Too Selective in Love and Judgment

Mr. Balmer,
Are we to jettison the rest of the New Testament which the majority was written by the Apostle Paul. Is not Jesus the same Lord that inspired these men to write the Holy Scriptures that make up the Old and New Testament Canon. Paul was certainly concerned with homosexual behavior such as in the book of Romans, and his concerns to the Church of Corinth!

All these comments are intellectual. A true Christian inhabited by the holy spirit just KNOWS homosexuality is wrong, and it is disgusting! Their practices are so filthy--but you just think the euphemism "gay". If it was an abomination to the Lord, why isn't it to you? Because your fogged by heartless intellectualism.

Romans makes it clear: first we have a reprobate mind (mind is NOT on God) and THEN God gives them up to sensuality in all its forms--homosexuality is all about sex sex sex sex and 500 lovers a year!

You see a homo bishop--doesn't he look nice? LICE! Think what he does at night, that's my advice. It is THOROUGHLY AND COMPLETELY DISGUSTING AND YOU GUYS JUST TALK BUT KNOW NOTHING

trueChristian.

oaui mudg nrtkoi bzan whjfi izpetfc uqfjonib

oaui mudg nrtkoi bzan whjfi izpetfc uqfjonib

oaui mudg nrtkoi bzan whjfi izpetfc uqfjonib

oaui mudg nrtkoi bzan whjfi izpetfc uqfjonib

anybody who has to make such a "raging" statement about their "heterosexuality" sounds terribly insercure, and to top it all off, to base it on a MYTH just makes me
laugh uncontrollably.

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.

Thanks for the info.

Added references for your libraries on the historical Jesus and the historical Paul:

1. JD Crossan's books, The Historical Jesus, In Search of Paul and Excavating Jesus.

2. Ray Brown's 878 page book, An Introduction to the New Testament. (includes reviews of authorship and date and place of origin of the gospels and epistles of the NT)

3. The books on the historical Jesus listed at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

See Amazon.com for prices and availability. Most local, county and state library book holdings are on-line so you can search for book location and availability from home. If your local library does not have the book, they can get if for you on interlibrary loan at no charge for library card holders.

Actually, you may not be correct on Eusebius after all. He says what you say he says, but then in book three of his Church History he starts waffling on Paul. In book six, ch. 25, he waffles some more.

Metzger (Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1987), holds that he waffles away the Pastorals, but I don't have the patience to run down the proof myself.

This will teach me to quote from the first book that comes to hand, especially Freke and Gandy. Not all Christians reject the pastoral letters; just all but the most conservative. The Catholic Church is fighting a rearguard action to preserve them, but they’re using dirty pool (more on this later).

And you are correct on Eusebius. It was Marcion, around 130-140, that didn’t include them, which suggests he didn’t know of them. Most scholars hold that they were written around 100-120.

As for the computer study, neither you nor I have seen it, but there is no wisdom in insulting the computer. A textual analysis of this kind is merely a matter of counting things, and, as you very well know, you can’t beat a computer for counting. Of course, one can question the assumptions and methodology of the programmer, but not without seeing the program.

A couple of books that delve in detail:

Miller, James D., The Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents, 1997, Cambridge University Press, ISBN: 0521560489 (argues that the Pastoral Epistles were written by more than one author, over a period of as much as one hundred years);

Fee, Gordon D., Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study, Hendrickson Publishers (March 2007), ISBN: 1598560352 (contains 60 pages of analysis on the Pastoral Epistles).

For a quick, general rundown of the argument, go here: http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/deutero.stm

As for the reference to dirty pool, if you go to the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14727b.htm), you will find a discussion of the disputed words in the Pastoral Epistles. They analyze some of the words, and manage to make their opponents look silly, but when the going starts getting tough, they say, “But we need not weary the reader by going through the entire list.” I even believe they cheat on individual words, but I’ve lost my reference for that.

Hope this helps.

John,

One other comment: "They appear as a part of the Christian canon only after this time, always as a set, and are regularly dismissed by Christians of all persuasions as forgeries."

No Christian that I know regards the pastoral epistles as forgeries. I simply do not see how the authors make such lofty claims.

Thanks again for your comments. I truly mean it this time; have a good weekend!

John Conolley,

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I appreciate very much the fact that you cited sources instead of just providing blanket comments without any support.

I would like to address some of the statements from your cited quote.

"[T]he so-called 'Pastoral' letters to Timothy and Titus are universally regarded as fakes." Although the authors may like to think that they are universally regarded as fakes, the fact that the pastoral epistles are still included in the canon easily dismisses this claim.

"Computer studies have confirmed that the author of the Pastorals is definitely not the author of the letters to the Galatians, Romans, and Corinthians, which are accepted as genuinely by Paul." Placing your faith in the results of computer studies is a very risky endeavor. I have experience in computer programming and a degree in statistics, and would never put my ultimate trust in the results of a computer model/program. They may have some predictive analytic power, but they can never "confirm" anything of this magnitude.

"Even the great orthodox propqagandist Eusebius does not include them in his Bible (c.325)"

This is simply not true. Eusebius does include the pastoral epistles. Quoting from his "Ecclesiastical History", he states, "At this point it seems appropriate to summarize the writings of the New Testament which have already been mentioned. In the first place must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels, which are followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles.

After this must be reckoned the Epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former Epistle of John, and likewise the Epistle of Peter must be recognized. After these must be put, if it really seems right, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These, then, [are to placed] among the recognized books."

Further in this work, Eusebius states, "Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place." Obviously here Eusebius is attributing the book of Hebrews to Paul. However, that is beside the point. The fact is Eusebius in his own words states that Paul's epistles are well known and undisputed (which includes the pastoral epistles of 1&2 Timothy and Titus). Therefore, the authors' claims are in error at this point as well.

Regarding this and other alleged objections, John MacArthur in "The MacArthur Bible Commentary" says this: "The idea that a 'pious forger' wrote the Pastoral Epistles faces several further difficulties: (1) The early church did not approve of such practices and surely would have exposed this as a ruse, if there had actually been one. (2) Why forge three letters that include similar material and no deviant doctrine? (3) If a counterfeit, why not invent an itinerary for Paul that would have harmonized with Acts? (4) Would a later, devoted follower of Paul have put the words of 1 Tim 1:13, 15 into his master's mouth? (5) Why would he include warnings against deceivers if he himself were one?"

In light of this, I do not find any validity to the claims made in the source that you quoted.

Again, I do thank you for taking the time to offer support for your position. It is much appreciated.

Have a nice weekend!

Ambassador for Christ:

A quote from the first book that comes to hand:

"[T]he so-called 'Pastoral' letters to Timothy and Titus are universally regarded as fakes. Computer studies have confirmed that the author of the Pastorals is definitely not the author of the letters to the Galatians, Romans, and Corinthians, which are accepted as genuinely by Paul. The earliest collection of letters attributed to Paul does not contain the Pastorals. In fact we do not even hear of the Pastorals at all until Irenaeus (c. 190). They appear as a part of the Christian canon only after this time, always as a set, and are regularly dismissed by Christians of all persuasions as forgeries. Even the great orthodox propqagandist Eusebius does not include them in his Bible (c.325)."

Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, _The Jesus Mysteries_, Three Rivers Press, New York, 1999, p. 160.

See also

Wilson, I., _Jesus: the Evidence_, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1984

Pagels, E., _The Gnostic Paul_, Trinity Press International, 1975

Ludemann, G., _Heretics_, SCM Press, 1995

(Notes from source quoted.)

Dear E Favorite,

Thanks for the reference. I am currently working on my Master's Degree and have many required books on my reading list, but I would like to read this sometime to understand some of these textual criticisms.

In return, I would like to suggest that you read "Scripture: Its Power, Authority, and Relevance" by Robert Saucy, 2001 in which he addresses many of the questions that I find on this website such as:

How did we get the Bible?
What makes it authoritative?
In what sense is the Bible inspired?
Why were 66 books included and others excluded?
How accurate is the Bible we read? Does it contain contradictions?

Thanks for the discussion. Have a wonderful day!

Hello Ambassador

I suggest you read "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Erhman,2005. According to the back flap of that book, "he is an authority on the history of the New Testament, the early church and the life of Jesus."

There's another book I've only heard about, called "God's Secretaries."

Dear John Conolley,

Thanks for your comments. I would like to ask what evidence you have to support your claim that the Pastoral Epistles are forged letters?

Thanks, and have a great day!

"We have found approximately 6000 New Testament manuscripts. The earliest copy we have is 30 years after the life of Jesus."

The genuine letters of Paul were written within 30 years of the supposed death of supposed Jesus. The Gospel of Mark 40 to 50 years later. The rest 70 to 100+ years later. As I point out on another thread, some of the New Testament (the forged letters to Timothy and Titus) wasn't even included by Eusebius, circa 325CE.

Dear E Favorite,

Thank you for your kind response.

You stated in your rebuttal that "If you want to believe, I suggest you consider taking it on faith, because the proof isn’t there."

My post was in response to your accusation that the Bible was full of "copyist errors". I merely cited the evidence that dismisses this accusation. However, in your response I do not find any "proof" that justifies your original accusation. Therefore, I suppose I could suggest that you take your belief that the Bible does contain copyist errors on faith, because the proof isn't there. Please forgive my sarcasm...I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree.

It's always a pleasure to have a friendly debate with you. Have a nice evening.

Hi, Ambassador: You say, “The earliest copy we have is 30 years after the life of Jesus. (This doesn't leave much room for errors since many of the people of his day were still alive.)

I say, we may have fragments that old, but not a full set of gospels. In those days, the average life span was about 50, so not many people from Jesus’ time would have been alive 30 years later.

Regarding Homer and Plato, maybe so, but they are not on a par with Jesus, whom many venerate and worship as savior and son of God. People have fought and died for him – can’t say the same for Homer and Plato.

You conclude: “Therefore, we can safely conclude that both the Old and New Testament that we have now is reliable.” I know you’d like to think that, but asserting it doesn’t make it so.

If you want to believe, I suggest you consider taking it on faith, because the proof isn’t there.

"Please go ahead and have sex with each other if your must. But don't ask me to celebrate with you. I won't. Instead I'll weep. Weep that two grown adults are taking their genes, and all that society has given them to the grave instead of passing it on."

Tom Blair, I reject the idea that each human has an obligation to reproduce for the good of society. Why? Because what is truly important to society is not the individual's genes, but the individual's actions and accumulated knowledge. I have no clue whether Archimedes or Hippocrates or Galileo or Huygens ever had children, but their contributions to humankind would be immense either way.

Tyler-

Keep letting your light shine! It is nice to see another believer addressing the issues with civility and clarity.

E.Favorite-

Good to converse with you again, and thanks for your comments. Regarding the Bible, you said, "Not so cool, though, that it hasn't been updated in 15 centuries (since the printing press precluded further copyist errors)" which clearly implies that you believe that the Bible contains errors by the work of the scribes. If you will permit me, I'd like to examine that claim for just a moment. First, let's look at the Old Testament and then the New Testament.

Old Testament:
The most reliable Hebrew text is the Masoretic Text which was composed around 100 A.D., with the oldest known copy of the text to be around 1000 A.D. The Masoretes (a group of scribes in the early church) worked to preserve the Old Testament text precisely because they believed it was the Word of God. They took three steps to ensure textual accuracy. (1) They developed a system of writing vowels. Until this time, written Hebrew contained only consonents. The Masoretes developed the vowel system to preserve in written form the oral tradition. (2) The Masoretes developed a system of accents for the Hebrew text, which assisted the reader in pronouncing the text and helped to clarify many difficult passages. (3) The Masoretes developed a system of detailed notes on the text, which provided a means to check the accuracy of a copied text.

The manuscripts which offer the most confirmation are the Dead Sea Scrolls, composed between 200-100 B.C. Parts of every OT book except Esther are included in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the reliability of the other manuscripts such as the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint (early Greek translation of the OT composed around 300-200 B.C.).

So, by placing everything on a timeline: the Dead Sea Scrolls (manuscript is between 200-100 B.C.) confirms the oldest known copy of the Masoretic Text (manuscript around 1000 A.D.). Within that timeframe is when you claim that the copied errors supposedly occurred. However, the evidence of manuscripts does not suggest errors; it confirms the reliability of the Old Testament.

New Testament:
We have found approximately 6000 New Testament manuscripts. The earliest copy we have is 30 years after the life of Jesus. (This doesn't leave much room for errors since many of the people of his day were still alive.) The fact that we have 6000 manuscripts, which are in agreement with each other further proves that there weren't copy errors. The second most manuscripts is Homer with 100 copies, and the first is not until 500 years after his life. After Homer, you have Plato, Socrates with even less copies.

Therefore, we can safely conclude that both the Old and New Testament that we have now is reliable.

I used to be a Christian, but right wing Christianity made me look at religion and come to my senses. A God as vile as the God of the religious right does not deserve to be believed in, much less worshipped.

Tyler - seems to me the book might have been pretty cool when it was written many centuries ago and it's also pretty cool that we still have copies of it and can still find some wisdom in it.

Not so cool, though, that it hasn't been updated in 15 centuries (since the printing press precluded further copyist errors.

time for a major revision.

Tyler: Good question bro.
Maybe I shouldn't have referred to it as a sin. It just came across as more dire that way.

Russell D,

You said, "Being Gay is not a sin. Hating someone BECAUSE they are gay is a sin."

I agree with you but with a few qualifications.

First, there are few people who would argue that one's "orientation" is sinful (i.e. "being gay"). The Bible is much more interested in attitudes and behavior than labels, and thus prohibits certain types of sexual activity (including but not limited to sex between members of the same sex).

Second, why do you say that hating someone because they are gay (or anything else) is a sin? I agree that it is, but only because the Bible teaches that it is. What is your rationale? Who told you that it was a sin? And a sin against what or whom? If you say, "well it just makes sense", then I would point you to the numerous examples in human history and contemporary life where hate is so prevalent that the "haters" are blind to their own awful condition. So are they stupid? Unenlightened? If so, who are what should enlighten them? You? Me? Pat Robertson? Osama bin Laden?

The cool thing about having a book--one that Christians believe to be written by both God and man, and thus completely authoritative--as our moral standard is that every person--male, female, rich, poor, white, black, clever, simple, you name it--every person is subject to the same standard. That is true freedom. It is the opposite of having to figure it out on your own only to be put in your place (oppressed) by some guy with bigger guns than you. The Bible (and the God who reveals Himself therein) is the rule of life for all people, regardless of how powerful or smart or sophisticated they are. That is the only hope for those of us that didn't get born with stacks of raw wisdom and talents. That is what levels the playing field. Again, that, and only that, is true freedom.

As a Christian I don't feel bound by most lifestyle laws of ancient Judiasm. As Christ said, he came to fulfill the law not to erase it. Before Christ, believers kept the law as a way to profess love and be loyal to God. Christ improved all that and showed a new way. Still in the age of Christ we find gay sex condemned.

I don't subscribe to Leviticus as the basis for the condemnation of gay sex, or more accurately sex outside of conception. But it is still there to be filed away as an expression of the Jewish morality.
Why should it invalidate Christianity or subsequent teachings on sexual morality.

Papal,

In that vein of selective literalism that you are having such trouble with, you've missed some of the best parts of the bible. Here is one of my favorites.

"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God. . . ." (Deuteronomy 13:7–11)

Based on the above passage, you'd better kill me.

I wonder what would happen to you if you practiced the type of slavery condoned in the bible?

Does God allow you to sell your daughter into slavery?

Yes. The situation is not unbearable for her since, if her master takes her as his wife and she does not please him, he must set her free.
“And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation, he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife: her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish” (Exodus 21:7-10).

Whom does God say should be enslaved?

The people of other tribes living around them "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids” (Leviticus 25:44).

What effect does God say warfare has on slavery?]

Whereas the men in any community invaded must be killed, the women and children are to be taken as slaves. “And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee” (Deuteronomy 20:13-14).
The above quotes are from http://www.landoverbaptist.org

Papal, the following applies to you and your ilk.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:15-16).

I'm Bruce, God of fruits. Are you the destroyer?

What gave you the idea that I was gay Tom?

That "book" won't save me, unless I lose a leg on my couch. The Bible is a far cry from the way Christianity was meant to be seen. Why follow this book? What about the parts of the Bible that were left out? You know, the ones that described the daughters of Adam and Eve marrying Their brothers, or would that be bad? Yet incest is still in the "Good Book".

Maybe its not so much the Word of God as it is the ideas of men trying to bring together a fragile Roman Empire. That's what it was. The Bible was a group of already written books brought together to tell a story in order to unify the Roman Empire under one Religion.

The only problem with it, is that it is faulted by the opinions of man, although it was written by man. Man sees it as he sees it, and sometimes sees it in the wrong way. Being Gay is not a sin. Hating someone BECAUSE they are gay is a sin.

The Taliban is antithetical to civilized societies, whether the Taliban in question is Christian or Muslim.

The equal protection clause of our Constitution, fortunately, stands without reference to any "Holy" texts.

But Papal,

Why should we forget about Leviticus? Or more accurately, why should YOU, since I find the whole thing absurd.

All: While scrolling down this blog, God put a verse in my heart to share with you:

In Ecclesiastes 12.14 Solomon says: For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.

Homosexuality, marriage/divorce, adultery, fornication are subjects discussed by many in an emotional and visceral way. God will judge, then we will all know. Meantime, the Apostle Paul admonition that we look through a "glass darkly" and to work out our own salvation with trembling, is the best we can hope for. I am confident that I am on the way to heaven. Leave the rest to God. thanks

Papal, Papal, Papal - what about Miggs point about Balmer's point:

"that if you're going to heed the anti-gay passages in the Hebrew law, you have to heed all the other passages, too? So please tell me: what should be the legal punishment for people who wear clothing made out of more than one kind of cloth?"

Or is your response another example of overlooking biblical passages that stand in ythe way way of making a point?

Miggs, Miggs, Miggs... the author is completely suffocating the text of the bible with his new fangled theology of love.

Okay here's just a sample:

1 Genesis- multiple passages
2. The laws of Moses- honor mother and father
3. Leviticus- prohibition on gay sex
4. Christ at the wedding feast of Cana
5. Paul's - prohibition on homo sex

Forget about Leviticus (its not even needed to see this) and face this fact:

Any reasonable reading of the bible shows 1) a prohibition of gay sex in 2 places, 2) no validation of gay sex anywhere 3) And multiple, strong validations of the union of man and woman from the beginning to the end of the bible.

Papal --

Thousands of Bible verses? You have no clue. You can count the gay-related verses on one hand. In any event, what about Balmer's point -- that if you're going to heed the anti-gay passages in the Hebrew law, you have to heed all the other passages, too? So please tell me: what should be the legal punishment for people who wear clothing made out of more than one kind of cloth?

Miggs

To people quoting Timothy:

Are you aware that Biblical scholars, including Christian ones, generally agree that Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus are forgeries that didn't appear until about 190 CE? They are not the words of Paul or of Christ or of any of the Apostles. They seem to have been written to combat certain heresies, and, in my none-too-humble opinion, should not be considered the inspired word of God.

Of course, I don't think anything should be considered the inspired word of God, because I'm a non-believer. But you know what I mean.

Truly, this guy is WHY the Episcopalian church is in descent. This fellow cites Leviticus, as if that is the totality of the basis for a moral conviction of the one flesh union. Truth be told, marriage and the complementarity and suggested union of the sexes is found throughout the bible, from Genesis to Paul and beyond. Speaking of, even Paul prohibits gay sex in the New Testament and Paul was Christ's apostle.

This defense of homosexuality is so INCREDIBLY light weight and misleading. But he goes further suggesting that those conservatives who don't agree with him tolerate divorce. Then he suggests that adhering to the sum total of the biblical teaching on sexuality somehow precludes us from ministering to the poor. How unfounded and dishonest!

Seriously, why would anyone join the Episcopal Church?

CAREFUL: the author is a RAGING heterosexual!! Watch out ladies, he can't control his rage.

What a stupid conclusion this author comes to. If I hear one more idiot liberal try to suffocate 2000 years of Christianity and 1000s of verses of the bible with a stupid all encompassing hippie "Love Ethic" I'm going to puke!

Ashley --

I'm not so sure that "Many of the Christians here who condemn homosexuality do it for no other reason than a book of 2500-year old fairy tales says they have to."

I think it might be that they look to the Bible for affirmation of their pre-existing belief that homosexuality is icky.

However, I tend to agree with you, regarding "humanity will be better off as more people reject these fables."

Savoir faire -- Brilliant

Individuals who practice homosexuality commit an act which God-Almighty (Allah) abhors. The people of Lot (Peace be upon him) were destroyed because a large number of them were open practicing homosexuals and their society had allowed this practice to occur in the open. This is the situation which our society is facing today. This act is one of many acts of error which are occuring today in our society which is leading to moral decay. We should enact laws which ban homosexuality and we should enact punishments to deter individuals from practicing this act openly. God has given us intellect and made us as humans and not as animals. In addition, God has placed numerous tests in this life for each and every individual. Those individuals who succumb to these lower desires which many individuals are tested with, fail the test, and their ultimate destination for this failure is the abode of the hellfire.

Tom Blair says "you are destroying this church by shoving your sex life down our throats."

Hey, turn me on, baby

Last post is mine.

And who can forget Jeremiah 23:14 as he describes Rush Limbaugh:
"I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah."

Maurie

I like that story too, and your interpretations and extensions. Of course, Lot's children by his daughters were said to give rise to the great nation of the Moabites. I can picture a bunch of drunken Judeans laughing so hard wine comes out their noses when that old story about the origins of their neighbors is being told by the local bard. (In those days they didn't have Mel Brooks movies).

Of course, we also have this:

Ezekiel 16:49
This was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

Of course, we don't here much about this one from the likes of Cal Thomas or Jerry Falwell.

Canyon Shearer,
You leave out the best part; “But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly. And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.”
-Genesis 19:5-8

In Sodom, Lot is visited by angels and warned to get out before god destroys the town. Meanwhile, a gay mob shows up at his door and demands the angels for a gay train. Instead he hands over his virgin teenage daughters (a substitute for the angels) to placate the gay mob. This really pisses the mob off because they don’t want nubile young virgins, but angels they can have depraved sex with, and so after some prodding by the angels, Lot flees Sodom with his family.

According to Genesis 19:26, on the way out of town, God turned his wife into a pillar of salt for looking back toward Sodom. What I always wanted to know was how Lot knew that his wife got turned into a pillar of salt, if she was following behind him like any good dutiful wife. The only way he would have known is if he had turned around too, yet he managed to escape her fate.

I think what actually happened was that when his wife complained outside of town about having to leave the cozy village of Sodom, Lot probably clobbered her with a big rock of salt and then said god did it. Most likely, his wife liked Sodom because all the men were into having gay sex and basically left her alone. Her husband obviously left her alone too, because she was an old hag.

After having clobbered his wife, he impregnates his daughters because they got him drunk and took advantage of him in a cave. In reality, Lot, even though he was a god-fearing man, now had two beautiful virgin teenage daughters instead of an ugly old wife. If his daughters did get him drunk, it was probably so that he would fall asleep and leave them alone. Instead he was probably one mean-ass drunk who self-medicated to keep the demons at bay that apparently afflicted the lineage of Abraham with mental illness. Not only was the lineage schizo, but their god was too. (e.g. Abraham almost barbequed his son because god told him to in order to test his love for god. Moses is plagued by a god who loves him and then tries to kill him, gives him visions of burning bushes, laws, a bad sense of direction, and finally discourses on what to do to non-believers).

Regardless, Lot was going to have his way and history is written by the victors; i.e. his daughters got him drunk and took advantage of him. I’d like to see how that defense would fly in a modern court of law.

Lot. "But your honor, they got me drunk and took advantage of me."

The Judge, looking incredulous, asks, "How old are your daughters, sir?"

Lot. "Well, you know how young teenagers are, they are wanton and can't be controlled. Besides, they are pretty girls, don't you think, and virgins, not like their mother, that old hag. Perhaps if you spent some time with them, they might change your mind?"

The judge furrows his brow, thinks a moment, then says, "I'll take it under advisement. Send the young girls into my chambers, so that I may more thoroughly know their intentions."

Russel D. You'd like to think that that "outdated book written by a bunch of bigots" is what prevents us from celebrating your marriage. But you ought not be so sanguine.

Perhaps "outdated book written by a bunch of bigots" is what keeps you from being treated the way you'd be treated in Islamic societies - or treated the way you'd be treated in nature.

The Bible Russel - is you best friend.

I don't know what the big deal is. Seems to me this point will never be solved so long as people keep going back to an outdated book written by a bunch of bigots, but maybe that's just me. And Canyon, welcome back to the fray.

An Episcopalian,

You make a good point when you say, “During the 18th and 19th Centuries, pro-slavery forces were able to use scripture (including the Pauline letters) to support slavery. Other Christians rejected this proof-texting and based on reason and yes, experience (Jon Newman of Amazing Grace fame being the leading example), put the apparent pro-slavery parts of the Bible in proper context.”

The moral zeitgeist continually changes. In western culture, the moral zeitgeist has tended to change towards a more tolerant view of behavior that relies less on scripture. In addition, our idea of cruel and unusual punishment has changed as well. For example, in 17th century London, highway men (thieves) were hung, drawn, and quartered, their heads put on pikes and their remains hung from the gates at the entrance of the city as a warning to other would be lawbreakers. In 1661, after the restoration of the monarchy, Oliver Cromwell was dug up from his grave and hung again. Such behavior today would be considered barbaric. The attitude towards gay rights is in the process of changing and will be protected in the future in much the same way that the rights of minorities and women are now.

Ambassador for Christ,

'John 16:12-15, "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come…….'

This is an interesting quotation. It argues against a literal interpretation of the bible, indicating that not all truth is to be found there, and that subsequent generations might learn new things.

Mr. Balmer and Norrie Hoyt,

"As a raging heterosexual, I confess that the notion of same-sex attraction has always been a puzzle to me.

Like many Americans, I react to the issue viscerally."

This is actually an interesting reaction and one a number of people have remarked upon. It is often presented (falsely) in terms of nature or nurture. Is this visceral response due to cultural indoctrination or part of some innate, biological response?

I've talked to a lot of men who consider two men kissing revolting; a very visceral response. Of course, many men find two women kissing titillating. Heterosexual women seem to have a weaker negative response. I've also talked to gay men and when I first heard them (many years ago) say that they found a man and woman kissing to also be revolting, I was initially shocked. Thinking on it subsequently, a negative reaction by gay people to heterosexual sex is not really all that surprising.

Regardless, this strong visceral reaction on my part and many others might indicate that the negative response, though probably mediated by culture, might have some biological basis. However, this opinion of mine is based primarily on anecdote. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, no one has systematically studied this response to determine the influence of biology and/or culture respectively.

In my musings I am not advocating any moral stance (good, bad, etc.) towards homosexuality. I am primarily interested in these strong responses that appear unconscious. As far as my own personal beliefs, I think a person’s sexual orientation or preferences are no one’s business but their own, regardless what scripture says. As such, they should not concern the government, unless it is to protect their rights as citizens against discrimination.

Tyler:

To be clear, I agree with you that we need to ground our understanding of the meaning of scripture based on what the text and scholarship tell us what the original author was intending to state. I therefore do not deny that Paul intended to state that homesexuality is a sin. (But that Jesus was silent on the issue). I simply think that this is not the ending point. Once we come to a conclusion about what the author intended to say, I think we need to ask the question: does this reflect the will of God or merely the cultural circumstances of the times. In my view, the starting assumptio should be the former, not the latter, in light of the selection of the book for the canon and 1500 years of tradition, but nonetheless the question must be asked--what does reason and experience tell me.

During the 18th and 19th Centruties, pro-slavery forces were able to use scripture (including the Pauline letters) to support slavery. Other Chrisians rejected this proof-texting and based on reason and yes, experience (Jon Newman of Amazing Grace fame being the leading example), put the apparant pro-slavery parts of the Bible in proper context.

Tyler, thanks for the civil and intelligent response. Like Ambassoador, we make much more we could say to each other. I also suspect that on many issues of faith, you and I would have much in common. I only wish we had more time to dialogue. Sadly, this debate (both within my own denomiation and in the larger Christian Community) has been dominated by name calling (by both sides). I, for one, hav elearned much by our brief dialogue with you and Ambassador.

Yours in Christ

Ashley,

You said, "...religion is very often an impediment to true moral behavior" and "...humanity will be better off as more people reject these fables."

I understand well that there are those who have used religion and the Bible to support awful hatreds, predjudices and other devilish things. But therein lies the problem. What determines then what is devilish and what is angelic? Is it our better natures? For every non-believer who believes in, say, assisting those in need, I can show you one who believes that you only get what you deserve in life. And who is that arbitrates between them? The fickle majority? Opinion polls?

You see, the reason that many Christians think they have a lock on morality is because it is based in something concrete (what you call "fables") outside of themselves. I'm afraid that what you call morality must come from somewhere--or else it's only up to you what is good and evil. And that might change depending on whether you're having a good day. Frankly, I don't want to live in a world of people who woke up on the wrong side of bed deciding what is right for them based solely on their experience. Give me Scripture-based morality any day. It is far, far less oppressive.

Ambassador, keep up the good work, as always.

I want to throw in one comment that it always intrigues me when we fall into the, "Why are you basing your doctrine on the opinions of one author?" Christians don't do that, that would be exceedingly foolish; in fact it's a good comeback for Muslims when they claim Paul wrote Christianity.

Moses;
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
- Genesis 2:24
But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly. And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
-Genesis 13:3;19:5-8
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
- Leviticus 18:22
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.
- Leviticus 20:13

David;
Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine in the very heart of your house, Your children like olive plants All around your table.
- Psalm 128:3

Solomon;
Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice with the wife of your youth.
-Proverbs 9:18
Who can find a virtuous wife? For her worth is far above rubies.
-Proverbs 31:10

Jesus;
But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.
- Mark 10:6-8

Paul;
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
- Romans 1:27

Peter;
Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [Godly women] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
- 1 Peter 3:7

I think this'On Faith' topic in particular supports my observation that religion is very often an impediment to true moral behavior.

Many of the Christians here who condemn homosexuality do it for no other reason than a book of 2500-year old fairy tales says they have to. That's pretty sad, and is another indication humanity will be better off as more people reject these fables.

"Besides, anyone can quote scripture."

YEP, and every bully under the sun has found out that IF YOU DO.....people THINK YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. And THAT is why religion is seen for what it is today - a hypocritical tool of exclusion.

Sir, I would suggest the first - the VERY FIRST sentence of your post explains the very problem the world is having today....

MALE EXCLUSIVITY="WHY ARE THEY NOT LIKE ME!"

"As a raging heterosexual, I confess that the notion of same-sex attraction has always been a puzzle to me."

Ambassador for christ,

Your interpretation of my post is precisely wrong. I assumed readers would put my experience in context, but I forget it's best to spell things out for people who attempt to parse things to fit their own predispositions.

I was raised in the southern US, immersed in the presumption that gays were disgusting, perverted deviants who hated god and deserved to be locked up.

I was fortunate enough to have some people in my life who exposed me to concepts of equality and fairness, which help insulate me from the bigotry of my peers and elders (bigotry which included Jews, blacks, hispanics, and pretty much any non-white, as well as gays).

It wasn't until I actually saw two men kissing that I realized that some of the prejudices around me had sunk in. Sometimes it takes an effort of will to root out deeply embedded lessons.

Well said, Tyler!

Ambassador:

I know that I stated that I needed to get back to work (and I really do), but a civil intelligent conversation on these issues is simply to rare to pass up. I appreciate the civility and intelligence of our remarks, and only wish we could continue them in person over a beer, coffee, ot other beverage of your choice.

It is clear to me that we have very different views of the Bible. I come from an Anglican tradition that has viewed the source of authority to be the Bible yes, but also tradition and reason as well. I have also been taught to beleive that the Holy Spirit is working in our lives today, and therefore should listen to the HS's work in todays world as well. I understand that this may a very different view of bibical authority than yours (and that is a topic well beyond this one), but it is one that is accepted by several major christian denominations. I think there is room within the Christian Community for both views, as long as we accept the essentials, such as the saving resurrection of our Lord.

As to 2 Timothy 3:16-17. since it was written before the Christian canon was adopted (and before the Gospels were written), most scholars beleive that it is referring to the Jewish scriptures and should not be read as a statement of the inerrancy of the New Testement.

And that takes me to a larger point of disagreement. You appear to accept every statement in the New Testement was the work of God, and not of men. I view scripture as the work of human, fallible human being albeit ones who were influenced by the Holy Spirit. My starting assumption is that everything should be viewed as the word of God, but that tradition, reason and experience need to come into play to determine what is truly the word of God, and what reflects the culture of the first century Jewish and Roman worlds. For example, do you allow women to play any leadership role at all in your church? Do you allow them to speak? If so, you too are picking and choosing.

We clearly have much to say to each other and I don't have the time to do so here and now. Thank you again for the dialogue.

Yours in Christ

Episcopalean,

Thanks for the tone of your comment. I understand that we are all trying to be faithful to what we believe is the desire and heart of God.

That said, however, I think perhaps your interpretations of various texts in the New Testament are grounded in your experience. It has been normative until the past 150 years, however, to ground the interpretation of our experiences in light of a proper understanding of the original author or speaker's intended meaning. Without this, all biblical interpretation becomes relative and subject to popular whim (sometimes with disastrous consequences). In my view, this is what has happened in regards to sexuality. Many clergy and churches permit or wink at divorce for exactly this reason--so many people have unhappy marriages, and God couldn't possibly want people to suffer such, therefore divorce is permissible. This is not an argument from Scripture, but rather from cultural and personal experience. The result is sheer relativism and the wholesale abandonment of textual and church tradition. To say that nearly two millenia of interpretive tradition got it wrong on this is dubious at best.

Again, to presume that Jesus' lack of teaching on homosexuality is instructive in any way whatsoever is a dangerous argument from silence and very difficult to support given his other teaching on sexual morality (taken literally).

The great lesson in all of this (imho) is that we must submit ourselves to all of the hard teachings of the Bible as best as we (the Church, not just individuals) understand them 2000 years removed. Evangelicals seem to have one position while you and other folks have another. The same can be said for the question of hell's existence or whether Jesus is the only road back to God, and so on. But since my experience (and that of my "faith tradition") is limited, I must seek truth outside of myself. The Bible is where I turn, and I would lovingly urge others to do the same. Only then can we make sense out of our varied and often incomprehensible experiences.

Dear Episcopalian,

Thank you for your honest comments. I'd like to address some of them if you would permit me.

First, you stated, "While I agree with you that Paul was called by Christ to a mission to the Gentiles, I see no Bibical support for the notion that all of his pronouncements are error-free."

The biblical support is found in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."

You also said that "it is clear from his letters that he thought that Jesus's return was at best only a generation away (hence his advice to remain celibate). He was wrong." Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 was in response to the letter that the church at Corinth wrote to him. His teaching does not suggest that Christ's return was "at best only a generation away." He writes to say that if someone is single that they shouldn't worry about seeking a spouse but instead should devote their attention to God. See 1 Cor 7:32-34. This in no way indicates that Paul believes that Christ's return was only a generation away. Hence, your conclusion that Paul was wrong is not valid.

Further, you said, "if you accept the disputed Pauline letters as Paul's..." I have found no reason not to accept these letters as the writings of Paul. Building upon this comment, "And, if you accept the disputed Pauline letters as Paul's, he had some rather harsh words about the role of women in church (to be silent) that few even orthodox christians now embrace," it appears that you have opened the validity of the Bible up to your own biased, subjective standards and interpretation. The parts that are not "politically correct" are discarded.

You correctly identify the crux of this issue when you state, "So, to me, given the absence of Jesus pronouncements on this issue, the issue is this: are Paul's statements about homosexuality the word of God or the cultural assumptions of a Jew in his time?" I whole-heartedly agree with you that this is the big question.

Unfortunately, I disagree with your conclusion. You state that you "come to the same conclusion as Randall Balmer--based on my contacts with friends and family members that are gay and lesbian, I have no doubt that this is not a choice, but a God-given condition." From your own words, you base this on your own subjective experiences and determine that the parts of the Bible that disagree with your stance are not inspired Scripture. But, this is all based on subjectivity. If that's the case, how can you determine that any of the Bible is the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God? How do you pick and choose what is inspired and what is not? Indeed, it's a slippery slope that results in something other than Christianity. We do not have the luxury of picking and choosing what we want to obey in the Bible and still call ourselves "Christians".

My plea with you is to heed Revelation 22:18-19, "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

BRUCE M.,

When all the talking, listening, and discussing are done, the obedient one must still obey.

Regards.

A few comments and then I really need to get back to work.

First, Tom--what evidence do you have that homosexuality is a choice? My uncle struggled his nearly his whole life to deny that he was gay, only to finally conclude that he was who is was--a conservative, Christian gay man. If there had been a choice in the matter, he would have chosen to be a conservative, Christian heterosexual man. And, I have heard similar stories from my gay and lesbian friends.

Second, Tyler, I think your reliance on Matthew 5:27-32 is misplaced. At best, your argument is indirect and makes several unsupported assumotions. If Jesus wanted to condemn homosexuality, why didn't he just come out and say so? More importantly, I don't think the point of Matthew 5:27-32 was to make specific pronouncements on sexual morality at all (which is one reason why most Christian churches allow divorce even with the specific statement in Matthew 5:27-32). Rather, the point of this pasage, in my view, was to get all of us to step back from a legalistic view of morality in the first place, but instead take a broader view that goes beyond the law at the time.

Finally, please understand that I do not view everyone who disagrees with me on these issues as "homophobic" or un-chritian. I recognize the force of tradition, and recognize that I could be wrong. I think there is room in my church for Christians on both sides of this issue.

Tom,

I don't know what type of church you attend, but it seems to me that you've missed out on the entire experience. If the Bible was composed of a single sentence that said, "Love each other", I might understand your feelings. But it doesn't. Timothy teaches us that "all scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." Church is not merely a brick building where specific hymns are sung, hands are raised, and thanks is given. It is the responsibility of the entire church membership to hold each other accountable to walk with integrity. Granted, that doesn't mean that your closest friends in church need to know the sexual comings and goings of you and your wife. But if your bedroom becomes a place of pornography and sexual perversion, you need to reach out to people in your church (whom you trust the most) and deal with this issue.

Also, homosexuality is not "hard-wired". It is a choice.

Professor Balmer,

Let me step out on a limb here in favor of what seems to be an unpopular argument here--that the Bible explicitly forbids homosexual sex as clearly as it forbids arrogance, idolatry, and hate.

I am surprised by and take issue with your assertion that Jesus never spoke to issues of sexuality, especially since Matthew 5:27-32 (the same passage where he forbids almost all divorce, which you mention) teaches that looking lustfully at a woman is the same as committing adultery (i.e. it is a violation of the seventh commandment). The language here is significant, ("whoever looks lustfully at a woman")-- is a very specific instruction that seemingly excludes heterosexual women and homosexual men. Could this perhaps be because in his immediate cultural context, women openly gawking at men and homosexuality were not all that common? The most logical assumption to make--since Jesus clearly held a high view of chastity in singleness and monogamous marriage (the reason for the above instruction)--is that he was in full agreement with the levitical prohibition of homosexuality (but not necessarily the prescribed punishment). Anything else would be an argument from silence, and thus unacceptable to those who view the Bible as normative and authoritative.

The language you use in your post is also significant. You criticize the selective use of Scripture by those who "condemn" gays and lesbians. What exactly do you mean by "condemn?" Is simply stating the facts--that the Bible across the board prohibits homosexual sex--the same thing as condemning a person? I think not. Otherwise, anyone who holds to the traditional view of marriage is a bigot on the order of the imbecile Fred Phelps.

What problem exactly do you have with opposition to legalized same sex unions? Is this truly "condeming"? Professor Balmer, holding fast on the traditional legal definition of marriage that has been accepted as normative from time immemorial is not bigotry--it is simply traditional, and for some, it is a morally laudable act. Show us what exactly is the sin involved here for which you so willingly and publicly scold evangelical Christians (meanwhile refusing to speak truth to power, i.e. the social engineers and the cut-and-paste re-imaginers of Scripture in your own demonination.) The Episcopal church U.S.A. is not the only culturally syncretized church that is in decline these days, nor will it be the last.

Finally, the point that certain segments of the evangelical subculture have used homosexuality (and abortion) as litmus tests for the truly faithful is one that has been made alot lately. The argument has some merit, especially if you summarize evangelical attitudes by their political behavior. However, I think you would find with careful research that in fact the majority of Christians in the pews understand Jesus' teachings on love quite well, and they probably do not need to be lectured on the topic--especially not in such a disingenuous, unloving manner.

Jesus himself had no problem telling the woman caught in adultery (whose life he had just saved) to stop sinning (i.e. committing adultery). That tender rebuke, of course, was meant for all of us--not just those struggling with their sexuality. And while we must never forget how to love our neighbor, we must also never forget how to speak the truth. In love.

Rev. Balmer,

You might want to take another look at your negative characterization of first-century rabbis as "the moralists of [Jesus'] day, those who had appointed themselves the guardians of the law and the arbiters of moral behavior" and "logic-choppers" obsessed with "every jot and tittle of the Levitcal [sic] laws."

It's true that adherence to detailed laws was a hallmark of Pharisaical teaching. But the reason for this was not, as countless generations of Christians have assumed, inability to imagine a more interior and personal spirituality. On the contrary, punctilious observance of the Law was intended then, and is intended today, to reinforce spiritual awareness and commitment through all the daily actions of life. This kind of rigorous dedication of oneself to spiritual ends was not a new spiritual technique then, and it has been practiced by countless Christian saints through the centuries, down to the present day. (Try reading, e.g., the autobiography of Therese of Lisieux.) The idea that some kind of expansive emotion is the essence of Christian spirituality is unsophisticated, to say the least.

In fact, the "greatest commandment" you give Jesus credit for was familiar to any literate first-century Jew, being found in Deuteronomy (6:5) and Leviticus (19:18). Jesus' statement the the Golden Rule summarizes the law and the prophets (Mt. 7:12) was not original with him; it was common rabbinic teaching at the time.

These facts are easily found in the work of famous New Testament scholars like Geza Vermes. Yet in spite of this, contemporary Christians continue to frame Jesus as representing, uniquely in his time, the religion of spirit in against the "logic-chopping" of the caricatured Pharisees. This is a tendentious characterization and it has contributed to twenty centuries of Christian contempt for Jews.

Full disclosure: I'm not Jewish. Or Christian. I'm just a salesman.

To Ambassador for Christ:

I think that your reliance on Christ's mission to Paul is misplaced. While I agre with you that Paul was called by Christ to a mission to the Gentiles, I see no Bibical support for the notion that all of his pronouncements are error-free. Indeed, I think that the Pauline Letters thenmselves show that Paul was a fallible human being, subjec to the same cultural biases and assumptions that we all are subject to. For example, it is clear from his letters that he thought that Jesus's return was at best only a generation away (hence his advice to remain celibate). He was wrong. And, if you accept the disputed Pauline letters as Paul's, he had some rather harsh words about the role of women in church (to be silent) that few even orthodox christians now embrace.

So, to me, given the absence of Jesus pronouncements on this issue, the issue is this: are Paul's statements about homosexuality the word of God or the cultural assumptions of a Jew in his time? I come to the same conclusion as Randall Balmer--based on my contacts with friends and family members that are gay and lesbian, I have no doubt that this is not a choice, but a God-given condition. And, as I see the Holy Spirit at work in these friends and family, I see an incarnated truth--that homosexual relationships within a committed loving relationship is not a sin.

Regarding the issue of "obedience" -- the PB gave a very good answer this morning to a questioner who raised the issue of whether we are not called to "obedience as well as love". She pointed out the the root meaning of obedience is "to listen to" -- hence, obedience to a bishop involves much more than following orders. In TEC there is a well developed procedure for "listening," discussing, and deciding matters of doctrine and teaching. Such questions are not left up to Bishops or Primates alone. That characteristic of our polity seems to have escaped the majority of the Primates.

Anbassador For Christ: Well-reasoned; God is smiling at you:)

ABBY FINKELMAN,

I understand that you "don't get" opposite sex attractions in an immediate, intuitive way, just as Professor Balmer doesn't intuitively understand same sex attractions.

What I suggest to both of you is that, if you want to, and there's no reason you should want to (except to resolve your personal puzzlement), you can think your way into understanding the sexual attractions that now baffle you.

You can say to a chocolate lover who "doesn't get" caramels, that "they're just like chocolates, only somewhat different".

Start with that reasoning, and, with a little sensuous imagination, you'll catch on.

Good luck to both of you.

Why does someone have to tell me about his sex life? I don't talk about mine. Not is anyone welcome to ask about mine. I don't talk about my politics either. It's a church.

But in any case - there are places for your sexual and political agendas (like bathhouses and political organizations). Why does the church have to embrace your lifestyle? Why isn't it enough that they love you as a person?

There have always been gays in the church - for all I know maybe Jesus was one. But He never talked about it. And it would be nice if you'd do the same because you are destroying this church by shoving your sex life down our throats.

Tom Blair - the problem isn't that gays "want very much for me to know about their sex life", it's that all *you* hear when someone says they're gay is "I boink men. And here's how..." Somehow, in some odd turn of brain chemistry, "I'm gay" translates, for you, into graphic, detailed, homosexual pornography. A triumphalist paen to sex, Sex, SEX. As if the ONLY thing this person wants to share with you is the fact that s/he has SEX with someone of the same gender.

When a new member introduces you to their opposite-sex spouse, is your first thought about what goes on in their bedroom? Aren't THEY pushing THEIR "sex life" on you? After all...you *know* what married people do when the lights go out...right?

Now...did Gene Robinson give a homily about his sexual escapades or did he merely reveal his homosexual orientation? (Because if he DID give that sermon, I want a transcript!) Did I miss the interview where he said, "I engage in homosexual acts."? Of course not. Neither did I miss the part in YOUR post where it becomes obvious that, to you, gay people are defined by their choice in sex partners and NOT in their actions OR in their love of God.

ANONYMOUS,

You say that my "...assessment of Professor Balmer's stance appears to be incorrect..."

You may be right. Surprisingly for a professor, what he wrote is ambiguous.

Here's what he said:

"Finally, I write as a recently ordained priest in the Episcopal Church, a denomination currently torn apart over the issue of the ordination of gay clergy and the ecclesiastical blessing of same-sex unions. I took a vow of obedience to my bishop, one that I take seriously and that I intend to honor."

We can only assume that he's saying he must follow his Bishop on gay issues. You can't tell if his bishop is liberal or conservative so we don't know which path he has to follow.

From the overall context of Professor Balmer's article I took his meaning to be that he's liberal but had to follow his conservative bishop.

But he certainly could have meant something else.

Non-Christian moral of the story: Write Clearly.

BGONE - one doesn't need the Bible to repudiate homosexuality. In fact I rather prefer the words of a great Anglican prophet named Charles Darwin.

Dysgenic behaviour is always stigmatized. That's how groups survive.

Please go ahead and have sex with each other if your must. But don't ask me to celebrate with you. I won't. Instead I'll weep. Weep that two grown adults are taking their genes, and all that society has given them to the grave instead of passing it on.

Maybe that's why Western Civilization is dying - selfishness and individualism at the expense of the greater good - AKA the Body of Christ.

Dear BGone,

I'll give you credit, you are persistent with your assertions, although they appear to be self-refuting at times.

Example: "We don't know a lot of things but that doesn't stop the ones that claim to be righteous from declaring they have the absolute truth does it?...the Bible is a proved hoax." I humbly ask, is your assertion to be taken as absolute truth, then?

You also said, "We don't really know one way or the other do we? So let's error on the side of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and keep our snouts out of other people's affairs."

You now admit you don't know the answer regarding whether homosexuality is learned or natural, although in a previous post you did state that it was natural. Which is it? You also suggest that we should err on the side of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," which is clearly a subjective opinion. Since you brought it up, however, let's remind ourselves to whom America's forefathers attributed these rights in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." For one who adamantly opposes the Creator God of the Bible, I am surprised that you would so quickly align yourself with a statement that references such a Creator.

I do thank you for your comments. However, I find it very difficult to take one person's assertions as "absolute truth" over the claims of a book that has withstood vicious attacks for centuries. The fact that the Bible is still around confirms Jesus' statement in Matthew 24:35, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."

BGONE:
I hate to be a ballbuster, cause I like your arguments, but just for a differnt point of view, what's to say the hoaxbuster site is accurate?

Well AA, thanks for making my point. We don't really know one way or the other do we? So let's error on the side of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and keep our snouts out of other people's affairs.

We don't know a lot of things but that doesn't stop the ones that claim to be righteous from declaring they have the absolute turth does it? Arguments using the Bible are just as valid as the Bible. Maybe we should validate it first?

That's been done. http://www.hoax-buster.org has the validation. It, the Bible is a proved hoax. Anything can be proved using hoax(es). "See here, it says homosexuality is a sin. No no no. You must use the whole text." Hoaxes make stupid jerks out of people. Stupid jerks say hoaxes are God's word in my opinion.

At the risk of plagerizing Tina Turner, what's love got to do with it?

Conservative Episcopalians love all people - including gays. Why not? Homosexuality is a predisposition and we are all predisposed toward sin.

There have always been homosexuals in the church - and they have always been welcomed - just as there are pedophiles, adulterers, neo-Nazis, communists, kleptomaniacs, etc. etc. People are people. God loves them all - so do we.

But there's a big difference here. When someone comes into my church I don't know anything about his sex life. And I don't ask. I don't want to know anything about someone's sex life. It is a church - not a bathhouse. There's the problem. They want very much for me to know about their sex life. It is their sex life they want acceptance of - not them as people. Why do people know that Gene Robinson engages in homosexual acts? Because he told them.

You are being disengenuous Randall. There is a big difference in being asked to accept people - and being asked to accept actions. People have a right different opinions on sin and behaviour.

You in effect are saying that people who don't accept homsosexual marriage are somehow less-than-Christian. You need a broader mind. How do you respect the enormous diversity of people in a church? You don't shove political, social, and sexual agendas down everyone's throat.

It's a church. Please treat it as such.

Professor Balmer, yours is the most intelligent comment I have read in this entire forum titled On Faith. After reading your article, I read the comments up to this point. Two things struck me most of all: (i) it appears that no one really understood the larger point you make, and (ii) that religion seems to evoke both noble sentiments from thinking people (like you) and hate-filled vituperation from people like Canyon Shearer. The grave danger is that if religious interpretation is merely a position along the continuum of love-hate/rational-irrational, then we are never going to understand how to cope with those who appropriate and misuse the mantle of religion to further their ends. This applies to the so-called "Islamic fundamentalists" as to people like Canyon Shearer (a representative of the right wing Christian fundamentalist yahoos) and hate-mongers of all types whether Hindu or Muslim in India, Shia or Sunni in Iraq, hate-filled Muslims in the Middle East, or extremist Zionists in Israel.

I too did not resolve the apparent illogic of same sex attraction, at least in the sense of wanting to make a life-long commitment to it, without some thought. Perhaps this was due to acculturation. Anyhow, having read a bit about how same sex attraction or homosexuality may or may not be genetic, and with an open mind, I have a sense that my "visceral" or more likely, "culture-induced" puzzlement was without basis.

At least, I came naturally to the position that there is a greater illogic in disparaging the loving relationship of any two or more people regardless of their sex. I do not view this as liberalism, selective or not (although the humor and irony in that characterization of yours did not escape me). Ultimately, I do not see how anything I do or stand for is threatened in any way when other people have a same sex union or marriage.

LEGAL STUFF:

That said, as a lawyer, I can say you are entirely correct that there is not much room for outlawing of same-sex unions. Quite aside from the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, there is the problem of the First Amendment that has not so far, to my knowledge, been addressed. I believe that all states allow a ceremony known as "marriage" to be performed by a church and recognize the union thus created. Unlike in some European countries, a civil procedure is not mandated in the US. This recognition and acceptance of a religious imprimatur by the states, probably violates the Establishment clause. On another level, if there were a Gay or Lesbian church that "sanctified" such unions and called them "marriage" the state would not be entitled to dishonor the same by nonrecognition. Such a result would be mandated by the 14th Amendment and also by the 1st Amendment.

One might also argue that if a Gay and Lesbian association of declared Atheists set up such a ceremony, their non-church would be entitled to First Amendment protection. But these are issues for another day, and perhaps another forum.

MINORITY RIGHTS:

It is not clear to me that the "go out of our way to protect the rights of minorities" argument matters much if the minority is engaged in illegal conduct. But, we have - seemingly - answered that part of the question, so minority or not, civil unions or same-sex marriages should offend no one. That some oppose them in the name of Christianity or other religion, does not make theirs a majority view. But your point is well taken that in a democratic society, resort to the legislative process to block or deny recognition to minority rights smacks of majoritarian repression.

Along these lines, Mitt Romney, when he was Governor of Massachusetts, called for a referendum on whether a law to ban same sex marriages should be enacted. His effort was misguided since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had ruled the restrictions on same-sex marriages unconstitutional under the state constitution. That being so, no law, by itself could change the result of the case. Of course, Massachusetts could amend its constitution - and there is a ballot initiative to accomplish just that - but then the question remains whether such a state constitutional ban would survive First and Fourteenth Amendment challenges under the US Constitution.

JESUS AND SCRIPTURE:

"Besides, anyone can quote scripture."

Priceless!

--------

"Finally, evidently tired of the logic-choppers, Jesus says, in effect, 'Sure, I affirm your laws. But let’s ratchet it up another step. I can summarize all your laws with a two-part statement: Love the Lord your God and your neighbor as yourself.'"

This point seems to have been lost on your readers.

------

"As anyone who has ever tried will readily acknowledge, it’s far more difficult to obey Jesus’ version of the law than it is to observe every jot and tittle of the Levitcal laws."

It is well to keep in mind that as we complain about Islamic fundamentalism and why no moderate Muslim speaks out, against it, all other religions, including Christianity, have spokespersons, often wearing the vestments of clergy, ignoring that larger message. It seems to me all else is procedure and not religion.

And, I am not religious.

--------
FAITH AND VOWS OF OBEDIENCE:

"Finally, I write as a recently ordained priest in the Episcopal Church, a denomination currently torn apart over the issue of the ordination of gay clergy and the ecclesiastical blessing of same-sex unions. I took a vow of obedience to my bishop, one that I take seriously and that I intend to honor."

I have no problem with a religious order saying that it will or will not have male or female clergy -- although I disagree with the notion, but then I disagree with the notion of religion too -- since people are free to join or stay away from a religion for that or any other reason. However, a refusal to bless same-sex unions may present a different problem. Since same sex members of the church could be united (in marriage or civil union) by the civil authority, if a religion were to bar such people from retaining membership, one wonders whether it is entitled to continue to be called a religion. Note that no civil authority could ordain a priest for that religion, so the difference between the two issues highlights what is and what is not a true issue of religion or faith.

------------

"Still, I have to believe that, with a graying constituency and churches hemorrhaging parishioners, we have better things to be obsessed about than who’s sleeping with whom."

Amen! And if we could get those who want to impose their religious views on all sorts of subjects: abortion, science, evolution, creationism, intelligent design, birth control, HPV vaccines, etc. to simply obsess about only their personal relationship with God, we'd have a better world.

------------

"Jesus calls us to an ethic of love. Although some believe that advocating the ecclesiastical blessing of same-sex unions of the ordination of gay clergy are radical ideas, I know of nothing – nothing – more radical than the ethic of love."

A provocative question ... since no religion has been able to achieve anything remotely close to this, and indeed since religions, whatever good they may do, also promote hatred, violence, and intolerance, was the notion of freedom of religion itself flawed? Should we have a system that says anyone may believe in any God or supercreature, or not, but that organized religions are nothing more than businesses and need to be regulated?

Thanks for an interesting article.

BGone-

"There's too many gay people to say it's a "learned" condition. Looking at it as natural, it must have a natural purpose."

This statement is guilty of begging the question. How many is "too many"? Your statement is a subjective statement with no substantial arguments to support it. Since we cannot therefore conclude that it is not a "learned" condition as of yet, we cannot yet conclude it is "natural" either.

Legally, I agree. Give unto Caesar what is Caesars, etc. etc. Theologically there remains a problem. It's not necessarily Leviticus that maintains this teaching. It's Acts 15 which kept sexual immorality (as defined in 1st Century Christianity) as one of the requirements for non-Jewish Christians. It's the various teachings of Paul throughout the New Testament. I also believe that the Church has often crossed the line between righteousness and oppression in its history, however, when the vast majority of biblical scholars still maintain that there is nothing in Scripture or Tradition to support this, we cannot rely exclusively on earthly reason to justify the inconvenient.

It's an odds on favorite that Canyon is gay. Come on out of the closet Canyon and stop hating yourself. Rev Haggard isn't gay, he just likes boys, not girls.

The first time, (only time I can momentarily recall) I saw two men kiss, it was Russian soldiers kissing a very surprised GI celebrating the defeat of Nazi Germany. Patton nearly got kissed, by Montgomery.

There's too many gay people to say it's a "learned" condition. Looking at it as natural, it must have a natural purpose. Is it Nature's God's way of natural birth control? Sex probably has a purpose beyond reproduction.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sex says sex caused the extinction of Neanderthal, a very plausable theory on that subject. Neanderthals didn't all become homosexuals did they? Sex can be dangerous so use caution.

Well said Ambassador.

Now that you have the kissing part down, try having your rear grabbed, whole new experience. Of course, I am not complaining, I got a free drink out of it, lol.

Dear Ashley,

Your conclusion that "Feelings of discomfort and uneasiness towards gays is something we learn, and it can be overcome" doesn't correspond with your argument.

Your argument stated, "I can recall the first time I saw two men kiss. I was quite uncomfortable. It seemed wrong. Intellectually, I couldn't justify my reaction and felt ashamed of it.

Over the years, having had many gay friends, the orientation of couples expressing affection doesn't really register with me."

Based upon your argument, the logical conclusion that follows is not that "Feelings of discomfort and uneasiness towards gays is something we learn" but instead that "feelings of COMFORT towards gays is something we learn."

Norrie -

"But, granted that the inclination to submit to authority is hard-wired, just as same sex attractions are, why would this thoughtful person, Professor Balmer, take a specific vow to not bless gay unions? That's a rejecting, ultimately cruel act."

The bishop of the Episcopal Church is a woman, Katharine Jefferts Schori, and she does support homosexuality. The former bishop of the Episcopal Church was a homosexual. Although your assessment of Mr. Balmer's stance appears to be incorrect, your question, "Why, I said to myself, would this intelligent man take a vow of obedience to anyone?" is a good question worth asking. Shouldn't he rather be obedient to the Word of God instead of a human-appointed bishop?

What a day, what a day.

This issues sure seems to bring the people out of the woodwork. Regarding sexuality, it is not a bane on mankind, it is a part of mankind, and should be treated with the same kind of tolerance that any other part of it would be. Hate and intolerance is learned and taught. Once you can get past those teachings, I am sure you will be a better person for it.

Mr. Balmer,

Regarding your visceral reaction and puzzlement towards same-sex attraction, I would argue that your reactions are primarily cultural. I can recall the first time I saw two men kiss. I was quite uncomfortable. It seemed wrong. Intellectually, I couldn't justify my reaction and felt ashamed of it.

Over the years, having had many gay friends, the orientation of couples expressing affection doesn't really register with me. My reaction is the same for gays and straights: hugging, holding hands, and light kisses I can deal with. Once tongues get involved, please get a freaking room.

Feelings of discomfort and uneasiness towards gays is something we learn, and it can be overcome.

Canyon Shearer, you are the best argument against Christianity I have ever encountered. Please keep it up!

"And wouldn't you think there'd be something odd about a gay person's writing: 'As a raging homosexual, I confess rhat the notion of opposite sex attraction has always been a puzzle to me.'"

I don't think that would be odd. Frankly, the notion of opposite sex attraction HAS always been a puzzle to me. As has some people's apparent attraction to spinach. That doesn't mean I condemn straight people, any more than I condemn spinach eaters. I just don't get it. And that's okay.

Dear Mr. Balmer,

I am copying a two comments that I made a couple of weeks ago on a different thread which deals with many of your points:

Past Comment #1: "Concerning homosexuality, you said, "The Bible may say its wrong, but did Jesus say it was wrong?" There's a great deal to discuss from this question, but I'll try to be as brief as possible.

First, we do not have record of Jesus explicitly speaking about homosexuality in the four gospels. However, Jesus said to his disciples in John 16:12-15, "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you."

If you fast-forward to Acts 2, you will find the coming of the Holy Spirit. Finally, we come to Acts 9:15. In this passage, Jesus says that the Apostle Paul "is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel." Hence, Jesus affirms and commissions the Apostle Paul to act as His representative and on his behalf. The Apostle Paul wrote the letter to the Romans. Hence, since Paul was chosen by Christ to speak on His behalf, Jesus does affirm the teaching of Romans 1 regarding homosexuality."

Past Comment #2:"Thanks for the response. It is true that Jesus taught love. But, it is mistake to believe that he ONLY taught about love. There are many hard teachings of Christ. Consider the following words of Christ as a sampling:

John 8:43-47 - "Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

Matthew 7:21-23 - "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'"

Matthew 10:32-33 - "So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."

Matthew 11:23-24 - "And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you."

Luke 12:49-53 - "I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

I do not quote these passages to portray Jesus as a harsh unloving person. But neither should I say nothing when others speak of his teachings as only about love. Jesus Christ was God incarnate and therefore had the same attributes as the Father.

Furthermore, if you hold to the fact that Jesus appeared to Paul on the Damascus road and that He was indeed His messenger, then it follows that you accept Jesus Christ's divinity since this was a supernatural encounter. Hence, if Jesus was the Son of God, don't you think that He had the foreknowledge and foreordination to know what Paul would write? If He was to write and teach something that was not from God, why would Christ select Him as His messenger?"

Canyon,

Can or will your aggressive intolerance of so many beings be forgiven? Can your mountain of negative karma be shovelled away before your next lifetime?

For your sake, I hope so. Om Mani Padme Hum (in spades!).

Professor Balmer,

I like your article, but have these comments:

Why would you write: "As a raging heterosexual, I confess that that the notion of same sex attraction has always been a puzzle to me."

Come now, use your imagination: some people like chocolates, some like caramels. What's so hard to figure out about that?

And wouldn't you think there'd be something odd about a gay person's writing: "As a raging homosexual, I confess rhat the notion of opposite sex attraction has always been a puzzle to me."

Take religion: I think that Christian theology, apart from its ethical do-good-to-others component, is the nuttiest thing ever invented - absolutely insane, and in many instances, horrible in action. But I can still understand why many people are devoted to it.

A suggestion: trying cranking up your imaginative and empathetical faculties and you will be able to find your way to understanding gay sexual attraction.

Another example: at first glance, your statement that "I took a vow of obedience to my bishop..." [to not bless same sex unions] [paraphrase] is doubly incomprehensible to me, but with a little thought I almost comprehended it.

Why, I said to myself, would this intelligent man take a vow of obedience to anyone? Did he vow obedience to his wife? Slaves, vassals and serfs took vows of obedience. So did the Hitler Youth.

Answer: this submissive behavior to the leader is hard-wired into many human males, just as it's hard-wired into monkeys to present their posteriors to the head monkey or primate [in monkeydom or in the church] as a sign of submission and obedience.

But, granted that the inclination to submit to authority is hard-wired, just as same sex attractions are, why would this thoughtful person, Professor Balmer, take a specific vow to not bless gay unions? That's a rejecting, ultimately cruel act.

And that's still a puzzle to me.

You come into this discussion with a damning presupposition. You don't believe homosexuality and promiscuous sex are against the law.

Homosexuality is not something specific to the Pagan religions, it is an infestation of all mankind.

You are to love your neighbor, and it is possible to love your murderous neighbor, your rapist neighbor, your homosexual neighbor, your cannibal neighbor. You should love your neighbor no matter their sin, because any sins, such as lying, stealing, coveting, lusting, hatred, blasphemy, that you may have committed are equally unholy and will earn you Hell just as quickly as murder, rape, cannibalism, and homosexuality.

Love your neighbor, but don't advocate their murder, rape, thievery, fornication, homosexuality, and any other transgression they choose to do.

Along the same lines, the 14th Ammendment says that we need due process to removed life, liberty, or property from an accused person. Homosexuals don't even need to be accused, they have readily confessed to their law-breaking.

Through the love and sacrifice of Jesus Christ can a law-breaker be given a reprieve. Jesus Christ has paid the fine on the Cross, was in the tomb three days, then rose from the grave, defeating death and punishment.

A liar, a thief, a blasphemer, a hatemongerer, a murderer, a rapist, and a homosexual can be forgiven because their iniquities have been atoned for, if they'll first repent of their sins, confess them to God, and promise to make their best effort never to repeat their sin.

Can an active homosexual be a Christian minister? Can a non-Christian be a Christian minister? It seems to me that you should be a Christian to minister in that faith. A practicing homosexual hasn't repented of his sins, and therefore hasn't been born again, and therefore isn't a Christian.

Love your homosexual neighbor, abhor his sin, and share the Gospel with him that he might see Heaven instead of rightly earning Hell.

You write "When I point out that Jesus himself had nothing to say about sexuality (although he said a good bit about money), someone occasionally replies that he affirmed the law, which includes the apparent Levitical proscriptions against homosexuality. True enough."

Did Jesus affirm the Levitical laws or not? Christians do not keep kosher kitchens, sacrifice animals, get circumcised, or maintain any of the purity rituals proscribed in Leviticus. It seems to me that Christians like to say that Jesus affirmed the laws supposedly given by YHWH to Moses when it suits their purposes -- but not when it goes against their current practices. From the outside, one could modestly suggest that if you accept part of Leviticus that you should accept all of it. Of course, if you point out the consequences of this, fundamentalist Christians get upset.

It is easy to find New Testament passages that argue this point to very different conclusions. The conclusion adopted by scholars a long time ago seems indisputable -- namely that NT scriptures were compiled by distinct early Christian groups with very different ideas as to the extent it is necessary to "Judaize" in order to be a Christian.

In any case, I certainly agree with your conclusions about the legal aspects of the arguments under the equal protection clause.