaurs too.

You argue that the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin, and that failing to ban ministers who commit such a sin, therefore, is a failure of doctrinal conviction. But the Bible also clearly states that we all are sinners, so by your logic all ministers should be banned. Jesus said, "He who is without sin be the first to cast a stone." I suggest you quit throwing rocks.

Re: homosexuals.
You can't do anything about it. Why don't you just shut up?

This effort by the Lutherans was long overdue by any religous denomination. It is impossible for me to understand that to be a Chrisitian means I have to shun good people because of their sexual orientation. Some things are simply too contrary to the seeming actions of Christ for them to be correct.

You understand the situation completely. Please accept my support.

Hooray for You Hal
and Me.

Imagine what it was like to be gay
when I was alive.

It is egregiously and piteously immoral for troglydytes like "Reverend" Mohler to condemn homosexuals and another Christian sect that is trying to responsibly enter the 21st century.

Mister Mohler exhibits none of the moral virtues, in either the greek or the christian sense,
yet he feels moved to lecture his fellows on morality and compassion. It is nauseating. And at dinner time.

"Liberals amok"--coming from a Southern Baptist? The Southern Baptist Convention has been tightly run by theologically and politically very conservative men who have choked off all debate and supported the expulsion of churches that don't toe the party line. there was a time when Baptist churches supported a diversity of opinion on a wide variety of issues and saw the value of separating church and state. It appears that theological isgnorance is part of this conservative dominion.

It's a shame that this series so often gives in to sloganeering and a lack of serious theological and moral debate. Columns like this one really don't deserve to be published a serious treatment of conservative theology, but shallow scholarship from someone representing a very hypocritical view of how denominations treat different viewpoints is a waste of space.

"....and an affirmation of biblical authority." The beauty of 'biblical authority' is that one can be selective in which part one chooses to affirm and this selectivity enables the bigot to shield behind the given word & to support the most un- and anti-Christian sentiments & all in the name of God.

Rev. Mr. Williams III,

If you truly believe what you just posted, I would like to introduce you the 8-foot-tall white Bunny with pink and green polka dots, who stands in the breakdown lane at milepost 18 of Interstate 89 North, overlooking the Vermont Law School far below, dispensing wisdom to the passing motorists.

One of his leaflets would be most likely to enrich your spiritual life.

If you should tend to disbelieve this, you should be aware that The Bunny stands only five or six miles from the birthplace of Joseph Smith, Founding Prophet of the Mormon religion, in nearby Sharon.

This part of the universe is rich in miracles and revelations, some of them strikingly unusual, but true nevertheless.

Best wishes.

"Some who are for "not disciplining" will state that I Corinithians 6;9ff is for those who are "practicing" homosexuality. In this they are correct. The Greek is quite clear in that."

Actually, the greek text uses a vernacular term for homosexuality that doesn't have an agreed upon definition. Some say it is merely a reference to homosexuality, some say it is a reference to the passive member, and I've heard three or four other different arguments. The fact is, if that one passage and an old text are the pimary justification for treating an entire group of people as second class citizens, you really need to get your priorities straight, "Reverend."

Let's face a few facts here. Liberals and Conservatives (theologically speaking) will always butt heads because they have two fundamentally different views on what the Bible itself is. Until that is recongnized, trying to make an argument on a point of scripture is utterly useless. To conservatives, it is the God-breathed, unchanging word of God now and forever. To Liberals, it is a God-inspired text that cannot be separated from the social and historical context in which it was written. Nothing written in the Bible clarifies that fundamental point, though both sides can pull plenty of points out to argue either way.

Here's the ELCA's take on the matter:

"The word Bible means books. As do other Christians, Lutherans understand this collection we call The Bible to be authoritative for faith and life. Together the 66 books in The Bible read by most Protestant Christians today, including Lutherans, comprise what is called the canon, or canonical (approved) books. This canon came into being over several centuries. At first individual books were used for teaching and worship during both the Jewish Old Testament period and the Christian New Testament era. At various times and places a combination of books was recognized as canonical. Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians include an additional number of Old Testament canonical books, often called deutero-canonical, which are sometimes printed between the testaments in Protestant Bibles. (See "Apocrypha" for an explanation of this material and how Lutherans utilize it.)

The 39 Old Testament books were written over many centuries, the last one around 165 B.C., and, as in the Hebrew Bible they are grouped by literature type rather than chronologically. Most Christians group these books into several blocks of literature which, except for the interspersed Writings are found in this order in our Bibles:

The Law – Genesis through Deuteronomy – first recognized as Holy Scripture by about 400 B.C. and often called The Books of Moses or Torah

History – Joshua through Esther (except for Ruth)

Wisdom Literature (Job through Song of Songs)

The Prophets (The major prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and the so-called 12 minor prophets – recognized as Scripture by 200 B.C.)

The Writings, a group (including Ruth and Jonah) which gained stature over the years until they were accepted into the present Old Testament of Hebrew Bible about A.D. 100, well into the first Christian century. In the third century B.C., the Hebrew Bible began to be translated into Greek in order to meet the needs of many Greek-speaking Jews who were living outside of Palestine. This translation, which took several centuries to complete, is called The Septuagint and includes deutero-canonical books. The Roman Catholic canon has been based on the traditional inclusions of this translation, whereas Lutherans and other Protestant denominations have followed what was included in Hebrew Scripture.

The New Testament books were written over a period of time beginning about the middle of the first century A.D. Various of these, as well as other writings sometimes called the New Testament Apocrypha, enjoyed widespread use throughout the early church. By A.D. 200 the letters of Paul (probably the first New Testament era writings), the four Gospels and several other books were considered canonical. The 27 New Testament books, as we know them, were not firmly recognized until around A.D. 350.

ELCA Lutherans find the creative and redemptive acts of God disclosed in Scripture - first revealed in the history and faith of the Jewish people, then in God’s ultimate self revelation in Jesus. God’s emptying of self into Jesus provides not only the promise but the precursor for gathering all humanity into this divine relationship. We turn to the Bible to see where God has been and, guided and instructed by it, discover God’s activity in our world and God’s will for all creation."

http://www.elca.org/questions/Results.asp?recid=17

Yes, Mr. Mohler, I urge you to get your primitive church back to its origins, before the big bad liberals (over many centuries in fact) perverted it so.

* If a woman grabs a man's privates during a fight, her hand is to be cut off. (Duet 25:11,12)

* The eating of fat is prohibited forever. (Lev 3:17)

* You cannot round the corners of your beard or the hair on your temples. (Lev 19:27)

* The congregation was to be a bastard free zone. The Bible was so dead set against bastards that their children, even to the tenth generation, could not enter the assembly of the Lord. (Duet 23:2) This is in keeping with God's principle of punishing children for the wrongdoings of their parents.

* Handicapped people could not approach God. Their presence would profane his sanctuary. (Lev 21:16-23) This scripture single-handedly offends almost every category of handicapped persons you can name. The blind, lame, injured, hunchbacks and dwarfs are specifically named. If anyone is left out, the catchall phrase "anyone with a blemish" is thrown in to cover them. I guess in Israel, the handicapped parking stalls were at the far end of the parking lot.

* Entrance into the assembly of the Lord was granted only to those with complete testicles. (Duet 23:1) Now, I will admit that keeping one's testicles in tact is a pursuit worthy of some attention, but I have to ask: What went on in the "assembly of the Lord" that required a complete and full set of testicles? And, since testicles are usually not on display, was there someone at the gate assigned to check?

* Anyone working on the Sabbath is to be killed. (Ex 35:2) This law was to protect the sanctity of Sunday afternoon football. Unfortunately, any player that touched the ball would have to be killed after the game, because he had touched a dead pig. (Lev 11:7,8) That would certainly make it easier to play defense.

* Menstruating women and everything they touch are unclean. The only cure for this uncleanness was for the priest to kill a couple of pigeons. (Lev 15:19-30) What could be more logical?

* Women were officially second class citizens. They were considered possessions that were owned, (Prov 12:4) and were officially subordinate (1 Cor 14:33,34).

* Homosexual men were to be executed. (Lev 20:13) No mention is made of homosexual women.

* False prophets are to be killed by their own parents. (Zech 13:3)

* Stubborn children were to be stoned, and the stoning was to be instigated by their parents. (Duet 21:18-21)

* And whatever you do, don't ever, ever, ever, urinate against the wall (1 kings 16:11 KJV).

Dr. Davy,

There's a differnce between your predisposition to addictive behavior and homosexuality.

Alcoholism is something to be fought because it is inherently harmful. I'll leave out the damage it does to your body - you have the right to destroy your own body if you so desire. But driving drunk endangers everyone else on the road. If you're too drunk or too hung over to come in to work, it damages your employer's bottom line, not to mention focing your co-workers to pick up your slack. If you're like my first husband (violent when drink), it makes you a danger to your family. These are reasons why people with addictive personalities should not follow those inclinations.

Homosexual relationships among consenting adults are no more inherently harmful than heterosexual relationships among consenting adults.

As a gay man who attended catholic grade school and high school in Arlington in the 1980's, I wish "liberalism" had been around to assure me that I was not a sinner for simply being gay. I welcome whatever movement ("Liberalism") that will challenge the poison from the pulpit that attempts to treat me less equally because God made me gay. I hope today's gay arlington school children benefit from it. Hal

Conservative Catholic:

Seriously, since you are quoting Scripture to "condemn" people, where in the Bible does ANYBODY find that the pope any authority of any kind at all??? Over anyone??? I really hope that he has more to do and concern himself with than the "condemnation" of millions of people.

I know that I have to answer only to Jesus for my life and actions, things done, and undone, and that no human has no power to condemn. Please, if you are going to quote the Bible then jump to the pope, not even mentioned in the Bible. Peter was an apostle, no more and no less.

Ah, the bigots never grow tired.

We have heard how the bible was used to justify enslaving black people (of course they did that out of love as well) and how the bible was used to stop inter-racial marriage (that was done out love and respect for the word of God) and even really off the wall things like how women weraing pants was an afront to God (yep - I actaully had an old preacher walk up to my wife in the early 70's and tell her that - while she was wearing pant).

Before that we have some interesting episodes of the church burning people at the stake, throwing people in prison for things like noting that the earth orbitted the sun and the like.

Don't you religous folks ever get tired of being wrong and doing so in a way that harms everybody around you. It sure doesn't seem that way - I think most of you believe that what ever crosses your mind is will of some magical, unseeable and untouchable human-like being.

FORMER XIAN: **I wonder whether God communicates to George Bush through Barney?**

Ilove you,
You love me,
We're a happy family
With a great big hug and a kiss from me to you
Won't you say you love me too?

That Barney?

Weren't most versions of the bible rewritten by different kings to suit their purposes? Doesn't that kinda diminish some of the importance of the Bible. As in, perhaps you shouldn't take it word for word since many of those words were edited.

Just a thought....

A QUESTION:

Are DANIEL and DAN the same person?

What Jesus was hoping for, Mr. Mohler, was a change of heart! Get it?

The Old and New Testaments are quite clear that a homosexuality is sin. In fact, it disqualifies them from serving in the prieshood (Old Testament)or ministry (New Testament)just as "adultery; fornication, divorce, etc. will also disqualify one from the ministry.

Some who are for "not disciplining" will state that I Corinithians 6;9ff is for those who are "practicing" homosexuality. In this they are correct. The Greek is quite clear in that. It is still sin and one who practices it is not going to inherit the "kingdom of God." Once a person stops that sin and stays away from that sin (including the others listed), then that person is no longer practicing that sin. Thus, as a Christian, that person will inherit the "kingdom of God," because that person has been restored to fellowship with God and the church.

A person who has committed sin and is not a believer will stop practicing those sins only when that person repents (changed their way of thinking/attitude) and believes in Jesus Christ. God will then send the Holy Spirit into that persons life to give that person the power to overcome sin in his/her life. Should there be failure (not temptation, but sin), then upon confession, God will forgive and restore the person to fellowship with Him and the church.

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III

How tiresome it is to be sitting here in the 21st century still be having this discussion. A two-thousand year old book (selectively edited over the centuries) supposedly written by a magical Imaginary Friend in the Sky still has this tenacious hold over what passes for minds in these delusional people. No wonder the world stumbles along so.

And this particular brand of the mentally ill religiosity sufferers -- the so-called Christians -- do not even remotely endorse the plainly stated teachings of this Jesus person (whose ideas in general were very sensible ones, I think). Instead of values like peace, compassion, healing the sick, helping the poor, and talking to our enemies, we get enthusiastic support for insane unprovoked military actions, hatred and 24-hour condemnation toward people who love the wrong people, we're the only industrialized nation that still lets 40 million of its citizens go without health care, and who cares about the poor. Jesus would stick his finger down his own throat if he encountered modern "Christianity". And now we have this religious "authority" come on here whining about how churches aren't harrassing gays and lesbians enough anymore.

There are so many things wrong with this picture on so many different levels that one hardly knows where to begin discussing it. I just wish these sad sheep would wake up, grow up, and take responsibility for their own process of moral reasoning. You're better than this, aren't you?

Obviously, the "true" Christian church needs to have a Mohler pulled!

"Biblical prohibitions" against homosexuality? You mean that part of Leviticus, right? Because i'm pretty sure Jesus didn't talk about homosexuality. Nor did he prohibit wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, which is prohibited in Leviticus also (somewhere around the part regarding the punishment for a woman who stops a fight between her husband and another by grabbing the other man's testicles).

Unless you stop wearing mixed fabrics, your stance on homosexuality is compromised by hypocrisy or sin--as far as i understand, a mere human cannot decide what is god's law.

Why, Mr. mohler, does your denomination not stone adulterers to death? Have the liberals gotten to you, too?

TO JOHN,

You said Jesus never talked about homosexuality, yet he did talk about different kinds of homosexuals in Matthew 19:11-12. Most book translations call them "eunuchs", but what is a eunuch except a non-heterosexual man? Back then, eunuchs were listed in the service of leaders in many different capacities (and not just in the Middle East). Simply put, they were men who did not have sexual relationships with women, & as Jesus makes it plain, there were many different kinds. Jesus also said not all could understand such. That seems plain today as well. But he did not condemn them, did he?

Hey Richmond T. Stallgiss, where did Jesus say anything about homosexuality being immoral? Even homosexual sex? If you want to be a Christian, why not take Jesus at his word, and not try to project your own prejudices onto Him?

Daniel,

What I wrote about Latimer and Ridley had nothing at all to do with Christianity or the religious conflicts of the 16th Century.

It had to do with people who spoke their truth even when they were sure that it would cost them their lives.

Remember the student members of the White Rose who were guillotined in Nazi Germany for putting up anti-Hitler posters.

Remember the 300 Cathars who allowed themselves to be burnt to death at Montsegur rather than convert to the corrupt and nefarious Catholicism of Pope "Innocent" [LOL] III.

We should all be prepared to die for saying our truth, when it is truly necessary for us to do so, without gratuitously seeking martyrdom.

We owe it to ourselves, our truth, all other beings and to eternity. Our truth, once spoken, exists forever.

You ask if I love or hate gays. I don't love or hate them as a group; I relate to individuals, not groups.

As a Buddhist sympathizer, I try to show compassion for all beings. I strongly believe in "gay rights" [really, these are just the same rights others already have], including same-sex marriage.

I've really liked almost all of the gays I've met who I knew were gay.

I'm sure I liked many other people who were gay without my being aware of it. I try to treat people as individuals, not as indistinguishable or fungible members of some supposed class or group.

Claude
Thank you for your wisdom
Not everyone who reaches your stage of retirement has it, but your words are compassionate and full of perspective, and the ability to see behind the hypocrasies of power that society is so often based on.

merci,
henri

Seems to me that the Bible is pretty clear about the sin of wealth. I recall something from my childhood about the mutual impossibility of a wealthy man making it into heaven and a camel passing through the eye of a needle. So does the Southern Baptist Convention demand that their minsters renounce their wealth? How about gluttony? Does the Southern Baptist Convention have a BMI requirement for their ministers? I would just like to know how how all the good conservatives out there decide which Biblical teachings are fashionable enough to warrant a political and social crusade? Is it eeny meeny minee moe, catch a cardinal sin by the toe or what? Please elaborate Brother Mohler because your reasoning confuses me...

Seeing so much rationality and REAL Christianity in action here-with the heartening and righteous knocking of Mohler and his ilk-is truly a boost to the spirits

And for Dr Mohler or those who think like he does, Jesus definitely had something to say to these moral and righteous hypocrites

Matthew 23

And Matthew 23 is even more relevant today with all the religious fanatics wreaking so much carnage around the world due to their theological shortcomings

The unquestioned power of the US theological thugs, who pervert what and who they claim to worship, is coming to an end here in the US, best shown by the overwhelming, irate reaction from the majority of the US public regarding the US Taliban's attempts to shamefully interfere in the Terri Schiavo affair

These types who want to take our society backwards know they're doomed to failure, a failure facilitated by the God they claim to worship, because God also gave us minds, for us to use

And my God-given mind tells me that those so willfully ignorant and deliberately obtuse like Mohler know their time of unchallenged political power is over, so watch and hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from Mohler and others of his political beliefs ratchet upwards in direct proportion to their loss of power

Dr Mohler, whining is so unbecoming someone so sure only they know and understand an all eternally-powerful God

OTOH, it shows the loss of political power and prestige is accelerating, not decreasing, for Dr Mohler and his merry band of theological thugs & bullies, so, therefore, is supremely enjoyable to watch happen in real life

R. Albert Mohler Jr. is pleased to pronounce what "the Bible says" on subjects that flatter the righteousness of his flock and heap guilt or blame on others. Yes, this will attract to the pews people who covet their own sense of holy and exude a loathing of others. This is the essence of the sin of pride and hypocrisy. This is contrary to the Gospel, where we learn that we are all more or less sinful and unworthy.

But, of course, if the only appeal is to Faith and Written Word, then why not rely on the Koran or Book of Mormon? Both faiths, by the way, show more growth than the Baptists or liberal denominations. In 20 years, the US will have more Muslims than Baptists. Suddenly, people like Mohler will start to appeal to Human Reason, rather than received dogma, as the basis for law and justice.

Thomas Barnes:

You said:
"Faith must be dynamic and change constantly to reflect the new realitites in which Believers find themselves if it is to be real and meaningful to people. A Christian can no more live in today's world based on a system of first century cosmology and theology than a doctor in 2007 can operate on a patient using the understanding of ancient Greek physicians. Christianity has changed radically since the time of Christ, whether conservative or liberal theologians want to believe that or not. It is the simple truth."

My reply:
YES! The Gospels are not total truth engraved in stone, they are a series of doorways to the Truth. I am pretty sure I have passed the first door. The understanding of God's message changes with the dynamic of his creation. We must always struggle to keep up.

So when Pastor Haggard was doing meth off a male hooker's ass what part of the bible was he following again? I musta missed that chapter in sunday school.

The good minister needs to realize that he is a product of the very same liberalism that he speaks so poorly about. At one time, anyone who defied the teachings or authority of The Church (since there was only 1 church) was a liberal. Anyone who taught, for instance, that lay people should read the Bible for themselves in their own native language, instead of having the priests tell them what the Bible (written only in Latin) said was a heretic deserving of nothing less than to be executed. Now, he takes it as established truth that, as the Baptist creed says, anyone can interpret the Bible for themselves. Why isn't he a Catholic who demands that the Church return to its 3rd or 4th century practices if he doesn't believe in change? Why is it that all the reforms of Christian doctrine that have taken place over centuries are all ok, but now, any deviation from what he considers "inerrant" truth is wrong and must be stopped? This is the problem with all conservatism, of course. Yesterdays reforms were fine, but today's reforms are too much. Why?

All you gay bashers oughta spend 10 minutes talking to a gay person someday. You may find out they aren't much different from yourself. Wasn't Jesus for loving thy neighbor and not judging other people?

The funniest thing to me is how all the religious people who slam gays the most vociferously, end up being the most gay. How "ironical".

Here's a thought....live your own lives. Leave gay people alone. They aren't doing anything to you. I'm a straight man with a wonderful wife and kid. I know several gay people. Not one of them has tried to somehow destroy my marriage or try to somehow make me gay. The institution of marriage isn't damaged by letting gay people join in on the fun. There will be just as many divorces, cheating, and good solid marriages as there ever was if gay people were allowed to get married.

Finally, isn't the church supposed to be about helping the poor, needy and less fortunate? How does spending millions of dollars stopping Tom and Joe from getting married help poor people?

I have high respect for R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s intellectual abilities. I will never engage him on that level. I will engage him on the idea that as humans we are flawed. The need for Christians and others of faith to monitor their faith's interpretations of their sacred scripts, beliefs, and revelations, are very important for the worldwide growth of the Lord.

Lutheranism is a faith based on reform and of constant reformation of itself and practices. Imagine a Christian world if it didn't reform its practices constantly. It wouldn't exist, but if it did, then slavery would be alright. Polygamy would be condoned. Genders would be separated. If Dr. Mohler took my eye, I'd take his. We know these things don't work anymore, they're inaccurate, i.e. flawed.

Dr. Mohler, himself, has written (and probably said, but I don't listen to his podcast often enough) that homosexuality is probably a biological occurrence. This is a new interpretation of what Baptist said a 100 years ago.

Finally, Dr. Mohler's steadfastness, in his faith and beliefs are honorable. He has such an interesting philosophical edge to his writings. I hear his reasoning, and even though I don't believe what he says, it's hard not too. At the end though, Dr. Mohler's interpretations are flawed.

TWO things to read:

1. TIME MAGAZINE September 3, 2007: The Secret Life of Mother Teresa -- check it out on TIME.com. Where was her faith in "Him"? Why?

2. The Shia Revival by Vali Nasr -- While reading I can't help but compare Shiism, Sunnism, ELCA Lutheranism, Missouri Synod Lutheranism, etc...

DARN LIBERALS!
First they created the secular humanist United States of America, then they Created the US Constitution and the Bill of rights, then the slaves were freed and actually considered human, then they let women vote. In retrospect this does create the spectre of hypocracy in the church and hurts the credibility of God himself (HIM) because of all the shifting of absolutism within religion itself. You are correct to take the bible literally because otherwise, with infinite interpretation and revisionism (evolution indeed!) it appears to be more the work of man than God. Perhaps you could learn much from Bin laden to preserve your faith and its authority!

Silence Dogood

Your comment is completely irrelavent. You are just weighing the nucanced meaning of vague and imprecise words, that stand for shadowy, barely comprehensible concepts. To be a Christian, less praying, more involvement, more interaction, more touching of one body to another; just get out of the house a little bit and look around at the great big world of humanity, just talk to some people, and stop being so obsessed over what God thinks of you.

Born into a Catholic faith; transitioned to the Presbyterian belief as a young man and now as a grandfather of two, consider myself retired & nearly athiest, I have learned from my education and training as a biochemist that the greater sin is exclusion of those amongst us that are biologically organized differently. I have the utmost compassion for these folks in that hardnosed so-called Christians treat them badly, primarily out of ignorance and then perhaps, out of doctrine derived from text that is very much debatable. Frankly, as I survey the history of religion I believe we have much to be ashamed for. Most of the divisive so-called "value" issues are simply opportunities for the various political and religious groups to scream at each other and to profit from.

It's too bad conservative religious leaders like Mohler have condensed their faith to two issues: homosexuality and abortion.

If they spent as much time administering to the sick, feeding the hungry, helping the poor and the other admonitions of Christ, the world would be a better place.

Instead, Mohler and his ilk (Fallwell, Robertson, Hagee, et al) continue to spread their false doctrive of fear and loathing, perverting Christianity for their own personal self interest and financial gain.

Like Jimmy Carter, I grow weary of these conservative religious leaders hijacking Christianity and proclaiming that one can't be liberal and a Christian. I still can't find that reference in any Bible I own.

Jesus made a point of being with those "proper" society shunned. Mohler and his gang should do the same.

First, Jesus never talked about homosexuality, Paul did. Second, I thought Jesus taught acceptance not judgement. Third, where is Mr. Mohler when it comes to condeming other sins. I understood that we were all sinners by our actions that cause pain to each other and the enviornment in which we live. Sin is not like our criminal system where some sins are greater or lessor. All sins are judged equal. Where is Mr. Mohlers denomination on condeming obesity, or corporate greed? Talk about hypocrisy! Before picking the speck out of your brother's eye, take the log from your own.

First, Jesus never talked about homosexuality, Paul did. Second, I thought Jesus taught acceptance not judgement. Third, where is Mr. Mohler when it comes to condeming other sins. I understood that we were all sinners by our actions that cause pain to each other and the enviornment in which we live. Sin is not like our criminal system where some sins are greater or lessor. All sins are judged equal. Where is Mr. Mohlers denomination on condeming obesity, or corporate greed? Talk about hypocrisy! Before picking the speck out of your brother's eye, take the log from your own.

I'm tired of people saying Jesus preached against homosexuality. Where did anyone ever get that from the 4 Gospels? (Or any of the apocryphal gospels.)

The Old Testament is not about Christianity - it's about Judaism before Christianity. Everything after the 4 Gospels is just commentary. So I can't justify using either to prove Jesus hated homosexuality. In fact, just the opposite.

What consistently amazes me in these discussions is the total ignorance regarding the origins of the words in the Bible that so many people quote. NEWSFLASH: the Bible was not written in English. And if those of you who continue to use your English texts of the Bible to condemn homosexuality would do any research, you would find that the origins of the passages you believe to be the Word of God are very flawed.

Even if the pope/Jesus were gay, that doesn't mean they approve of gay sex. Sexual immorality is defined by your actions and intentions.

I cannot take this anymore! I am 54, an ex-Catholic and I hold three Master's degrees, two from a Catholic college and one from a former Presbyterian college. Enough is enough. This is absurd.

Faith must be dynamic and change constantly to reflect the new realitites in which Believers find themselves if it is to be real and meaningful to people. A Christian can no more live in today's world based on a system of first century cosmology and theology than a doctor in 2007 can operate on a patient using the understanding of ancient Greek physicians. Christianity has changed radically since the time of Christ, whether conservative or liberal theologians want to believe that or not. It is the simple truth.

It's amusing how conservative Christians like to pick and chose which verses in the Bible to get upset about. Of all the versus in the Bible that deal with homosexuality there are but a few. However, the Bible goes on much about greed, injustice, etc. considerably. Why not spend the time worry about those things that actually harm society instead of private maters of human sexuality?

In what I wrote, I was implying that humans are somewhat presumptive in believing that their "individual" or "personal 'truth' " has any value in relation to the Trinitarian God's truth.

Yes, to the question, "How might we come to know what the Testator's first and second 'will' is/was?" they would have to be pointed towards his Word and not imperfect institutions.

So it is the source of Holiness that defines and establishes expectations that do not change over time. You know, like everlasting to everlasting.

Even the flawed theory of Theism postulates an unchanging diety. So the Trinitarian God probably smiled as the Enlightenment unfolded; modernism, postmodernism.... Who would man be to expect the Trinitarian God to chase man's whims, standards and mores?

In fact, how do we know the Pope isn't gay?

In fact, I am pretty sure he is.

And, no, I am not Catholic bashing, because I love gay people and do not hate gay people, so as hard as it might be for some people to get, I do not think it is a bad thing for anyone to be gay.

But, the Pope? come on; he is kind of a hypocrite on homosexuality, isn't he?

I condemn him because he is disengenuous and hypocrtical, not because, he is most probably, gay.

How do you know that Jesus wasn't gay? He never said anything against homosexuality.

To lower myself to your level Mr. R. Albert Mohler, to use your own exclusive style of language...

The ELCA Lutherans get it, you don't.

They understand and follow the teachings of Jesus, you ignore his message.

They are loving and compassionate, you are angry and spiteful.

They are saved, you are lost.

They are flexile and caring, you are rigid and hateful.

They are understanding and receptive, you are ignorant and close minded.

It is so sad!

The Baptists are uptight and wound tight. They are sexually repressed; lots of them are gay, trying to be straight; lots of them are gay, just closetted. It is really a freak show. Then wait until they discover the gay gene. I bet you will see alot of back peddling on the issue of abortion, as they seek to extermiate gay people from existence, that is, correct God's mistakes. Alot of it is bigotry and predjucice. Alot of it is just plain ignorance, and unworldliness, that they just don't know much about life. And some of it really delusional, paranoid mania. I don't think we can argue them out of this stuff.

This piece is SO typical. Fundamentalist Christians (and Jews) are responsible for electing the Antichrist, twice, starting and maintaining a couple of depraved wars with people who did us no harm, hanging out in mega-churches breeding arrogance and contempt, BRAZENLY ignoring the teachings of Christ, and the list goes on and on. You people are truly sick. You seem to revel in hate and evil in the name of the Old Testament. I look forward to the day when you find out the true message of Christ, and the rest of us can have our planet back.

Then there are those of us who believe fervently that the Southern Baptist Church and all of Pentecostalism are cults.

I don't recall Christ mentioning homosexuality. But I do remember some of his best rants were against hypocrites and hypocrisy. The twenty-first century church's greatest fear is the spread of the doctrine of the Golden Rule, therefore making churches as obsolete as print newspapers.

You see, sir, most real leaders, those with ability to see ahead, realize the ultra conservative movement is fast fading. Nearly about over. The beginning fraying soon to be a deluge.
An interim period, keeping the edges together,is a good thing. Why stomp on it?
How great it will be to be rid of know- it-all zealots. Drowned in their own ugliness.

Such children. Your brains would explode if you were to witness the total of human behaviour. There are humans, that is all.

I believe a person's sexual orientation is genetic and not a choice, so for any denomination to try to ban homosexuals, to me, is nothing more than simple discrimination. It's the very basic question of whether a person's sexuality is genetically written or simply a matter of personal choice, and as time goes by more and more people are lining up on the side of genetics, and that is why conservatives are losing.

Ogden, Utah,
You're made a (very natural) mistake regarding your understanding of the term 'liberal'.

It is a theological term Dr. Mohler uses that has a completely different meaning than the social/political term. As a matter of fact, many theological conservatives support socially liberal programs (such as healthcare, education, environment, etc.).

Anyone who regards the Bible as non-inspired in places, or just plain false, consisting of myths when the narrative is clearly meant to be describing events that have historically taken place is theologically liberal by definition.

Ditto anyone who thinks that majority opinion or their own subjective feelings trumps biblical teaching on doctrine or morals, no matter how high they claim their regard for scripture is.

It's just a matter of a definition, and has nothing to do with pejorative labeling.

Just google 'liberal theology'.

You are all children. Your brains would explode if you witnessed the total of human behaviour. There are humans, that is all.

Norrie Hoyt

I guess you have me a little confused.

Do you love gay people, or hate gay people? (That is what we're talking about, isn't it?)

I cannot tell from your round-aboutness.

You sound like Kim Jong-Il trying to tell South Koreans that they've lost the war so they might just as well submit to his "superior" way of running the lives of Koreans...when in reality, he controls a fraction of Koreans by scaring them all and keeping those living north of the 38th Parallel in a state of poverty and ignorance. And really, control by power and fear like you assume to do isn't far from that reality.

I'm perplexed why you people are always trying to stoke fear of gays and lesbians, and why you insist on condemning their desire to lead fulfilling spiritual lives the way that God made them...when you base your untenable position on passages of Scripture that you and others like to interpret only to your own liking....and particularly when you DON'T offer equal condemnation of other biblical prohibitions far more common among your "flocks". But then again, you'd have them howling at you if you started damning your congregation members for shaving, eating shrimp, getting tattoos, working on Saturdays, wearing polyester, getting bunnies for their kids on Easter, eating hamburgers, or growing vegetable gardens to put food on the table, right? ALL of those things are wrong according to Leviticus, but since you do all those things anyhow, THAT makes it ok to to ignore THOSE things but not your "particular" interpretation about people loving each other.

You're pretty twisted in the eyes of God, you know...why don't you take care of the sins of your own flock (and Lord knows with your divorce rates and all the other problems that seem to crop up lately with "Baptists straying from the Way"), and stop sticking your noses into the business of other denominations and people who are not and should not be your concerns? Remember the admonition that those without sin should cast the first stones? You people have forgotten the teachings of Christ so much that you throw stones at yourselves every time one is flung from your grasp...and don't forget that the MEEK shall inherit the Earth. You people certainly are not...and it certainly is not from being "warriors for Christ".

Dr. Mohler appears to have misconstrued or misrepresented the issue of which he speaks. I am not a theologian but have grown up in the Lutheran church and remain a member because of my studied understanding of its teaching.

The issue of acceptance of homosexuals is consistent with, not cotrary to, the teaching of the Bible and of Jesus Christ. This is not a matter of condoning homosexuality or any other activity proscribed by Scripture. In the worst case scenario, leaving aside the question of genetic predisposition, the ELCA has neither condoned nor opened the door to teaching homosexuality as acceptable behavior. We have all sinned and we all continue to sin in many ways. From my reading of Scripture, God does not consider any sin to be greater than another. (This is not to be confused with Christ's teaching that the first Commandment is the greatest for reasons beyond the scope of this response.)

Consistent with that precept, ordination and discipline of pastors should no more depend on whether the sin is homosesuality than whether it is adultery, bearing false witness, covetous behavior, or any other sin. Certainly, the Church must consider the effcts an ordained pastor's behavior may have on the congregation or the community of God's children at large in the assignment of pastors, but exclusion because of one's particular sin would require the exclusion of all who sin.

Acceptance is far different than condonation or permitting advocacy of behavior contra to doctrine. Acceptance is what God offers all of us who sin. Are we not called to do the same?

I'm a member of the Presbyterian Church USA, and one of the aspects that I found most attractive is that the church generally does not run itself in a top-down way. Instead, most of the power is invested in the local congregation.

I think it is unseemly for the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary to criticize other Christian denominations, frankly. We should all be brothers and sisters in Christ. The energy misplaced in condemnation and pointing out 'heresies' perceived in others, could be better spent to shine our collective light in a world of suffering and darkness.

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is not a follower of The Christ. His life spent embracing hatred, racism and greed is the opposite of what Jesus taught. That he calls himself a "christian" means nothing other than demonstrating the depth of his ignorance, arrogance and stupidity. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is in for one big shock when he finds himself in the "other place" when he moves on from this life. Have fun in Hades, we'll keep a seat nice and warm for you.

We have too many Americans without health insurance and many die from lack thereof to put up with the non-sense of these neo-con Christian dummies like Mohler

Norrie Hoyt

Yes, but...

(there's always a yes but...)

Your argument doesn't make sense, because the people that burned them at the stake were Christians too, and God was on their side too.

That is, they could say just the same thing, couldn't they?

Maybe those heretics should have died. Maybe you're a heretic too. Maybe you should die.

(I am just being rhetorical, but I don't get your point).

Basically you're fighting the religious wars of centuries ago, and choosing a side. Why? What does that accomplish? What has that got to do with quesion at hand, regarding the Lutheran Church? (And don't tell me they're apostates, 'cuz I might say, oh yeah, well you're fat!)

We have too many Americans without health insurance and many die from lack thereof to put up with the non-sense of these neo-con Christian dummies like Mohler

"Kathleen F:

Thank you. Not just for this particular expose, but for the often unpopular positions you take so publicly. The liberal media (CNN's "God's Warriors" comes to mind as the most recent onslaught), as well as the uninformed and/or lukewarm Church (what are they thinking?), play into the hands that seek to dismantle truth brick-by-brick."

Tell me kathleen, since you seem to have watched the "liberal media" program on Gods christian warriors, what did you think about the "Gods Jewish warriors" and "Gods Muslim warriors" segments? Were they only biased when it came to the christian warriors? Were you sympathetic to Gods Muslim warriors too? Did everyone else seem crazy except "your people"? Do you see the problem here?

I have yet to see one rational, ethical or logical argument against homosexuality

Interesting that the free-speech rights of tax-exempt, gay-bashing religions are directly subsidized by the taxes of the gays being irrationally bashed

Seems like if Homosexuality is such an abomination in God's eyes, then spreading the gay-bashing word through the use of gay taxes is equally an abomination in God's eyes as well

I have yet to see ANY arguments about how homosexuality, or same sex marriage, takes money from unwilling pockets, puts heterosexual marriages at risk, steals food from the mouths of babes or a roof to cover their heads

Not one argument

Thankfully, with each new generation that takes it's place, homophobia dies a bit more, speeding towards it's rightful place on History's Rubbish Heap

We have too many Americans without health insurance and many die from lack thereof to put up with the non-sense of these neo-con Christian dummies like Mohler.

" NOTHING IN THE WORLD IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN SINCERE IGNORANCE AND CONSCIENTIOUS STUPIDITY."

MARTIN LUTHER KING SUBCONSCIOUSLY DESCRIBING RELIGION

We have too many Americans without health insurance and many die from lack thereof to put up with the non-sense of these neo-con Christian dummies like Mohler.

We have too many Americans without health insurance and many die from lack thereof to put up with the non-sense of these neo-con Christian dummies like Mohler.

WHERE IS MY COMMENT?

Do alll comments get reviewed, or do you have a list of thtose you selectively review?

All of these churches are temporal institutions, created by human beings who load them down with their own biased interpretations of the Bible. The Bible contradicts itself all over the place, and so do these rigid orthodox preachers. They pick and choose which "laws" to follow and which ones to throw away; they condemn gay people, but don't follow the dietary or clothing restrictions a few pages over. Many of them use religion to excuse and even make a virtue out of hatred, even though Jesus never preached it (and Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, by the way; he knew there were more important things in life).

Tara and SteveG wonder why
conservative Christians cling to Gay-Bashing while willing to grudgingly give up slavery, sleeping with eldest daughters, stoning disobedient children, and having carnal relations with mentruating human beings.

Methinks the Gay-Bashers may protest too much. We have long known that those who were least comfortable with the full range of their sexuality were the most likely to commit violence against their gay brothers and sisters.

We have too many Americans without health insurance and many die from lack thereof to put up with the non-sense of these neo-con Christian dummies like Mohler.

We have too many Americans without health insurance and many die from lack thereof to put up with the non-sense of these neo-con Christian dummies like Mohler.

We have too many Americans without health insurance and many die from lack thereof to put up with the non-sense of these neo-con Christian dummies like Mohler.

We have too many Americans without health insurance and many die from lack thereof to put with the non-sense of these neo-con Christian dummies like Mohler.

Fellow Christians,
I see no evidence that Jesus Christ worried who adults fell in love with. That being the case, as a Presbyterian elder, it's not my business either.

Donald McCaig
Williamsville, Va.

I'm waiting for God to deliver his holy word to me so that I may direct you all in how he feels about homosexuality......

Here it comes.....

Oh rats, that was my dog. Oh, maybe God is speaking through my dog. Hold on. That's it. I'm getting something.

It's coming. More something...

What is it God? More love? More adherence to dogma? To scripture?

Here it comes.....

More milk bones. Okay, I got it. God wants us to give our dogs more milk bones.

I wonder whether God communicates to George Bush through Barney?

No one should be surprised at anything that the Rev. Mr. Mohler says regarding the major issues of today. He speaks from a bully pulpit which espouses the worst kind of fundamentalist Christianity, devoid of any semblance of critical thinking or intellectual honesty. He is welcome to his views, but he is not welcome, nor are the members of his denomination or other religious groups welcome to impose their views and opinions on others, particularly those in local, state, or national government. In addition, what progressive, reasonable and thoughtful Christians are now doing to set aright the terrible mistakes of the past regarding homosexuality, and sexual behavior in general foisted upon civilizations by religions, IS welcome and applauded. Mr. Mohler is clearly on a sinking ship of obscurantist religion and without a life preserver. And so it goes.

Daniel,

You wrote:

"But who was burning them as hertiics? Other Christians. Both sides burned each other, and drowned each other, and beheaded each other, and strangled each other, and made brutal animalistic war on each other. So what's your point?"

My point was in reponse to Silence Dogood, who asked why we would want to trifle with the trinitarian God, since that might get us burned up.

My point and answer, as written above, is that it is necessary for humans to declare the truth as they see it, as Latimer and Ridley did, regardless of consequences. Doing so is the ultimate vindication of the individual and his conscience. Truth is for all beings and for all eternity. It cannot be erased, even by God.

To return to the original essay: Rev. Mohler's central contention that thologically orthodox, politically conservative denominations are gaining members while more socially liberal and inclusive churches are losing them is actually becoming LESS valid with time, at least in America.

Look at the membership numbers for 2006 reported by U.S. churches and you'll find that most
"mainstream" Protestant churches experienced only statistically insignificant losses (a couple actually gained members, in fact). The trend becomes even clearer when one looks at the figures for members who were active in their churches.

But even if the good reverend were factually correct, he draws precisely the wrong conclusion from the data. As another poster astutely noted (sorry, I don't remember who, but kudos to him/her!), most of the people leaving liberal denominations aren't migrating to competitors who share his dogmas (aka: "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it"). Rather, they're going to independent, open-minded churches in search of a more meaningful faith.

Furthermore, those churches are ALSO attracting thoughtful worshippers from the very same churches Rev. Mohler seems to regard as the only valid ones. In fact, belief in biblical inerrancy is declining, not growing.

Apologies for the long post, but I didn't want to let the reverend's factual misrepresentations go unremarked.

Ref: A failure of courage

The churches in the Presbyterian Church that are standing up against the narrow and abusive treatment of homosexualities are aligning themsleves with Jesus against orthodox dogma that is selective and unjust One only has to see in Luke 13:1-17 that Jesus was willing to do the same.

I applaud the courage of Jesus in that story and the PCUSA churches who are alighing themselve wih such courage.

So here's the real question - is either side (conservative or liberal) following Jesus' two "greatest" commandments? To refresh everyones memory, they are 1) to love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your strength, and 2) to love your neighbor as yourself. Any time we get away from EITHER, we're sinning. Period. From the mouth of God. So where does that out anyone on either side of this debate? Do you love your neighbor as yourself when you tune her away from your house of worship because she's a lesbian? Do you love GOd with all your heart if you don't extend forgiveness and reconcilitation to him even thouhg he's Baptist? or Catholic?

I have a hard time believing Jesus would condemn homosexuality as much as he would condemn ostracizing a sinner.

Being homosexual is not a moral failing, it is a biological issue with behavioral effects. Being a bigot is a moral failing.

People of faith are far better served by pastors that are moral homosexuals than by any bigoted heterosexuals.

Faith addresses issues of morality, not biology.

More proof that "Christianity" has institutionalized itself as a social and economic power base for people whose lives are so sorry that only the Tooth Fairy can give them meaning -- and that the very sane, valuable, tolerant teachings of Jesus Christ have been thrown out in the process. Such a shame.

Here we go again! Earlier in the week it was Charles Colson; now, this guy. Bishop John Shelby Spong had it so right, "Either you are homophobic or you are a follower of the teachings of Jesus. It can't be both. It's one or the other."

R. Albert Mohlner Jr. opens his mini-article here with strong words, that churches that allow their standards to be openly violated institutionalize hypocrisy.

He doesn't like this "hypocrisy", as he sees it.

He splits the world between "liberals" (synonymous to him with "lack courage" and "tragic failures") and conservatives like himself "who are determined to keep standards they believe to be mandated by the Bible."

Well, let's take a look at exactly what standards the Bible demands when it comes to homosexuality:

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Must be put to death!

So come out and say it, Mr. Mohlner, are you advocating the death penalty in our democratic society for homosexuality, or have you had a failure of courage in your convictions? The bible does not mince words, it is specific and unequivocal.

I much more admire the courage of others who really accept the teachings of Jesus to love their neighbors, including God's children who happen to be homosexuals.

Like Lot's wife, some man-centered religions will always hearken back to Sodom, loving not just the sinner but the sin, too, and constructing manifold rationales to justify their choices.

The keyword of man-based religion is reason, not faith, and the goal of man-based religion is to replace God with the maxim of Erasmus, "Man is the measure of all things."

Whether it's Reform Judaism or Barack Obama's United Church of Christ, it has become de riguer to accept homosexuality, to deny that homosexual acts are sinful, and to politically support the goal of gay marriage. This is a great leap from God-centered religions that tolerate and love the sinner, and but do not fail to condemn the sin of homosexuality.

I'm as fascinated by your use of the word "liberal" as I was of chuck colson yesterday -- why is it every time someone recommends changing how sexual mores are decided they are accused of being "liberal." One could easily argue that the current battle against homosexuality by so many is the more active stance, the one requiring people to change, while recognizing homozexuality as natural and normal is the more passive, inactive, stance, and thus more "conservative."

Neither word has any meaning, of course, and both are used more as a way of stereotyping someone with whom we disagree. Try re-writing this without the use of the word "liberal" and see how far you get, OK

I'm as fascinated by your use of the word "liberal" as I was of chuck colson yesterday -- why is it every time someone recommends changing how sexual mores are decided they are accused of being "liberal." One could easily argue that the current battle against homosexuality by so many is the more active stance, the one requiring people to change, while recognizing homozexuality as natural and normal is the more passive, inactive, stance, and thus more "conservative."

Neither word has any meaning, of course, and both are used more as a way of stereotyping someone with whom we disagree. Try re-writing this without the use of the word "liberal" and see how far you get, OK

Jack

You are exactly right, you have perceived something that is only common sense that the thick-headed Mr. Tripp cannot comprehend, that there is no human authority to tell us what the Bible means and what God wants us to do. All we have is our own speculation, and the acknowledgment that others may speculate as well.

I am a Christian, but I am not crazy; I am, at least, in touch with the reality of physical existence. It makes people like Tripp angry for me to comment on the speculative nature of all this, because it undercuts his mental conformity to doctrine, and his fundamentalist certainty, and I think it is sometimes confusing to such Christians as he, who have conformed their minds to unbending dogma and doctrines, to realize that there are some Christians, such as myself, who see things quite differently than their mental conformity is trained to expect.

There's a reason our founding fathers believed in separation fo church and state- it doesn't just protect the state, it protects the church. When human political desires try to use religious backing to sway their positions, the result is the destructon of the church as politics and division overrides the faith. It happens on both sides of the aisle, and all are guilty of it. How many liberals are embarassed to call themselves "christians" without clarifying "but not one of those nutty types," and how many conservatives see Christianity as a political message, contrary to the biblical writings about the hypocrites who wear their faith on their sleeves? When abortion overrules the commandment to care for the earth because of the political debate, your church is acting contrary to the bible as well...

The OT prohibitions were tossed out in the NT which is why eating pork or shellfish or wearing blended cloth is ok.

Many of the prohibitions in Acts are ignored by liberal and conservatives alike, although liberals generally ditched them before conservatives did.

To give several examples women don't have to cover their heads in most contemporary worship services, although Paul explicitly states this, and are permitted to speak in Church even though Paul also says women must be silent.

Then the question would be why is it ok to ignore some very explicit things completely, such as the prohibition on women speaking during worship, but to rigidly enforce others and even expand their meaning?

Whenever I hear sermons on the radio by evangelical pastors, they almost never quote the words of Jesus. It's always Paul. You never hear the about the Sermon on the Mount or the story of the Good Samaritan and how you should love your neighbor as yourself. It's always, "Get saved" and then, "Go get other people saved." Jesus didn't say anything about gay people. It's hard enough in this life just to be kind and be civil to each other. Why not focus on that for a few decades and then decide if you still want to go after gays and lesbians.

Mr. Mohler:

For starters, you're the head of the Southern Baptists, not the ELCA Lutherans. Why don't you comment on the persistent racism in your own denomination? Your members have by and large resisted any sort of social progress for people of color. Couldn't even handle equal rights in the voting booth. Now your members are saying let's break up immigrant families and ship 'em all back to Mexico. The Southern Baptist Convention is home to the most goofy backward bumpkins on the continent. Remove the speck out of your own denomination's eye before you start meddling in Lutheran affairs. Hypocrite!

Well said free thinker

Whenever I hear sermons on the radio by evangelical pastors, they almost never quote the words of Jesus. It's always Paul. You never hear the about the Sermon on the Mount or the story of the Good Samaritan and how you should love your neighbor as yourself. It's always, "Get saved" and then, "Go get other people saved." Jesus didn't say anything about gay people. It's hard enough in this life just to be kind and be civil to each other. Why not focus on that for a few decades and then decide if you still want to go after gays and lesbians.

Whenever I hear sermons on the radio by evangelical pastors, they almost never quote the words of Jesus. It's always Paul. You never hear the about the Sermon on the Mount or the story of the Good Samaritan and how you should love your neighbor as yourself. It's always, "Get saved" and then, "Go get other people saved." Jesus didn't say anything about gay people. It's hard enough in this life just to be kind and be civil to each other. Why not focus on that for a few decades and then decide if you still want to go after gays and lesbians.

"The liberals are pushing for the full normalization of homosexuality. This runs right into conflict with biblical prohibitions and clashes with the standards of these churches"

Too bad the good book didn't prohibit slavery instead of homosexuality eh? Just think how much human suffering would have been avoided over thousands of years, and here we are wasting time fretting over peoples private sexual habits.

Now why do think God would give a flying F about sexual orientation, yet allow slavery to destroy lives for thousands of years?

The reason is that the bible was not written by god, but ancient jewish tribes who condoned slavery. Who the hell cares what they think?

Some good comments above about the political tone of Rev. Mohler's posting and the identification of Christianity with the Conservative political program; a program now collapsing under the weight of its own incompetence, corruption and ideological rigidity.

It is always nice to see people sticking to the Old Testament when talking about sexuality. Isn't it also interesting that the Old Testament talks about how fathers can sleep with the oldest daughter should the mother die, and that women should go away during their periods. Why are the issues regarding sexuality the one thing these churches cling to?

Norrie Hoyt

But who was burning them as hertiics? Other Christians. Both sides burned each other, and drowned each other, and beheaded each other, and strangled each other, and made brutal animalistic war on each other. So what's your point?

Mr. Mohler represents an Evangelical worldview which thankfully continues to diminish a little more each day. Thank God that our incomprehensible creator gave us the reasoned sense to recognize bigotry and falsehood for what it truly is. Soon enough folks like Mr. Mohler will be completely irrelevant.

Way up above, Tripp said:

"I would like to point out that those who disagree with Dr. Mohler on this point (like Wade above), instead of actually arguing, attempt to simply ridicule those they disagree with.

Typical rhetoric and ad hominem attack. Because Biblical exegesis and logic do not back up the pro-homosexual church movement, they instead mock the opposition and attempt to stifle debate. "

This is not true at all. However, the people who take the same position Dr. Mohler does always ignore the reasons for the opposition.

Prove me wrong, Tripp. Answer these two questions:

1. The same books of the Bible that condemn homosexuality, also include God's commandments to, for example, execute disobedient children; allow men to escape punishment for rape by marrying the raped woman; and a long list of other things that would rightly be rejected by any rational person today. So my question to you is: WHY do you argue that one small piece of all that is contained in there applies today and much of the rest does not?

2. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality and in fact reduced all of the Law to: "Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself." How does that square with your stance on homosexuals?

Will you be honest enough to answer these questions, or will you pretend you didn't see them and continue to insist that it's all just namecalling?

tell me again where Jesus condemns gay people in His own words??? I keep missing that part of the canon.

It is always nice to see people sticking to the Old Testament when talking about sexuality. Isn't it also interesting that the Old Testament talks about how fathers can sleep with the oldest daughter should the mother die, and that women should go away during their periods. Why are the issues regarding sexuality the one thing these churches cling to?

Silence Dogood,

You wrote:

"If the pure and perfectly just Trinitarian God and His holiness are a consuming fire; refining fire...

"Why would any of us want to do anything that may get us burned-up?

"Why would we want to trifle with the Trinitarian God?"

ANSWER:

TO PROCLAIM THE TRUTH TO ALL BEINGS AND FOR ALL ETERNITY, REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES.

AS HUGH LATIMER SAID TO HIS FRIEND, THOMAS RIDLEY, AS THEY WERE TIED TO STAKES AND ABOUT TO BE BURNT AS HERETICS, ON OCTOBER 16, 1555:

"BE OF GOOD COMFORT, MASTER RIDLEY, AND PLAY THE MAN! WE SHALL THIS DAY LIGHT SUCH A CANDLE, BY GOD'S GRACE, IN ENGLAND, AS I TRUST SHALL NEVER BE PUT OUT."

AMEN
OM MANI PADME HUM

But "biblical authority" doesn't even make sense - It's not a person nor is it God, it's just a ton of books by different authors that contradict each other.

The answer is to recognize that God's mind and hear is more open than narrow conservative minds like to admit. We in the ELCA welcome all as God's children, and it should be officially part of the doctrine of the Church (it's odd how many of those "biblical prohibitions" conservatives are willing to look past as anacronisms, but continue to hold that one as unflinching as blasphemy of the Holy Spirit...). If conservatives have a problem with that, I'm sure they're welcome in your SBC. Of course, they're welcome to continue to worship with us as long as they like, too.

Hell fire and damnation said:

God and I talk frequently (at least He seems to listen, and I hear a response), and He has decided that I am worth having been saved, this despite my many "sins" under the law.

So exactly how does God talk to you? Is it a dream? Do you get a warm, contented feeling (like I do when I listen to Steely Dan)?

Wouldn't it be more efficient if God would leave the 0 century and start using some technologies like email where we can verify what he said? The alternative is what happened to George Bush. Obviously, God talks to George all the time. But I guess in a couple of those conversions George heard Iraq, invade Iraq and maybe, just maybe God was saying Iran...invade Iran.

Or maybe God was saying "I rack my brains trying to figure out how the hell you ever got elected" and George mistook God to say "You were elected to invade Iraq".

See, if God used email or even voice mail for his sake, we wouldn't be having these problems with "his holy word" being misunderstood. Probably that's what happened during the Inquisition. And the witch burnings. You would think he would learn a thing or two about these human failings.

And maybe he should have written stuff down himself rather than leaving it to humans to parse his holy words and duplicate them with 100% inerrancy that we know he originally did. How else can you explain virtually all of Leviticus, a good portion of Exodus and all of Revelation? And what happens when one of those humans really blows it? I'm still trying to figure out those heavenly seals, the fire and brimstone and I suspect that maybe St. John got into some bad weed.

Reverend Mohler:

The "loss" that you see of the ultra-conservative political influence on church policy, any church policy, has nothing to do with Christ or his teachings. It has everything to do with a political position that you and your like-minded colleagues have boxed themselves into. Quite frankly, the vast majority of Constitution- loving and defending Americans see your relentless assault on the freedoms afforded all citizens as little more than prohibited discrimination, based on stupidity and hatred. I see it as bordering on sedition. You offer up a cut & paste version of the Bible that suits your agenda and openly attempt to do the same to our laws protecting the freedoms of al citizens. Sorry, sir, but if I want to live in such a nation, I need only move to Iran or where the Taliban rule. We have had enough of that, and will ensure that such continued religious influence over public policy in minimized in the 2008 elections.

What's happening, probably irreversibly, among the Progressive (sic) Protestants isn't unexpected, and is just the postmodern continuation of God separating the sheep from the goats, the genuine God-centered religions from the phony man-centered religions. Indeed, this phenomenon can be observed in Judaism as well as in Christianity, as Reform Jews become indistinguishable from Episcopalians, and Orthodox Jews become more and more aligned with the values of a variety Christian fundamentalists.

Among the man-centered religions (i. e., the Episcopalians), there are always conservative remnants who are determined to "come out of Egypt," with or without church properties they've owned since the American Revolution, and these remnants deserve the active support of all God-based religions as they face their litigators and persecutors.

Several posts above there was a discusion of the three types of laws found in the Old Testament. Here is a site I have found that presents perhaps another viewpoint on this subject:

http://www.ipc.faithweb.com/documents/THEONOMY.htm

These people believe that the civil laws in the Old Testament _should_ still apply to today's society. I understand that their views are so far unpopular with many Christians, but does that mean that Biblically speaking their arguements can be dismissed outright?

I am, of course, thankful that the theonomic viewpoint is _not_ more popular, but it is one of the reasons I get nervous when people want to legeslate based on Biblical teachings alone.

Presdent Mohler, Jr.,

The reason why the more "liberal" and "progressive" churches have been experiencing a decline in membership boils down to this. The ultra-conservative, right-wing churches--similar to your seminary--have pandered to the fears and anxieties of people, just like President Bush, and have offered a false security by distorting the gospel and turning the Bible into simplistic rules and behaviors which have more to deal with changing the other person than the church attendee.

If the "liberal' and "progressive" churches would play more to the fears and anxieties of people and offer folks biblical pablum, they too would grow. Fortunately, they have retained high standards and remained true to the gospel, thus jeopardizing their numbers.

Presdent Mohler, Jr.,

The reason why the more "liberal" and "progressive" churches have been experiencing a decline in membership boils down to this. The ultra-conservative, right-wing churches--similar to your seminary--have pandered to the fears and anxieties of people, just like President Bush, and have offered a false security by distorting the gospel and turning the Bible into simplicity rules and behaviors which have more to deal with changing the other person than the church attendee.

If the "liberal' and "progressive" churches would play more to the fears and anxieties of people and offer folks biblical pablum, they too would grow. Fortunately, they have retained high standards and remained true to the gospel, thus jeopardizing their numbers.

Obviously, the conservatives are out of touch with the reality of science and research, and also with the fact that mores are changing in culture, that culture itself is dynamic and constantly changes. What was written in biblical times was obviously from the theistic outlook of the Jews, and Mosaic law, times have changed, and thankfully so, and there is an embracsing faith that is capable of encompassing the changes taking place in contemporary culture. The conservatives are outmoded, and loosing, inch by inch, and I say hallelujah.

I'm no biblical scholar, but it seems pretty clear to me that what Jesus said was largely in parables, and therefore highly subject to interpretation. Furthermore, the four gospels themselves don't absolutely agree with each other. Then there are the contradictions between old and new testaments, both in letter and spirit.

Therefore I find it not at all surprising that one Christian might disagree with another about what God or Jesus said or intended. Therefore I wonder why in the world an honest, intelligent Christian would get all up in arms about some other Christian interpreting God's laws differently than he/she does.

Perhaps honest, intelligent Christians don't.

To Dr. Davy:
It's wonderful that you have overcome your natural tendencies with respect to addiction. Maybe you can explain to me why homosexuality is immoral? Why is it a bad thing like addiction?

Certainly you recognize that God is perfectly happy with slavery. Why is that not morally repugnant to God while homosexuality is?

How about sodomy laws -- they still exist in a number of states including the state where I live -- except they generally aren't enforced. So should our laws emulate the commandments? Do you really think the moral values, as described in stories in the bible, represent the ultimate moral authority? Shall we go back to a country supporting slavery? Shall we arrest people who admit to engaging in anal sex? How about putting people to death for working on the Sabbath? (Oh, that creates a real problem doesn't it... no more Sunday football games, you wouldn't want to have to put John Madden to death would you?)

And what about that pesky coveting my neighbor's wife. Now here's a real interesting commandment. I'm supposed to contol how I think? Hmmmmm. I guess I better get used to this heat wave.

Just remember, this is the same loving God that would send you off to burn in hell for all eternity. Now isn't the whole concept of hell very interesting to come from a loving God? Can you imagine anything your children could do where you would want to burn them alive?

Tripp;

Some would argue that "fulfillment" won't happen until Christ returns. Which he hasn't (except maybe for the Jehovah's Witnesses...)

Once again you make an assertion (the "civil law" is abolished) without offering the slightest bit of evidence to support the assertion. And this still doesn't avoid the question of how you go about separating two clauses of one sentence dealing with what you claim is a moral Law. Even if you were to demonstrate (and you haven't) that the Civil Law no longer applies it would make no difference here.

You might wish to argue that the description (abomination) is moral while the punishment (death) is civil, but again you have to do more than just make the assertion, and given that both occur in a single declarative sentence I don't think, linguistically, such a case can be made. In any case, this contradicts the other rationalization I sometimes see here; that the "putting to death" is done by God; which put the punishment out of the hands of civil authorities. A nice way of avoiding the issue by fobbing it of on God, but in complete contradiction to your moral/civil hairsplitting.

Again I have to ask; what method do you apply to determine which clauses of which sentences still carry the weight of Divine authority and which do not? DO you even have such a method, or are you in fact (as it appears to me) looking for rationalizations to prop up a pre-determined conclusion?

By the way, this has serious implications for a whole host of other questions. Christians like to assert the superiority of their moral system over non-religious moral and ethical standards, which believers like to dismiss as "relativistic" yet as we can plainly see from your assertions here Biblically based morality is also subject to change and to a great deal of interpretive manipulation, most of which cannot be defended by any coherent, rational methodology, and which are the subject of great debate amongst Christians themselves even today.

Regards

A Hermit

This managerial speak in relation to issues of God reminds me of why He sent Jesus to earth in the first place.
It's funny that Jesus's avowed proponents are dedicated to erasing his message from the Bible. "Biblical prohibitions..." Go back and read Luke.

How 'bout "HATE AND BIGOTRY AMOK"?

My blood is not on you. If, as the Roman who responded above (and the Pope, too) you believe that all but the one true church folk are going to hell (or purgatory), then does it matter why else we go?

God and I talk frequently (at least He seems to listen, and I hear a response), and He has decided that I am worth having been saved, this despite my many "sins" under the law.

Do we need morality? yes. Do we need to impose any one version of it (other than as required to live in a civil society)? No. Concentrate on winning the heart of the individuals and the society will follow. Conversion of a whole society is not possible, well, not since the days of Constantine, and probably not then.

If the pure and perfectly just Trinitarian God and His holiness are a consuming fire; refining fire...

Why would any of us want to do anything that may get us burned-up?

Why would we want to trifle with the Trinitarian God?

If the pure and perfectly just Trinitarian God and His holiness are a consuming fire; refining fire...

Why would any of us want to do anything that may get us burned-up?

Why would we want to trifle with the Trinitarian God?

Is this another fundamentalist tirade prior to a tearful 'coming out of the closet' revelation? Let's wait and see.

So Dr Davey

Other than your personal predjudice and bigotry, why is homosexuality bad? And keep in mind, that I am not talking about mere "sex acts" which I am sure you are rapturously envisioning.

I am talking about the whole person of a gay man or woman, which is a combination of many traits and characteristics, which somehow rub you the wrong way.

What about it troubles you so? If is just sex acts, then just stop picturing gay people having sex, and you should get over it fast enough. If it is something else, then please tell us what it is.

To PAPAGORGIO:
Okay, why don't you give me some examples of biblical truth? Where are the specific prophesies that have come true? Certainly the creator of the universe would be able to dictate ideas and concepts that will keep mathematicians and philosophers busy for thousands of years. I just can't seem to find any of these gems. Maybe I'm getting lost trying to fight my way through descriptions of demons and how to effectively burn (sacrifice) a dove so as to please god.

The same questions go to Kathleen F. Where are all these truths you're talking about? The truth about God loving the world so he killed off everyone (guilty and innocent, men, women and children) in a flood? Or the truth about the need for a blood sacrifice in order to please God.

And Kathleen, please point out to me all the good moral stories you find in the bible. See my previous post about Moses, Lott, the flood, Abraham. There are just so many to choose from.

Tripp,

You write:

"Norrie Hoyt:

"I find it pretty amusing that you claim that ad hominem attacks are relevant, then in the NEXT post A Henry gives the definition of ad hominem, which states the exact opposite: conclusion - you are wrong by definition."

Henry gave a definition from one dictionary.

Here's another dictionary's take on it:

"Ad hominem usage note:

"The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary ..."

[The American Heritage Dictionary, 2006]

This usage note describes exactly what I was doing in my original post.

Dr. Davy:

That was the dumbest, yet smartest response I have ever read.

Surely as a "Doctor", you could give yourself the credit for staying away from addiction as opposed to giving the credit to God.

Here's a question. You give God credit for staying from the addictions. Who do you credit when you fall off the wagon? Might as well credit god also, since He is responsible for it, not you.

Dr Davy

Conformity of the mind to doctrine, and unyeilding fundamentalist certainty is also a kind of addiction, isn't it? I don't hate fundamentalists; I want to help them overcome their addiction to fundamentalist thinking, which is, in my opinion, a psychological state of pathology.

Mr Tripp
You claim that the definition "marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made"

makes Norrie's ad hominem remarks "irrelevent."
Read more carefully, Shakespeare.

It says: Attack on character RATHER than answer to contentions made.

It DOES not say attacks on character are always irrelevent. Nor would any sane person make such a contention.

Ad hominems in this case are completely relevent to the contention I made: that you SEEM to me to be a Law-man, not a spirit-Man, and from me that is not a compliment. If I misjudge you, I apologize. But you have been voluminous here, and have given us all plenty of evidence on which to form an opinion.

I don't think I ever said you were arrogant. You are, but so am I, so that can't be a fault, can it?

Psychological tests that I have taken have indicated that I have an addictive personality--that is, I have an innate tendency toward addiction. That is "who I am." But the difference between moral humans and amoral animals is that humans are expected to try to overcome the bad tendencies they are born with and aspire to be good. Therefore I have avoided chain smoking and alcoholism as unprofitable and "bad." (As a Christian, I give God the credit for keeping me from these things.)

If homosexuals are born with an innate tendency toward homosexual behavior, that does not automatically make homosexuality right. The tendency (if it exists) is a physical or psychological issue; acting on that tendency is a moral issue.

These practicing homosexual clergy are arguing that innate=right. The leaders of the denomination are acquiescing to their argument.

Tripp

I think you forgot the question. This is the question:

What do you think of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's vote to urge its bishops to refrain from disciplining clergy who are in "mutual, chaste and faithful committed same-gender relationships?

I think this if fine, and cannot imagine which Bible verse or which parable of Jesus's you would use to argue against this.

Back to the speculative nature of relgion, you are obviously not a very thoughtful or deep person. You have never doubted. You have never suffered through any dark night. You know all that anyone needs to know and all that you can ever know.

My statement is surely obvious to anyone who has had even a speck or an ounce of difficulty in life. Your mental conformity to doctrine may be fine for you; I am glad it is so easy for you. But it is a false certainty that you feel, and that is why so many people do not feel it, because they will not submit themselves to such false belief, and because people have doubt.

Mother Theresa felt it. I agree more with her; not with you.

Tripp

I think you forgot the question. This is the question:

What do you think of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's vote to urge its bishops to refrain from disciplining clergy who are in "mutual, chaste and faithful committed same-gender relationships?

I think this if fine, and cannot imagine which Bible verse or which parable of Jesus's you would use to argue against this.

Back to the speculative nature of relgion, you are obviously not a very thoughtful or deep person. You have never doubted. You have never suffered through any dark night. You know all that anyone needs to know and all that you can ever know.

My statement is surely obvious to anyone who has had even a speck or an ounce of difficulty in life. Your mental conformity to doctrine may be fine for you; I am glad it is so easy for you. But it is a false certainty that you feel, and that is why so many people do not feel it, because they will not submit themselves to such false belief, and because people have doubt.

Mother Theresa felt it. I agree more with her; not with you.

To Gaby: I was wondering: Have you ever met IT? Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

A failure of Courage or a Failure of Reason

It seems to me that your conclusions as well as those that agree with you are based on a belief that the bible is the holy, inerrant word of God and not subject to intepretation. I contend that it would be hard to find a reasonable person today, who would want follow the moral lessons of the bible and as such, are forced to abandon many verses and chapters from the bible.

What you seem to be saying is that you can use the bible to decide who to exclude from "the church" and I believe that by using the bible, you can exclude virtually everyone.

There are admonitions against working on the sabbath, obeisity, worshiping graven images, even coveting (thinking about) a neighbor's wife. Shall we exclude fat people?

And while we're excluding people based on the bible, how do you reconcile the bible's silence on the idea of owning another person (slavery)?

When you use the bible as your sole source of moral guidance, you are forced to throw out entire chapters and sometimes virtually whole books. Who among us would teach their children that God, in his infinite love, would kill everything (the flood) and start again -- especially considering that this means God killed innocent children and animals that, by definition, cannot know sin? What moral lesson can we learn from this story?

Or how about the story of Lott, who was so willing to give up is virgin daughters to be gang raped in place of a couple of men? Where is the good moral lesson to be learned from this story of the bible -- protect male friends at all costs even if it means allowing your daughters to be gang raped?

And of course there's my favorite, Moses. Now here's a good moral story. Forget about the plagues brought down by God against all the people of Egypt. Let's just concentrate on the pass over. Here we have God, supposedly punishing all the first born of Egypt including animals and people, because of the stubborn nature of Pharaoh. Only, wasn't it God who hardened Pharaoh's heart? And what did the poor citizens of Egypt have to do with Pharaoh's behavior? What control they have over Pharaoh's actions?

Maybe God wasn't that particular about punishing just the evil doers -- but that would call into question God's love, omnipotence and justice. Okay, how do you defend God's actions in this case? Is he who kills completely innocent people worthy of worship? Worthy of being followed?

An objective reading of the bible reveals NOT, some truely inspirational view on how to live together. No, it reveals the hideous conditions that people lived in at the time and an awe of pure power. Moral teachings, and that's at the heart of your argument against homosexuals is it not, are sorely lacking from the bible and any attack on homosexuals based on the bible really begs the question: Who would want to use the bible to teach morals? And if you do, what do you do with all of those stories that teach that randomly killing is fine, torture is fine, killing children is fine, killing the innocent is fine, even slavery is fine?

A reasonable person would be far better off taking their moral guidance from any of the Harry Potter novels. In them, one can find goodness, friendship, loyalty, hard work, team work, love and honesty. These are values that would be nice if they were found in the bible. Unfortunately, they are buried under a pile of red herrings that would cause one to be sent to jail, if practiced today. Yes, if practiced today.

Our "culture" and secular laws are far superior to those contradictory laws passed down in the bible. Would anyone want to defend Abraham today, after he tied up his son, preparing to burn him? All three religions view this as a sign of faith. I view this as a sign of insanity.

Whenever you quote the bible in order to justify such "exclusive" behavior -- you should be reminded that a loving God, who so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, did so 4,000 years after (supposedly) he sent the first sinners into the fires of hell. Talk about holding a grudge for a long period of time; 4,000 years is a long time from original sin before Jesus was sent to earth. But that's another story altogether.

Churches Inexorably Become More Interested in Presereving Their Own Power than in Helping Those in Need

I would thus amend Monty slightly, while agreeing with the "spirit" of his comment.

Their insistence on "correct doctrine" is admittedly a means to preserving power.

The "correct doctrine" almost always comforts those in power (straight, male, white, wealthy, etc)

and afflicts the unpowerful (gay, female, non-white, poor, etc)

What would Jesus do?

"i'd frankly prefer to be censored by a live human, like in the good old days. but that's progress for you."

Yeah Seattle, there's nothing like the human touch for that sort of thing. I miss the little f***ers...

Regards

A (Frequently Profane) Hermit

A Hermit,

I'm glad that you have given this much thought, it's important!

However, like I said in the post quoting Jesus about the "dot", more would need to be said. Jesus said not a dot will pass away... until what? It is fulfilled. The purpose of the civil law and the ceremonial law has been fulfilled with the coming, death, and resurrection of Christ. The moral law, however, has not.

You are again wrong about the theology behind the verse. The civil law (meaning its entirety) is completely abolished. However, the moral principles which the civil law is based upon is not abolished. Therefore we can still state the moral claim by that verse that homosexuality is wrong, but the civil implications of it we no longer follow.

The argument isn't weak, and it's more than present in my posts. Do you really think you have seen something that 2000 years of people simply missed, if it is so obvious?
---

Norrie Hoyt:

I find it pretty amusing that you claim that ad hominem attacks are relevant, then in the NEXT post A Henry gives the definition of ad hominem, which states the exact opposite: conclusion - you are wrong by definition

A Henry:

Saying to someone that they are wrong is not arrogance, and not correcting someone's mistakes is not a character flaw.

Besides that, I find it interesting that you can know my spirit simply from my conclusion. I would think you would have to get to know me first, before judging me like that. But in either case, think what you will, ad hominems are, like you quote in the definition, irrelevant to the contentions made. This is exactly why you cannot conclude anything about me personally from only listening to my contentions...

Dr. Davy:

The argument you just put forth made absolutely no sense whatsofreekingever.

Henry,

Thanks for your post, but I must make an ad hominem argument against part of it.

As far as I know, no one is older than I am.

I believe you've said that we are both alumni of The Fairest College. As you know, I recently attended my fiftieth reunion. I can't believe you've already had yours.

Or were speaking as your former/present incarnation as Henry James, the Harvard grad?

Best wishes.

The bible, not written by god, only by men is just a book. There is nothing divine about it. It recounts some history and morals of the times the authors lived in, and gave (in)appropriate advice and how to deal with certain issues.

Jesus was a man, a good, if not brilliant Jewish philosopher who wanted to root out many of the ills of his time. The son of God he was not. All good philosophers have a following of sorts.

God is not a he or a she, it's an IT. IT has no concept of male or female genders or sexuality and could care less how physical love is shown by consenting adults. IT is love and light, not hate and darkness as depicted in much of the man-made bible.

To Conservative Catholic and the rest of the world: Jesus said to Peter, "Simon thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it". First off we are all called to be rocks, living stones, of the heavenly Jerusalem, not just Peter, Second, Jesus said MY CHURCH, He did not say it is your church Pete, Third, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it, that is the whole mission of Jesus's Church, people are the church, not the buildings, not the religion but the people. Jesus said, Love the Lord, thy God with thy whole heart, thy whole mind and with all your strength and Love thy neighbor as thyself, all the Law and the Prophets are fulfilled in this". God is PURE LOVE, I have met Him and He is a Trinity. God's Plan is for ALL OF HUMANITY, I am a Catholic and I cherish my Catholic Faith and like I said on another posting, sometimes I am amazed that the Catholic Faith has survived within the Catholic Religion. True Religion is taking care of widows and orphans and the Catholic Church does do a lot in that direction usually very quietly, but some people get so caught up in doctrine and dogma that they lose sight of God. Sometimes a sacrament, such as confirmation, might take a few decades to kick in so to speak but God works in His Way and in His Time. One of the things I like to say to Catholics is look up the word in the dictionary, there is a reason for its meaning, which is universal not arrogant. God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable. Gospel means "Good News" and like the angels said at Jesus's birth, "This is Good News for ALL PEOPLE and Peace to whom God's favor rests", two seperate statements, both true. God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof. Jesus told us everything we needed to know, be ready, knowing His Name is not what makes someone ready. Take care. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

The truth is that all denominations, liberal, conservative, or otherwise, have been losing ground through membership decline for years. Independent churches are the only ones growing and they are basically sweeping up those leaving the denominations. As American society changes to a land of many cultures, were more families exist out of traditional marriage than in, and about 40 percent of households are single mothers, the church seems more interested in correct theology than meeting the needs of people. Which, of course, is what brought Jesus to earth in the first place.

Daniel,

Again, such self defeat! You are very apt at saying things that you take to be true for everyone (even ME), such as "all we have is speculation".

You cannot get around it. You cannot engage in an argument or point out my "false" security without also claiming truth! Sorry, doesn't work like that...

Faith doesn't mean you stop thinking. Augustine once said "faith is holding on to that which your reason has already accepted". The Bible states that faith is "holding on to that which you hope for, being CERTAIN of things not seen." But just because you hope for something, or you do not see it, doesn't mean that there aren't good reasons think that it is there. Faith and reason aren't separate like that.

It depends on what you mean by "pick on gays". I do not believe that homosexuals are any more unworthy of heaven than I am, and thus I don't "pick on them" as such. However, that doesn't mean that I do not think homosexuality is wrong. I do. I also think murder is wrong, am I not allowed to say so?

I don't need to provide Bible quotes, because it is apparent to everyone here what the Bible says about the morality of homosexuality

My Dear Mr Tripp

You continually demonstrate that you will pass up no opportunity to correct others and bolster your opinion of your own intellect.

Regarding "Ad Hominems":
Websters defines: "marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made"

I was certainly attacking your character. Subtly, I admit. But I was unmistakably putting you in the class of those with infinitely more acquaintance with the letter of the law than the spirit.

Norrie puts Mr Mohler in a bible-thumping class.

Not any difference in our two activities.

If Norrie were as old as I am, he would be subtler. And less effective.

Tripp,

You wrote to Henry:

"Finally, I don't think you actually know what an ad hominem comment really is. An ad hominem attack is not saying someone is wrong, or self defeating, or whatever else you may be referring to.

"An ad hominem attack is (for example) when the Christians on this site get called bigots. Name calling is ad hominem for it is not an argument, it is not relevant, there is no syllogism that you could construct in order to make the conclusion you want to demonstrate."

and

"Henry,
See, Norrie's post is a REAL ad hominem attack! See the difference?"

Tripp,

You make it sound as if all ad hominem attacks are improper, irrelevant, and immaterial in relation to an issue.

But the issue I was raising was that of the character, personality, motives, and inner nature of the "good" [lol] Reverend himself. Any comment I made on that issue was necessarily ad hominem. No other kind of argument is possible here.

Would you object, as its being an ad hominem argument, to a statement that Hitler was a cruel, sadistic and destructive individual?

For me, the only issue is Mr. Mohler himself. I stated my position on him in my post.

Regards.

P.S. "If this be ad hominem, make the most of it!"

Tripp,

You wrote to Henry:

"Finally, I don't think you actually know what an ad hominem comment really is. An ad hominem attack is not saying someone is wrong, or self defeating, or whatever else you may be referring to.

"An ad hominem attack is (for example) when the Christians on this site get called bigots. Name calling is ad hominem for it is not an argument, it is not relevant, there is no syllogism that you could construct in order to make the conclusion you want to demonstrate."

and

"Henry,
See, Norrie's post is a REAL ad hominem attack! See the difference?"

Tripp,

You make it sound as if all ad hominem attacks are improper, irrelevant, and immaterial in relation to an issue.

But the issue I was raising was that of the character, personality, motives, and inner nature of the "good" [lol] Reverend himself. Any comment I made on that issue was necessarily ad hominem. No other kind of argument is possible here.

Would you object, as its being an ad hominem argument, to a statement that Hitler was a cruel, sadistic and destructive individual?

For me, the only issue is Mr. Mohler himself. I stated my position on him in my post.

Regards.

P.S. "If this be ad hominem, make the most of it!"

"Orthodox Christianity (by that I mean traditional Christianity) divides Old Testament Law into three portions: civil, ceremonial, and moral."

Very good, Tripp, and we could have a long, intricate debate about how exactly one determines which laws fit into which categories and why, (and Christians should keep your point in mind for future discussions about morality when the inevitable claims of about the "unchanging" nature of God's laws are made) but I think that's actually irrelevant here.

Here we are talking about one law, expressed in one sentence. It declares homosexuality an "abomination" and prescribes a remedy; death. So it's not enough to say "only this or that law applies today"; you have to explain why only one half of the relevant sentence is still applicable and not the consequent half of the same sentence. Seems to me at this point the splitting of hairs becomes so fine as to render the rigid insistence on Biblical authority on this point quite untenable. Why, if the declaration that the act is still an "abomination" continues to apply, does God's judgement, clearly expressed IN THE SAME SENTENCE no longer hold?

I am, of course, more than happy to see that Christians are willing to accept a change in the punishment aspect, (and I hope I never convince anyone that both clauses of that sentence should be adhered to), but what you have not done is explain WHY this change should take place. Has God changed his mind? Where does he say so? Is homosexuality less offensive to God today that it was then? Isn't it possible, then, that it isn't offensive to Him at all anymore?

You say I'm making a weak argument here, but in fact you haven't even offered an argument, just an assertion. "Part of the Law changed." Well, good, but why? Where does the scripture explicitly say only the first half, but not the second half, of this sentence still applies? Who decided? When? Do all Christians agree on which parts of which laws still apply and which don't? If not, why not? How do you objectively determine which halves of which sentences to apply today? Do you have a method, or are you, in the end, just picking and choosing the bits that suit you?

And what did Jesus mean when he said in Matthew 5:18-19; "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."

Half a sentence is more than a "jot or tittle", is it not?

The argument's not as weak or the counter-argument as obvious as you seem to think, Tripp. And note please that you're not dealing with someone who's just cutting and pasting off the web, here, I've actually spent a very long time thinking about these kinds of things, so do your homework...

Regards

A Hermit

Tripp: "See, Norrie's post is a REAL ad hominem attack! See the difference?"

i agree with my new best pal, Tripp. it's far better to generalize about total strangers, especially their sex lives, and then advocate laws that would descriminate, perhaps even imprison them.

'attacking' someone directly, as Norrie Hoyt does, is so, well RETAIL. much better to spread your bile and venom across an entire catagory of people than to object to the actual words and views of public figures who can perfectly well defend themselves against mere rhetoric.

you christian lot, feel free to keep on praying for us poor sinners, just stop preying ON us, okay?

Garak challenged someone to show where Jesus condemned gays.

Jesus is God, i.e., part of the triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit wrote the Bible by means of the people He inspired. Therefore, Jesus wrote the Bible. Therefore Jesus wrote Lev 20:13 and 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10, all of which pass moral judgment on homosexuality.

Tripp

I think it is very odd, a person such as you would not acknowledge the speculative nature of relgious belief.

Do you know what speculation means? Doesn't it mean "suppose?" "what if?" In matters of relgion, God, Heavan, the nature of the soul, what the Bible means, what God wants us to do, that is all we have. I know that there are some people who assume that they "know" things that no one can know, but that just makes the whole thing even more puzzling to me.

You might think that you have certain knowledge, but it is only certain to you. And so, you are forever, and eternally cut-off and separated from all the rest of us who do not have your false sense of certainty.

So, actually, a person such as you would be better to conduct you analysis in a Bible study class not here. So, really, I would ask you, why do you post your certainties here? This is supposed to be about faith, not certainty. If you are certain, then you do not have faith.

You asked me why I post my speculations here. That strikes me as a very odd question. I just do. So, what of it?

Once again, the question is, is it ok to pick on gays or not.

I say no.

Ok. It is your turn to weigh in with Bible quotes.(I'm sure I've heard them all before, but be my guest to present them to me once, again, while I get myself an asperin).

Henry,

See, Norrie's post is a REAL ad hominem attack! See the difference?

Once again the "Reverend" Mr. Mohler has proven himself to be a blowhard bible-thumper, mostly interested in influence and power, and totally devoid of Christian charity, which is also absent from his denomination.

Sorry lepidopteryx, I just realized that there's a typo in my post that may be confusing you: my statement should have been "the difference between the moral and civil law is one we all agree with"

The difference between the ceremonial laws and all others are actually found directly in Scripture

We = you, me, anyone. I don't think anyone here would want gluttony legislated (maybe I'm being hopeful)... Take another example: telling lies that harm no one, but are lies nonetheless. Most of us agree that lying is bad, but we wouldn't want this legislated. I'm just suggesting that we all use such a distinction our own conceptual framework, so suggesting that the Bible uses it also shouldn't be far fetched

Henry,

I honestly do not know how to respond to your post, only because the questions do not seem to have any relevance and there is an absence of an argument. Usually posts like that I ignore, but since you mentioned me by name, I'll respond:

Yes I am telling you you do not need the Mosaic law anymore, at least the civil and ceremonial laws. If you don't believe me then that's fine, and if you don't believe in Jesus then you probably won't believe me. However, for those who argue that CHRISTIANS are inconsistent, my argument is relevant. If you don't believe in Jesus, then you are outside the scope of that argument.

One would think that "America's foremost literary critic" and someone that "gets paid for his opinions" could follow a simple line of argument, perhaps I'm an idealist.

Also, just because I find it relevant to study the law does not mean that I extinguish its Spirit, in fact I would suggest that if you don't know what the law says, or what its purpose was, then you don't know its Spirit at all.

Finally, I don't think you actually know what an ad hominem comment really is. An ad hominem attack is not saying someone is wrong, or self defeating, or whatever else you may be referring to.

An ad hominem attack is (for example) when the Christians on this site get called bigots. Name calling is ad hominem for it is not an argument, it is not relevant, there is no syllogism that you could construct in order to make the conclusion you want to demonstrate.

A Hermit: "Did your comments include web links? I've had comments held up; I've found if there's more than one or two links they just won't post the comment."

hey A Hermit. no, false alarm (see previous post on avoiding censorbot). i called 'microsoft' by the rubric 'micros**t' and the stored procedure caught it. same way it gets too many links.

i'd frankly prefer to be censored by a live human, like in the good old days. but that's progress for you.

tripp:

**The division between the moral and the ceremonial law is a conceptual one which we all agree with.**

Who is "we"?

Show me where Jesus condemned gays.

This is the same outfit that justified slavery and Jim Crow on Biblical grounds.

Show me where Jesus condemned gays.

"the kind of give-and-take that A Hermit is engaged in is denied some of us, without explanation. our posts are held for 'approval' by the blog owner."

Did your comments include web links? I've had comments held up; I've found if there's more than one or two links they just won't post the comment.

Regards

A Hermit

Tripp:
**Orthodox Christianity (by that I mean traditional Christianity) divides Old Testament Law into three portions: civil, ceremonial, and moral.

The ceremonial law was fulfilled in the person of Christ. Therefore is is no longer obeyed (dietary laws, etc). The civil law was for the nation of Israel only, and was given only in regards to them. To ask Christians today to obey them would be similar to asking them to obey Germany's speeding laws.

The moral law, however, is still in effect today. What is right does not change depending on the time period, or the people. Homosexuality is condemned as "detestable", and that does not change. However, the civil punishment for that sin can change, and has.**

Since there are no labels in Leviticus (or anywhere else in the OT), labeling the various laws To Be Abandoned at the Coming of the Messiah, or For Jews Only - All Others Please Skip to Next Book, or To Be Obeyed by Everyone for All Time, how exactly were these determinations made? How do we know for SURE that the prohibtion on women cutting their hair, for example, was not meant to be for all time? Some denominations think that it was, and forbid their women to cut their hair, as well as forbidding them to wear pants, makeup, or jewelry.

Seattledodger has got a point: there are alot of gay men in conservative Protestant churchs.

That is the point.

Gay people are everywhere, among us.

The existence of gay people is just part of the panorama of life, of differences among people. Not to know this is a sign of ignorance. How can these conservative "christianist" people possibly be so sheltered and so out of touch with humanity, and be so lacking in human understanding, and basic good feeling and kindness to their fellow man?

I know gay people are tagged with "life style" and "their choice" but it is really not so simple as that. It is just the way some people "are." And who of us knows, why any of the things that exist, are the way that they are? Not I. Not Albert Mohler. Not Tripp. Not nobody.

Anonymous:

Yes there are several good reasons for this: The division of ceremonial laws is taught explicitly in Scripture (for instance, take Acts 10 where they were abolished). The purpose of the Old Testament sacrificial system was to point us to a Savior, one that would take our place. Hence the sacrifices and the laws. Once Christ came we no longer needed a picture of what God was doing, we had the real thing.

The division between the moral and the ceremonial law is a conceptual one which we all agree with. However, different sets of laws were given in the Old Testament at different times, some were recording Israeli laws and some were recording what God said about certain actions as moral prescriptions. It's like the difference between reading a theologian talk about why stealing is wrong versus reading a congressional law making it illegal. They both point to the same moral principle: don't steal, but the latter is only in effect insofar as you are under the jurisdiction of the US Government.

If you knew ancient Hebrew (which I'm not suggesting you learn) and read the Old Testament laws it is apparent some are written as a legal document governing a nation, and some are written as historical narratives.

To demonstrate that we all believe such a distinction exists, take gluttony for example. Most of us agree that it is wrong to eat too much, but we would not want it legislated as such. Why? Gluttony is a moral problem, not necessarily a political one. We make these distinctions all the time, and so does the Bible. (Another example is when Jesus forgave the adulterous woman. He did not think she should be put to death, for the civil law was no more. But He did say "Go and sin no more", thus indicating that the moral principle of adultery was legitimate, but the Old Testament civil law concerning it had lapsed.

Daniel:

If it is just speculation, why post it? If it is just your own personal opinion, and you have no objective reason to think it is true, then why bother to tell us to stop talking about it?

Mr Tripp

I am for the moment a Jewish person who still observes the Mosaic Law, including the dietary laws.

You tell me I don't need to anymore?

What if I don't believe You? Or in Jesus?
I am wrong and you are right?

You seem to me to be a perfect candidate to spend days debating the letter of certain laws in a manner that extinguishes any Spirit in those same laws.

That is an ad hominem comment. God didn't tell me that it was true. It is just my opinion. Though I am America's foremost literary critic, and I get paid for my opinions.

I am also, as you moderns put it, Gay.

Love
Henry

Anonymous,

"it just happens that the country was founded on the principles that were put forth by my God, the God of the Bible"

And therein lies YOUR problem...that's not at all true.

question for the preacher:

hey, you still got that mummy in the library at southern? that was pretty cool, and when i saw it as a kid, i think it probably got me interested in archeology and the past.

so, you see, some good can come, even from a madrassa like southern baptist baptist theological.

oh yeah, i made out with my girlfriend once in your pool during the seventies when our youth pastor took us on a visit. sorry about that, but at least it was with a girl, right?

come to think of it, that youth director was kind of a sissy boy . . .

you don't think he could have been GAY, do you?

that's what cracks me up about this debate. southern churches are FULL of gays (closeted for the most part) in their choirs and elsewhere. no other culture has so integrated gays without even knowing it! hilarious.

"We conservative Christians are American citizens too. If we don't like the direction that the country is going, not only do we have the right, but the obligation to try to change it. So, despise if you like, that is what we were told to expect by Christ Himself. But don't say that we don't imply that we don't have the right change the country according to our conscience. This is my country just as much as it is yours, it just happens that the country was founded on the principles that were put forth by my God, the God of the Bible. And the reason that you even have the right to express your opinion is because of that."

Really? And here I thought it was because the Enlightened founders recognized the danger of mixing church and state and, in the very secular Constitution, recognized the rights of the individual.

I think you need to go back to 16th and 17th century America to find the kind of society that your style of Christian would find appealing and the rest of us would find appalling. And the comparison to a Christian Taliban is not far off the mark.

To Tripp

Ok, then I will modify my statement. It is my speculation that matters of religion are speculative.

Ok.

Satisfied?

I think the nuance is a little pointless, though.

The question at hand is, is it ok to pick on gays or not?

I say, no.

Tripp:
**Orthodox Christianity (by that I mean traditional Christianity) divides Old Testament Law into three portions: civil, ceremonial, and moral.**

Since there are no labels in Leviticus denoting certain laws as "to be abandoned after the coming of the Messiah," "for Jews only," and "for everyone, for all time," how exactly were these differentiations arrived at, and how do you know they are accurate?

anon: "it just happens that the country was founded on the principles that were put forth by my God, the God of the Bible."

really? i missed the chapter in the bible on representative democracy. must have been next to the one on seperation of powers.

it's odd for those who enjoy so many perks, like tax-exempt status, to claim such persecution, but we've all grown used to the belly-aching of the religious.

i never said you couldn't vote your conscience. i just said that you are not going be able to force your bigoted views on the rest of us.

get used to it; it's the future.

Daniel:

"I said that commentary on religious matters is speculative in nature. That is nothing new, nor my brillian insight; it's just common sense, isn't it?"

No, actually it's not. And my post made perfect sense. You are telling us the nature of religious matters: we cannot objectively know them.

However, if we cannot objectively know them, then we also could not know that we couldn't know them.

Your statement is self defeating.

Homosexual behavior is prohibited in many places in the bible. This is CLEAR and not a matter that can be ridiculed by serious biblical scholars. What may or may not be true is that homosexuals are stricken with same-sex attraction that may make their cross more difficult to bear.

The answer is for Christians to stand firmly for biblical truth while standing in solidarity with homosexuals who want to try to live according to biblical teachings.

Hi Steve,

1) Well, your post is in response to an article about homosexuality. In the post you argued against Christian conservatives, and you spoke about Jesus (apparently) overruling the Old Testament. Since the conservatives you argue against (presumably) agree with Dr Mohler, and the liberals dont, it is a perfectly legitimate assumption. It is not a reach or a ploy to infer from this that you think the same is true about homosexuality. The context in which you spoke implied it.

2) No, your mention of politics in talking about "conservatives" and bringing up their "wealth" did it. True, you didn't say government is the Savior explicitly, but in the context of the post your argument implied it. The different between conservatives and liberals politically is, specifically regarding wealth, one of discussion of taxes and social programs. Conservatives do not think that it is the government's place perform those tasks, liberals do.

You took that political stance and said "They (conservatives) pander to wealth". I was just pointing out that seeing the political stance as pandering to wealth is to confuse your Christian personal duty with that of state, and what ends up being done is the state gets set up like a savior, by which we are to accomplish all of Jesus' commandments.

In fact, numerous studies have been done to demonstrate that conservatives give MORE to the poor per capita than do liberals. In fact a recent comparison between a small city in Idaho versus San Francisco demonstrates this: the small city in Idaho, despite the average salary being way, way less, gave more per capita to charity than the citizens of SF.

My point is that your Christian duty to give to charity is different than a political duty, and you confuse the two.

Seattledodger,

You said: "you truly have become the american taliban, and your efforts to impose sharia law on the rest of us will not succeed."

We conservative Christians are American citizens too. If we don't like the direction that the country is going, not only do we have the right, but the obligation to try to change it. So, despise if you like, that is what we were told to expect by Christ Himself. But don't say that we don't imply that we don't have the right change the country according to our conscience. This is my country just as much as it is yours, it just happens that the country was founded on the principles that were put forth by my God, the God of the Bible. And the reason that you even have the right to express your opinion is because of that.

To Tripp again,

I suspect that you didn't like my post because you do not have faith; you have certain knowlege.

How quick some are to slap the label of bigot, homophobe, hate-monger.

Do these same people claim it is intolerant for life gaurds to take away the right of drowning people to breathe in water?

What reason would I have to warn people with whom I do not know nor will probably ever meet? The same reason I would stop a child from running into traffic, I see the impending harm that awaits if the same trajectory is taken.

The church's job is share the Gospel of Jesus and teach the truth of the Bible in its entirety. To deny the whole truth, is to disrespect the holiness of God.

Bless you Dr Mohler, continue to stand in truth with love.

To Tripp

So, what's your point? Your post didn't make a bit of sense.

I said that commentary on religious matters is speculative in nature. That is nothing new, nor my brillian insight; it's just common sense, isn't it?

Why do people believe the bible is the word of god? God didn't write it, men did. Jesus didn't write it. Men did, most of it many, many years after he died.

Therefore, since the bible is the word of men, not god, it was a long-dead homophobe who wanted to kill homosexuals. God had nothing to do with it.

"We aren't filled with hate, we are doing what we do out of love. Love for the God who died for our sins so that we could have a relationship with him if we would just put our trust in Him for salvation and turn from our sins. We are told to avoid the sin of idolatry, that means the making of a false god. Be careful that you are not raising up some idea, or even worse, your self in place of the one true God. Just something to think about."

I have thought about it ... a lot. Putting your "relationship" with some hypothetical god ahead of your relationship with your neighbor, your loved one, your friend because he/she does not measure up to your biblical standard has generated an amazing amount of hate and violence in this world.

I don't see a lot of love there; I see dogmatism, intolerance, conformity. Those are the idols of too many Christians.

Daniel,

Your post is self-refuting. You state "All commentary on religous [sic] belief is speculative".

Is that statement just speculative, or is it true? You are giving us "knowledge" about religious belief (namely, that we cannot have knowledge about it).

You then proceed to give us religious truths that you take to be absolute:

"To be a good Christian, I think, requires you to "tune-out" all of the confusing voices of political and church institutions, such as the Southern Baptist Church promotes.

A Christian is not superior to an atheist; a straight person is not superior to a gay person. To say that you "love the sinner, but hate the sin" is disingenuous, at best; it definitely is not anything resembling real Christian love. "

Try this, before you speak next time: take whatever you are going to say, and apply its "truth" back on the statement itself. If your statement is undermined by its own truth, it is best to keep that statement to yourself.

Certainly there are issues of interpretation here, and I appreciate the responses to my earlier post. I'm sure we can both cite learned support for our positions, but "dueling theologians" probably will not be productive.

I have two questions, though:

1. Where did I mention homosexuality? One thing the Christian Right has learned all too well from secular conservatives is to introduce an issue that wasn't there to begin with to make it easier to derail the conversation away from issues where they are weak. Kind of like the old trick of accusing someone of being a communist if you can't refute their logic. Let it be noted that it was you who played the gay card, not me.

2. Likewise, where did I say or imply anything about government as "Savior of mankind"? As I noted in the original post, it sounds like you're letting your secular politics get in the way of your faith, or are assuming I have that same affliction. I didn't mention it. I don't believe it. Given the efforts to force their religious beliefs on the populace via legislation, I suggest that conservatives hold that position more so than liberals do.

note on how to avoid the censorbot:

i've tried to get my last post through several times, and thought it was being manually held.

then it occured to me to think like a censor, but think like a really, really lazy one. so, instead of calling microsoft by the euphamisitic,'micros**t' as i did in my original post, i changed it to the correct spelling.

yes, hard as it is to believe, they have string-search software that PICKS NAUGHTY WORDS out of the middle of other words!!!

talk about your obsessive-compulsive blog sites. they can't even be bothered to do their own censorship, but sub-contract it out to a dumber-than-dirt stored procedure in the database.

wow.

note on how to avoid the censorbot:

i've tried to get my last post through several times, and thought it was being manually held.

then it occured to me to think like a censor, but think like a really, really lazy one. so, instead of calling microsoft by the euphamisitic,'micros**t' as i did in my original post, i changed it to the correct spelling.

yes, hard as it is to believe, they have string-search software that PICKS NAUGHTY WORDS out of the middle of other words!!!

talk about your obsessive-compulsive blog sites. they can't even be bothered to do their own censorship, but sub-contract it out to a dumber-than-dirt stored procedure in the database.

wow.

Mental conformity to doctrine is not belief and fundamentallist certainty is not faith.

All commentary on religous belief is speculative. The fact is, there is no human authority that can tell us what the Bible means, or what God wants us to do.

To be a good Christian, I think, requires you to "tune-out" all of the confusing voices of political and church institutions, such as the Southern Baptist Church promotes.

A Christian is not superior to an atheist; a straight person is not superior to a gay person. To say that you "love the sinner, but hate the sin" is disingenuous, at best; it definitely is not anything resembling real Christian love.

Weighting each verse of the Bible for fine nuancee of meaning, this way and that, is futile, pointless, and tiresome.

Anyway, those are my two cents worth.

"Engage the argument with clarity, consistency, and conviction." Einstein's advice would serve many of you well in this debate. Stick to the main issue or original question here. Mohler does just that. Disagree or agree, but don't confuse your opinion with fact.

my late father, a wwII combat veteran, was a graduate of the Southern Baptist Seminary. I actually watched the moon landings in '69 from a dorm there while Dad got his master's.

bit of an irony, that.

he literally wept before his death at how a fine institution of real scholarship could sink so low, so fast - taken over by politicians and those who foster hate and bigotry. by becoming a sub-contractor for the republican party, baptists have sold their birthright, and will pay the inevitable consequence.

preacher, your bible tells you also that divorce is a sin. the institution of marriage is under far more assault from hetro-sexual christians than it is from gays. but your new megachurches are full of the divorced, isn't that true? where is your condemnation of them?

it's painful for me to read your attack on my fellow citizens and i would just point out that you have already lost this battle. the next generation have already accepted what you reject.

the thought of what you would do to my gay friends if you had your way is frightening. would you imprison those with whom you disagree? is it a coincidence that the parts of our nation that are the most friendly to gays (SF, NY, Seattle) are by far the most productive and economically vibrant parts of our country? as long as you don't want to fly in boeing airplanes, or use microsoft software, or buy from amazon, or purchase over-priced coffee from starbucks, i suppose you don't really need all us lefties and gays and foreigners, eh?

you truly have become the american taliban, and your efforts to impose sharia law on the rest of us will not succeed. you, with your conservative friends have tried to divide our nation and you have largely achieved that. now that our president has decided to re-fight the vietnam war, he will discover what so many southern whites (who've spent their lives refighting the Civil War) have discovered: they will still lose it.

further, they will discover that they are not anywhere near a majority of americans. appeals to bigotry against gays, blacks, hispanics, muslims, etc. will not work because america is now a brown, not a white nation.

just watch us atheist, anarchist, gay, black, liberal, secular humanists clean your electoral clock next year. can't wait.

A lot of you are talking about how hate-filled and bigoted conservative Christians are. Someone that is true to the faith doesn't just categorically dismiss anyone. However, that seems to be what most of you are doing to Dr. Mohler and other conservatives just because we believe that there is a real God who came into history in the form of a man, Jesus Christ, and that His people are expected to uphold a certain level of conduct. We aren't filled with hate, we are doing what we do out of love. Love for the God who died for our sins so that we could have a relationship with him if we would just put our trust in Him for salvation and turn from our sins. We are told to avoid the sin of idolatry, that means the making of a false god. Be careful that you are not raising up some idea, or even worse, your self in place of the one true God. Just something to think about.

All of this gibberish reminds me why I fled first the Catholic Church of my childhood and adolescence, then the judgmental Christian churches, and embraced the love and assurance of Unitarian Universalism.

Jimbo: "Another day and another bigoted conservative, evangelical Christian featured here."

i think we're all beginning to get the picture. go look at the archives and you'll see that evangelicals have already had SEVENTY postings featured in 2007 while the entire secular community gets about fifteen or so, and a couple of those were really environmental rants.

however, to be fair, they did say this was a board for the faithful only, so we really aren't welcome anyway.

the editors make that clear by censoring what they find politically or religiously unpalatable.

it really has become a shameful farce.

The previous posts that suggest death for homosexuality as evidence that Dr. Mohler is wrong do so while not really knowing their theology regarding the law.

Orthodox Christianity (by that I mean traditional Christianity) divides Old Testament Law into three portions: civil, ceremonial, and moral.

The ceremonial law was fulfilled in the person of Christ. Therefore is is no longer obeyed (dietary laws, etc). The civil law was for the nation of Israel only, and was given only in regards to them. To ask Christians today to obey them would be similar to asking them to obey Germany's speeding laws.

The moral law, however, is still in effect today. What is right does not change depending on the time period, or the people. Homosexuality is condemned as "detestable", and that does not change. However, the civil punishment for that sin can change, and has.

Do some research before putting up such weak arguments....

Jay,

Well-said. Our society really is moving steadily, though not linearally, in the direction of greater legal and social tolerance of those individual behaviors and personal characteristics that do not victimize others. This has involved throwing off any number of Biblically-mandated standards and practices, many of them mentioned in this and similar threads. The progressive nature of moral/ethical normative standards is going to continue to ratchet up the contentiousness between those who hold to concepts such as scriptural inerrancy, and those who recognize the inherent dynamism in social mores.

As for increasing tolerance for homosexuality, one causal factor for such is the accumulation of straight people who actually know gay people. As more gays openly reveal their status, more straight people recognize that they are just like them, aside from sexual preference. It is harder to demonize someone you know and feel a commonality with, than a faceless mass of strangers.

Another day and another bigoted conservative, evangelical Christian featured here.

Conservative Christians pick and choose which parts of the bible they follow. They pick the parts that support their own innate prejudices and then ignore the parts that don't. The Bible says a great many things, many of which pretty much everyone takes with a grain of salt these days. Don't wear clothing with two different fabrics, but it is okay to keep slaves? Just a couple of examples in a sea of millions.

Another day and another bigoted conservative, evangelical Christian featured here.

Conservative Christians pick and choose which parts of the bible they follow. They pick the parts that support their own innate prejudices and then ignore the parts that don't. The Bible says a great many things, many of which pretty much everyone takes with a grain of salt these days. Don't wear clothing with two different fabrics, but it is okay to keep slaves? Just a couple of examples in a sea of dozens.

The ELCA is doomed. So, who cares?

The Southern Baptists, Did they ever follow Jesus?
Or were they invented to keep white males in power?

Jesus hung out with the poor, the ill, the elderly.
Southern Baptist leadership? With politicians and
the moneyed.

Its quite clear that the Southern Baptists are to the Christian faith what the Nazi's were to Catholics.

by the Conservative Catholic, In the beginning, the Catholic church had NO pope.

in case anyone doubts that these blogs are heavily censored, let me point out that some of us have been put on a list whereby our posts are not put up in the same manner as most posters.

the kind of give-and-take that A Hermit is engaged in is denied some of us, without explanation. our posts are held for 'approval' by the blog owner.

i assume this post, like the three preceeding it, will never see the light of day, but if so, then everyone should be aware that you are seeing only what the editors allow you to see.

btw, i used no profanity nor did i engage in ad hominum attacks.

censorship is not terribly attractive in any forum, but in one dealing with religion it smacks of the type of thought control that the faithful are rightly famous for.

sad.

That's "worry", not "waoory"...

Must rember to cheque my spieling...

"dont give them any ideas!"

Yeah, I do waoory about that a little, Cap'n, but I think it's important to flush them out into the open; they like to hide behind the tired old "hate the sin love the sinner" pablum, but I like to put the inherent hatred and violence of their beliefs right out there on the table and watch them squirm and twist to try and get away from it.

Of course some of them already have the idea, and I think its good to know who they are...

Regards

A Hermit

Hermit,

Good one there! Keep it up. And let's hope Cap'n 'Merica is not right about giving the religious right ideas. Of course if they do start stoning homosexuals, we can always stone them for cooking dinner on the Sabbath..... not that I would, but the idea is somehow appealing.

Steve,
Sadly enough, you are right, many Christians, especially pastors, pander to the wealthy in their congregations. This is sad because, Jesus said "blessed are the poor," and this same statement was repeated in the epistle of James along with teaching against judging people based on the basis of wealth. However, I would ask you to please not judge all conservatives based on these hypocrites. Also, the Christian life isn't just about service, it is about living for the glory of God. If a persons doctrine is not correct, then their faith will not be correct, and thus they will not live in a way that glorifies God. No doubt, you are running under the false notion that God is love, and love alone. This is just not true. His most important attribute is Holiness, which means, among other things that He is totally morally pure. And we, as Christians are supposed to reflect this in our lives. We are told "to be holy, even as I [God]] am holy" and that we are to live a life of turning from our sin. Pastors are supposed to be held to an even higher standard of accountability. So, a pastor who is living a life of sin, needs to be stripped of his office, for his own good and the good of the congregation. And make no mistake, homosexuality is a sin. You are right that it is said in the Old Testament that if a man lies with another man (i.e. to have sex with him) that it is an abomination before God, and the OT punishment was death. Well, fast forward to the New Testament, it says the same thing, only the punishment is worse. Instead of just inflicting physical death on a person the punishment is eternal death. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 it says: "Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers – none of these will have a share in the Kingdom of God." If a person does have a share in the kingdom of God there is only one other option, and Jesus is the one who lays it out. In Matthew 25:31-46 it says that one day He will return and judge between the righteous and the unrighteous. The righteous will inherit the kingdom, while the unrighteous will go away to eternal punishment. This last group we can assume are not true believers. So to follow the logic, if a person is an unrepentant homosexual, he is not living up to the standard of how a Christian should live their life and thus, probably, not a Christian. I would say that there might be new Christians who have not learned what the Bible has to say on this matter, and thus might not know any better. This works into the argument as well. An unbeliever should not be a pastor, and a new believer should not be a pastor, so there is no excuse for someone who is a practicing homosexual and also a pastor. These are not artificial limitations placed on the position by me or any other man, they are made quite clear in God's Word: the Bible. If a person throws that out, than they have no business being a pastor either because the primary job of the pastor is to preach and proclaim the Word of God.
Just to make clear on something, a person who has turned from this sin could be qualified to be a pastor. Also I want to make clear on something else. A Christian should not be a gay basher, and if I have spoken in such a way that I might be construed as such, I apologize. We, as Christians , are called to love everyone. However, we are not called to love their sin, in fact we are called to loath it, just as God loathes it.

"A Hermit:

Dr. Mohler says "the church lacks both the courage to change the standards and the conviction to enforce them."

Let's see how he stands up. Here is the standard he is advocating:

Leviticus 20:13; "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Did you read the whole sentence, Albert? "they shall surely be put to death" it says. That's the "enforcement" part you wanted. Are you seriously advocating the death penalty for homosexuals? Because the only logical conclusion here, isn't it? Or do you agree that the standard has changed?

Regards

A Hermit
"

Come on Hermit...

dont give them any ideas!

Dr. Mohler says "the church lacks both the courage to change the standards and the conviction to enforce them."

Let's see how he stands up. Here is the standard he is advocating:

Leviticus 20:13; "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Did you read the whole sentence, Albert? "they shall surely be put to death" it says. That's the "enforcement" part you wanted. Are you seriously advocating the death penalty for homosexuals? Because the only logical conclusion here, isn't it? Or do you agree that the standard has changed?

Regards

A Hermit

Kathleen F wrote:
"[If there is no higher moral authority] Why isn't it OK to be a rip-snorthing drunk/alcoholic (my own condition from which I have been set free 30+ years)?

My responce (and I would image many other people's as well) is: Did you quit rip-snorting drunken/alcoholism only because god told you to; or ,rather, did you quit because you realized the detrimental effects it was having on your life? This is not to say that you didnt "turn to God" afterwards as a guiding force to help you break that addiction (an action I also don't believe to be necessary, but nonetheless is probable in your case). The chain of events here is very important because it is the difference between claiming that you cannot determine for yourself what does harm (physical and mental)and therefore need a god to essentially babysit you; OR, utalizing a religious practice for beneficial means in order to improve upon your own personal weaknesses. I think anyone can figure out the radically different outcomes associated with these two modes of thought. The possiblity now arises that the evangelical mindset is essentially based on a complete reversal of the actual chain of events, which causes misconceptions about ones own moral aptitude.

p.s. i'm not addressing your pedophilia comment because it is simply an arguement made by person with the intelligence of a child (hope you've never had sex b/c your partner would be a pedophile!)

Conservative Catholic:

While I appreciate your candor, I think you are horribly wrong on your interpretation on that verse. According to you "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." clearly means that Peter was the Vicar of Christ and every person who succeeded him will have papal infallibility and those who do not believe this are condemned to hell. Needless to say, this oversteps the verse itself. To demonstrate, we should look at what the early Church fathers (who, if you are right, should have been aware of such a noble line of popes... especially since they are all called "Roman Catholics today") said about this verse, which can be found here:

http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html

Conclusion below:
------------------
From the primary documentation of the writings of the fathers and the comments of Church historians we can summarize the patristic understanding of Peter and the rock from Matthew 16. Generally speaking, the fathers viewed the rock and foundation of the Church as the person of Christ, or Peter’s confession of faith which pointed to Christ. Sometimes they speak of Peter as the rock or foundation in the sense that he is the example of true faith—that he exemplified faith. But they do not teach that he is representative of a papal office or that the Church was built upon him in a legalistic sense. They also viewed Peter figuratively as representative of the unity of the entire Church. What Christ spoke to Peter he spoke to the Church as a whole and what was given to Peter was given to all the apostles and through them to the entire Church. The keys are a declarative authority to teach truth, preach the gospel and exercise discipline in the Church.

Though the fathers spoke in very exalted terms about the apostle Peter, their comments were not applied in an exclusive sense to the bishop of Rome, nor did they view the Roman bishops as given universal jurisdiction over the Church. Although they saw the bishops of Rome as successors of Peter, they did not see them as the exclusive successors of Peter, nor as the universal rulers of the Church, nor the see of Rome as the only apostolic see. Roman Catholics assume that when a Church father speaks of Peter he is also talking about the bishops of Rome but this is not the case. That is to read a preconceived theology into their writings. The fathers teach that all bishops are successors of Peter. In their interpretation of Matthew 16, Luke 22 and John 21 we do not find any affirmation of the teaching of Vatican I on papal jurisdiction and infallibility.

This reveals two important points from both a theological and historical perspective. Theologically, there is no evidence of patristic consensus to support the Vatican I papal interpretation of Matthew 16:18–19 equating the rock with the person of Peter, assigning to him and the Roman bishops the place of preeminence of rule in the Church through the authority of the keys. The Roman Catholic Church’s appeal to the ‘universal consent of the fathers’ to support its exegesis of Matthew 16 is fallacious. Such a consensus does not exist. The interpretation of Matthew 16:18 by the major fathers of the patristic age from both the East and West demonstrates that the overwhelming majority view of the Church historically is not that of the Roman Catholic Church today. The fact is, apart from the popes themselves—beginning in the late fourth century—and with those who have an interest in promoting the papacy, the Roman interpretation of Matthew 16:18–19 has historically been universally rejected by the Church in both East and West. And what is true in the exegetical history is true also in historical practice. It is clear from the history of the Church, in the attitudes and actions of the general Councils and with individual fathers in their dealings with the bishops of Rome, that in the patristic age, the Church never operated on the basis of a universal Roman primacy or in the belief in papal infallibility.

Mr. Mohler,
Your entry makes a good case that "liberal" denominations (by current US Christian standards)are engaged in a losing battle; as they are trying to reconcile mainstream cultural norms, they are undermining the foundation of their belief system. Their drive to reconcile with today's culture is an attempt to remain relevant as more and more of today's citizens, facing intellectually irreconcilable Christian theology and what science and reason have amply verified in past few centuries, choose the latter and forgo the religious denominations in spirit, if not physical attendance.
Your title "A Failure of Courage" is appropriate, then, but not complete. Their failure isn't as you see it -- to stand by their theological roots regardless of what overwhelming evidence and reality dictate -- but a failure of intellectual courage to recognize that their theological foundation is patently false.
I commend your views on remaining true to principles, acting in accordance with them, etc etc ... but decry your personal selection of blatantly false principles & doctrine. I hope you and others like you will one day see through the religious smoke & mirrors and finally have a clear view of existence.

Let's cut to the chase here. American society is evolving towards greater tolerance and the granting of full equality for gay citizens. Many gays (and those who have gay relatives and friends) have left the more traditional churches that continue to view homosexuality as evil and have joined churches that are accepting of them, assuming they bother with a church at all. This is the trend, and if you look at the high levels of tolerance for gays among the youngest Americans, it is likely to continue this way.

Traditional churches can continue to drag the anchor on this issue, but it is really irrelevant. We are moving inexorably towards a society in which sexual orientation will not be an issue, in the same way that skin color and gender will not be limiting factors in being fully equal Americans.

Steve:

Finally an argument! I'm glad you actually supported your conclusion with one, although I think the argument is a bad one. Let's examine the three claims you gave (although I should note that none of them have to do with homosexuality directly).

1) Jesus was not trying to ignore the Old testament here, but to clarify it. That is why in Matthew He said:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

Now, there are still some things that may need to be said about what Jesus meant here, it is clear by this verse that Jesus didn't just say "ignore the Old Testament, why I have to say is completely new"

2) You say Jesus specifically addressed the differences in some cases where He is ignored, nowhere does Jesus challenge Old Testament teachings on homosexuality (which was punishable by death in his time). One would have thought that , if Jesus did think homosexuality was okay, He would have spoken out about this. Combine this fact with other New Testament verses explicitly condemning homosexuality, and your argument falls apart.

3) Limiting access to communion tables is explicitly taught in Scripture. Your references to Judas are irrelevant. Jesus is teaching us that we should serve everyone (foot washing is an example). No one denies this. Serving non-Christians is one thing, allowing them to take communion, and thus proclaim that they are saved without knowing Christ, is different.

4) You last points, I take it, is to just condemn conservatives. However, Jesus also indicated that "the laborer deserves his wages." Should Christians be consumed by wealth? No. Should Christians give away what they have (and do not need) freely? Yes. However it is a leap of logic to say that because someone should be charitable, we should forcibly remove your wealth and give it away. That is not charity.

The real difference here is that you view the government as the Savior of mankind. Since people won't freely give away money, we'll make them. I challenge you to point to one verse that supports such a view of the government.

why not instead focus on humanity?
do you really think a homosexual person enjoys the stigma and akward social position that thier situation places them in?
do you think they want to be ostracised?
do you think that "liberalism" is enough to make someone want that?
please start looking beyond the words.
every one of us is a reflection of ourselves. its just the conditions that have changed. when will the desperate-to-be-faithful start looking to the macro not the micro?
who are we to punish? who throws the first stone?
we are all human beings who suffer and experience pain. it is time to start relieving pain and suffering instead of inflicting more wounds behind the guise of principle, morals, or dogma.
it is time to stop blaming our bitterness about a difficult and confusing existence on the acts of god.
instead, look at the pain and confusion of another's life as your own. you would choose comfort to judgement.

You said, "Churches and denominations that invite or allow their standards to be openly violated institutionalize hypocrisy."

Speaking of hypocrisy -
Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Is there an s after church? Jesus created but one church. All others are the product of heresy.

Matthew 16:19
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Not only that but Jesus gave the pope the power to condemn you to hell. And, there is no obligation of the part of the pope to announce it to you. Other popes have announced it. All non Catholics are going to hell.

The problem that conservative Christians have is that their secular politics is so completely at odds with the theology of the faith they claim to profess, and that they put those politics before their faith. They spout Old Testament principles, ignoring jesus's frequent use of the structure "It is written/but I tell you," even, in some cases, where Jesus specifically addressed the differences. They limit access to the Communion table and put conditions on access to worship in their churches, ignoring the fact that Jesus served even Judas (in Luke), and washed even Judas's feet (in John). They pander to wealth, which should be an obvious conflict, and insist on structuring the law so that they can display their piety for all to see ("Truly I tell you, they have their reward").

It is not liberals who are running amok in the church. Maybe it's time they did.

Give it a rest, please. You guys are flogging this horse to death. Quit blaming. Why not promote peaceful dialouge for a change? You guys want to imprint your control over every segment of society as if what you offer is so much better. You believe that force is the medium of choice for achieving everything. Your words are bitter, many times untrue, distilled for maximum negative impact against anyone who disagrees. You guys try to destroy them socially and financially. Tell me where is the Christ in that. Look at the rampant, entrenched problems you are avoiding in conservatism: greed, injustice, turning a blind eye to your own's sin to maintain control or power, being silent in the face of blatant global offenses against God if it fits in your narrow ideological worldview. It would be much better if you truly understood the verse that says: " Be not deceived, God is not mocked, whatever a man soweth, he reaps".

I would like to point out that those who disagree with Dr. Mohler on this point (like Wade above), instead of actually arguing, attempt to simply ridicule those they disagree with.

Typical rhetoric and ad hominem attack. Because Biblical exegesis and logic do not back up the pro-homosexual church movement, they instead mock the opposition and attempt to stifle debate.

However, for those who know better, such attempts only demonstrate the lack of substance such movements have. Wade thinks he has won by insinuating that we are unintelligent bigots, instead he has demonstrated his own position's lack of rationality and desperation.

ALBERT MOHLER

As a general principle, it is inconsistent to have rules if you are not going to enforce them. But there are always two ways to resolve an inconsistency.

You would opt for enforcement of rigid, arbitrary, irrational, and hate filled rules, ... because it's important to have rules, strict rules, therefore GOD said so and nobody can doubt MY RULES. Well, at least you are not inconsistent.

KATHLEEN F.

You are Albert Mohler only more so. Do you really believe, "If not God, then why isn't pedophilia OK"? So, you never reason about morality?

"Long before these churches faced controversies over sexuality, they had already allowed the doctrinal foundations of their churches to be eroded and compromised."

Precisely. Doctrinal foundations such as the Earth's location at the center of the universe. Slavery as a God-sanctioned institution. The Book of Genesis as literally true. And now we have homosexuality's acceptance as normal.

When will the erosion and compromise stop?!

To summarize:

The libruls is declined cause they ain't biguts!!!! Woo-hoo!!!! Ah hate queers!!! Go Gawd!

Albert,

You speak with common sense.

I like that.

Basic logic dictates truth.

They know not God if they believe by accepting it among their so called 'leader's' makes it acceptable to Jesus Christ.

Thank you. Not just for this particular expose, but for the often unpopular positions you take so publicly. The liberal media (CNN's "God's Warriors" comes to mind as the most recent onslaught), as well as the uninformed and/or lukewarm Church (what are they thinking?), play into the hands that seek to dismantle truth
brick-by-brick. It's as if freedom to them means "anything goes", whereas God's word tells us why such a shallow worldview is actually to our detriment. It breeds heartache and pain, if not violence and all manner of mayhem.

My question to these is this: If you can marginalize God's word on this issue (and so many others), then who or what is the actual ultimate moral authority here? If not God, then why isn't pedophilia OK? Why isn't it OK to be a rip-snorthing drunk/alcoholic (my own condition from which I have been set free 30+ years)? Afterall, these - myself included - were born as such, were they not? The list could go on and on, for what these really want is the freedom to do what seems right in their eyes, which is little more than a return to paganism and barbarism. It is freedom at its worst!

Bless you, Dr. Mohler. You do not stand alone.

Thank you Dr. Mohler for speaking to these issues. As you often point out, these issues never happen in a vacuum. It only comes after years of denial of Scripture. After all, the real issue is the authority of the Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They struggle with debates over homosexuality because they no longer believe in the reality of sin, and therefore they find no need for redemption in Christ's death and resurrection. That is a temptation for any church which loses sight of its mission in this world.