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