Marriage is for Everybody, Says Former Anti-Gay Evangelical

gaymarriage

Mark Achtemeier has been a minister with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A) since 1984, and for much of his ministry he characterized himself as a “conservative anti-gay activist.” As a pastor and an associate professor of theology and ethics at the University of Dubuque Theological Seminary, Achtemeier wrote and spoke against the ordination of gay and lesbian ministers and co-wrote a declaration of faith that an anti-ordination coalition adopted.

That began to change in 2001, Achtemeier says when he made friends with some gay and lesbian Christians, some of whom had tried everything in their power to “change” their sexual orientation or had embraced a life of celibacy.

“It was producing broken people,” he told me, “and it wasn’t just isolated instances of this. I saw more and more of this and came away from these experiences thinking something is wrong with this picture. That got me writing and asking questions.”

By 2009, Achtemeier was a changed man, leading the charge for gay and lesbian ordination. He even preached at the ordination service of Scott Anderson, “the first gay minister” ordained by the PCUSA.

In this interview, Achtemeier talks about how his encounters with LGBT people changed his heart and mind over the years. His new book is: The Bible’s Yes to Same-Sex Marriage: An Evangelical’s Change of Heart.

Candace Chellew-Hodge : You don’t spend a lot of time in the book dwelling on the so-called clobber passages. Instead, you seem to keen to reach that “moveable middle” by talking about your process of approaching the Bible. I think it’s an effective way to frame this.

Mark Achtemeier: Much of the debate has focused around these Bible passages that seem to make passing reference to same-sex behavior, and when I came into this I found a lot of technical scholarly debates about what they did and did not mean. The best you wind up with is a statement that says, “Well, these passages don’t mean what you think they mean.” It was essentially an argument from silence, which I don’t find compelling.

As I was writing this I was trying to keep in mind a couple of families in my congregation. They were just regular folks who had children come to them and they were very upset with this. We have a pretty accepting church, but their assumption was they would have to leave the church.

I started thinking that a technical scholarly argument would fall short of what these people need. I wanted to develop something positive to talk about what the Bible does say. Making a Biblical case for same-sex marriage is a little bit like making a biblical case for the abolition of slavery. None of the biblical writers ever dreamed of a society where slavery didn’t exist, so they didn’t talk about it. There is no statement in the Bible urging people to fight against the institution of slavery—it’s just not on anybody’s radar screen.

So, historically, when we got to the point in America where abolition was something people could conceive of, what faithful Christians did was go back to the Bible and see what it did say about human beings and the image of God and made the case on what the Bible does say to draw conclusions about a situation the biblical writers never faced. There were Christians at that time who pulled out isolated verses to say the Bible supports slavery and we should too. We know how that story turned out.

None of the biblical writers envisions the possibility of a society where ordinary gay people — which they had no conception of — could marry their same-sex partners. Now, when we’re in a society where that’s a possibility, we need to go the Bible and look at the positive things it does say about human beings, about marriage, love and sexuality, so that like those who argued for abolition, we can draw positive conclusions from what the Bible does say in order to deal with this new situation faithfully.

I found my entry into that with an idea of Calvin’s that he puts in the beginning of his exposition of the Ten Commandments in his Institutes. Calvin says you really can’t understand the purpose of biblical law without understanding the purpose of the lawgiver. It’s like legislative intent: you have to figure out what God’s purpose is in giving particular commandments before you can understand the commandment.

So, what is God’s purpose for giving human beings the gifts of love, marriage and sexuality? What is God trying to accomplish? The book winds up being an exercise in answering that question in a positive way. What emerges clearly from scripture (and I’m not the only one who has concluded this) is that very central to God’s purposes in marriage is to give people a means of grace to help them grow into the image of Jesus’ self-giving love.

Marriage is this arena where we can totally give ourselves to another person in body, spirit, and life and commitment and grow in that total gift of self which winds up being an image of Jesus’ total gift of himself for us.

Critics say that marriage is more than that, though. What about procreation?

The Bible consistently portrays procreation as a blessing from God and a gift, but there is no sense that it is essential for a marriage to be valid.

Nowhere in the Bible or Christian tradition do you have the suggestion that if people are infertile that they ought not to get married. While procreation is this wonderful gift that God blesses some people with, there’s no sense anywhere in scripture that this is a make-or-break for whether a marriage is legitimate or not. I wound up back at my core idea that helping us grow in this complete self-giving to another person is really what God is up to in giving us the gift of marriage. This idea fits all through the New Testament, where God’s central purpose is to help people grow into Christ’s image of self-giving love. Marriage serves that purpose in a very special and powerful way.

It turns out there’s nothing that prevents a same-sex relationship from helping people grow into this same kind of Christ-like self-giving love.

This positive picture coming from the Bible is that God wants to form people in the image of Christ’s self-giving love, marriage is a way God gives people to do that so the only real question would be: “Is there any reason why God would not fulfill this purpose through this institution for same-sex couples?”

But what about the whole “it’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” thing?

That goes back to the question of Genesis where God creates human beings as male and female—and we’d be silly not to look at that and say it’s a standard default pattern for human life. So, the question is, does the Bible give us evidence of God bringing blessings outside of the standard patterns of Genesis?

The standard plan of Genesis lasts for two chapters and falls apart by chapter three. Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit, they fall away from the obedience God intended for all time and the whole rest of scripture onward is the story of God bringing blessing outside the standard pattern set forth in the creation stories of Genesis.

So, you look at that and say every part of the Bible testifies to God’s willingness to bless people beyond these standard patterns, except in this one issue of same-sex marriage. What kind of sense does that make?

Again, there’s not a statement in the Bible that says, “Same-sex relationships are okay,” just as there’s not a statement in the Bible that says, “A world without slavery is what we should be working for,” but there is so much positive that the Bible does say that leads directly to that conclusion. I found it overwhelming and it turned me from a pretty committed activist against an inclusive church to one on the front lines fighting for inclusion.

I’m certainly glad that you made that transition, but there remain an awful lot of Christians who oppose inclusion. How do we deal with them?

A lot of the time we hear that those against inclusion are driven by hate and fear, but a lot of people I know in that movement, that’s not the case. I had an uniformed perspective. When you look at the statistics for suicide and depression in LGBT people as a good Christian person you think, “Oh, my God, look at the damage being gay does to people.” But, it took me awhile and some good friendships with gay people to realize that suicide and depression and emotional problems aren’t the result of being gay, they’re the result of being told you’re an abomination at the core of your being.

I come to this debate as an outsider and I don’t know if I’ve succeeded completely, but I’ve tried with my language to convey that I believe the scripture is absolutely clear that God’s blessings and promises are absolutely for gay people.

How can we reach out with compassion to those on the other side who have that “uninformed perspective”?

I don’t think you can get away from the fact that some people do hate gay people, but in my own case with my own misconceptions, when I looked at the gay community it looked like a group of people who were drinking poison. Who are engaging in behaviors and a lifestyle that was spiritually, emotionally and physically toxic and if you see somebody about to drink poison, the compassionate Christian response is to try to get them to stop.

One of the things that was powerful for me in breaking out of that mindset was testimony about the blessings that came to gay and lesbian people through their committed relationships. Early in the book I talk about a conversation with a friend who said they knew all about identifying sin in their life and repenting of it, but when they thought about marriage to their partner, that’s what brought out the best in them and helped them learn love and self-sacrifice and nothing that needed to be repented of.

That really struck me that it sounded like my marriage.

The other thing that took me a long time to wrap my mind around is that an awful lot of Evangelicals really haven’t grappled with recognizing that this is not something you could choose your way out of. There’s always this sense of, “If you really tried hard, or prayed hard enough, you could come around.” Again, my gay friends would say, “Why on earth would I choose something like this? Who needs all this trouble?”

I think it’s the willingness of gay and lesbian people in sharing their stories that finally got it through my thick head that this isn’t an optional lifestyle, it’s a given.

  • James

    I’m intrigued that the Fall of Adam somehow obviates the divine pattern of God giving man a wife, or the command to multiply and replenish the earth. I’m also intrigued that “as a good Christian person you think, ‘Oh, my God, look at the damage being gay does to people.'” But I guess if Genesis is free to be wrested, then Exodus 20:7 is free to be ignored.

    The prophet Orwell comes forcefully to mind: “To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while
    telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions
    which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in
    both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while
    laying claim to it.”

  • BobSF_94117

    Since you brought up Orwell, does the world look “replenished” to you with its 7.25 billion people?

  • Jim ‘Prup’ Benton

    I will have a few comments but first, did you mean — in the section about many Christians not making the same transition — “I had a uniformed perspective”? It is at least an interesting way of phrasing it if you did, but I assume you meant “uninformed.” (A little pedantry to get my mind in motion.)

  • GMG248

    I am often amazed by 21st century Christians who don’t get the basic teaching of Jesus in his radical claim that the welfare of individual human beings trumps even the most treasured sacred traditions (even a prime commandment about the Sabbath). Religion invariably attracts the obsessive rule-keepers that value rules and regulations over human beings. This is exactly what the Bible thumpers do. In the process they often preach the opposite of what Jesus did. Thanks Candice for sharing this conversion story about how grace should triumph over a rigid bibliolatry.

  • cgosling

    About time. Marriage is both a religious and social institution. But, unfortunately for religion, the societal, legal, aspect of marriage is the last word, and the religious aspect must conform as did the LDS church. Without societal laws we invite religious abuse into a secular government, which has the duty to protect all religions.

  • Jim Reed

    The way past the contradictions is to grow beyond religion.

  • Invidosa

    I respect highly what this pastor is trying to say, and I’m always happy to welcome support from clergy in the struggle for marriage equality. However, I fear he is being woefully naïve is his characterization of the opposition as good hearted but uninformed as a whole. I am sure there are more then a few Christians who fall into this category, but I personally see the majority more along the line of “I want you to burn in hell for doing something I see as icky”. Again, of course I know many Christians who lean to the liberal side, and don’t see it this way.

    The thing is, they are not uninformed. They have just chosen what they want to believe, much as young earth creationists and Scientologists. Even though these ideas are unpopular, and generally decried by the majority of the population and/or science, there is no way to force a shift in belief.

    As long as we are dealing with opposition based in faith, this struggle will always exist. The bible can (as the pastor pointed out above) be basically interpreted to say just about whatever one wants it to say.

  • George M Melby

    Terrific article! One down, several thousand strong heads to educate and edify themselves. May they have the courage to do so. Amen! Pastor Dak!

  • Aravis Tarkheena

    What an absolutely outstanding interview. And what a thoughtful pastor.

  • Aravis Tarkheena

    Eve is not described as a wife. And I don’t recall a marriage ceremony in Genesis.

    The rationale given in Genesis for the creation of Eve is that “it is not good that the man shall be alone.” The “be fruitful and multiply” stuff comes later.

    It also never says that if you are infertile and can’t multiply, you shouldn’t get married.

    Far from going by the what the Bible says, you are reading a ton of stuff into it and going by that.

  • Aravis Tarkheena

    It’s not radical. Hillel had already said it.

  • This is a great article and the book sounds amazing. I preach from God’s Gospel, a gift from God to me to share with people and in it God states the following:

    “Union is about the sharing of the greatest of all emotions with which all creatures are endowed: Love. it can be the love of a man and a woman; a man and a man; or a woman and a woman. It can be with one person or many. To limit through blind ignorance or bigotry another person’s right to such a union, or to declare it an abomination or aberration in My Name is wrong, and is not the message I sent to you. There is a purpose to all unions, and it is not procreation. It is the touching of spirit, and there are no limits to such a union except that it does no harm to another person’s soul.

    “Union is the bringing together of two beings for the purpose of sharing their love and spirits. Is is for the sharing of friendship, companionship, understanding, support, giving, and learning. Each person in a union is there to act as an equal partner in relationship, not one subservient to the other…. I am present in any union between two loving consenting mature beings…It is not about sexual union of bodies, but rather a spiritual union of two souls, and I am always present in such a union.”(God’s Gospel, 2013, The Third Lesson, p. 16, 18)

    That this man has written a book that now clearly addresses this in depth for many Christians is wonderful. It is why I joyfully perform same-sex weddings if asked, because I truly believe that the sharing of love and the union of two spirits is one of God’s greatest gifts to us all.

    Rev. Devon J. Noll
    New Word Universal Fellowship Church
    http://www.newworduniversalfellowship.org

  • Frank6548

    Sounds like the perfect person to ignore: someone who has abandoned his faith for cultural acceptance.

  • Aravis Tarkheena

    Do you actually have an argument? Or are you just belching in public again?

  • Frank6548

    Funny I was wondering the same thing about this man who abandoned the truth of God.

  • James

    Gen 4:2 “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.”

    The “be fruitful and multiply” is the first commandment ever given–in the first chapter of Genesis, no less. You will also find that it was given to other animal species, not only to mankind.

    “It also never says that if you are infertile and can’t multiply, you shouldn’t get married.” Indeed, it doesn’t, as few worshipers of YHWH would likely have discovered their infertility prior to marriage as that would have necessitated fornication. Infertility was a cause for lamentation–Sarai, Rachel, and Hannah come foremost to mind. Celebrating infertility would have been anathema to ancient worshipers of YHWH.

    “Far from going by the what the Bible says, you are reading a ton of stuff into it and going by that.” LOL

  • Treyson

    No, he hasn’t “abandoned the truth of God”…sounds like he’s studied, been in deep prayer, reflection, and discernment, and come to a different conclusion than you.

  • James

    My survey leads me to believe there’s still ample room for millions of my progeny of religious zealots.

  • James

    Ms. Noll, Do you also perform ceremonies with those that love their money? If love all forms of love are equally meritorious (and because Paul clearly has no doctrinal authority), than I’m left to conclude that a negative response would be tantamount to bigotry.

  • Frank6548

    Anyone who denies that marriage and sexuality was created to be between a man and a woman denies Gods Will.

  • Frank6548

    Sad that you deny the Will of God.

  • pennyjane

    frank….God is not dead and if He were He most certainly would not appoint a sick, perverse bigot like you as His spokesman. why don’t you just crawl back under that thick black rock of yours and leave the decent people in the world alone? in all the places you choose to speak your ugly mind you have never added one thing positive to any conversation and have never convinced any person of anything. you bring out the worst in all you come into contact with. you are a drag on the world, go away!!!

  • George M Melby

    He really sounds like a disgruntled closet case who has no friends except the Bible-twisted ones in his klan.

  • George M Melby

    pennyjane, this sorry excuse for a Christian sounds an awful lot like a troll we got rid of on AATTP. He went by the names of Hooper, Susie Sotar, Brad, Paul621, and they finally booted his butt out of there. Pay him no mind and let him spew. We’ve all learned to ignore him. Definitely a charter member of the AcT = American christian Taliban!

  • George M Melby

    Yes, and the more we fight bigotry, the more people will be helped in leading good Christian lives, in any marriage, same sex or otherwise.

  • Frank6548

    Tied sexually or romantically to a person of the same sex is not living a good Christian life. It is a rejection of Christ.

  • Frank6548

    Sin damages everyone which is why homosexual behavior is any form must be spoken out against. It’s an act of hate to support sin.

  • Frank6548

    I am always amazed at how people are willing to make themselves look like a fool. Oh well that’s your choice.

  • Craptacular

    “It’s an act of hate to support sin.” – Frank6548

    You have Jesus’ message exactly backwards, as always, Frank. Jesus’ message was “it is a sin to support an act of hate.”

  • Aravis Tarkheena

    When Eve is created she is not created as a wife and the rationale for creating her is not to produce children but so that a human being shall not be alone.

    Who said anything about celebrating infertility?

    Does your church prohibit infertile people from getting married?

    Finally, it’s good to know that you adhere to the TANAKH so closely. We should discuss Kashrut sometime, as I presume you keep the dietary laws.

  • Aravis Tarkheena

    It’s not really Frank. It’s a tape-recording. He says the same thing every time.

  • Aravis Tarkheena

    Frank is a well-known troll around these parts. Best to simply ignore him. Speaking with him serves no purpose.

  • Craptacular

    I know…I am also guilty of talking to NPCs (non-player characters) in computer games, too. Oh, and I yell at people on the telly, even though they can’t hear me :).

  • Frank6548

    Yes and therefore its hateful to support sinful behavior and a sin itself. Thanks for the confirmation!

  • Frank6548

    Yes it’s always easier to ignore the truth than face it.

  • cranefly

    Maybe Hillel was radical too.

  • Aravis Tarkheena

    Fair enough. “Radical” has more than one meaning and need not imply “new”.

  • cranefly

    If you treat words said by God to any biblical character as words that must be said to every individual human for the rest of history, you have a problem.

    You’re also tacitly acknowledging that the story is an allegory, because one character representing a larger group or concept is the nature of allegory. Once it’s an allegory, it demands interpretation, and you are clearly taking certain interpretations for granted.

  • Eric

    Every word you type is living proof of that sentence.

  • George M Melby

    Yeeeeeeee-up!!! You’re the old Hooper! We don’t want you here either, TROLL!

  • George M Melby

    Well, by golly, now Adam and Eve had an illegitimate child or two, or three, or….

  • George M Melby

    Frank/Hooper, get thee behind me! Thank you!

  • Frank6548

    This is what happens when you lose an argument. Sad.

  • George M Melby

    Welllll… you SHOULD have learned your lesson over at AATTP! But ohhh no… you bring the same inane arguments over here and wonder why people can’t stand you ?! The commenters over here are very intelligent also. They’ve already got you figgered (sic) out! Learn from your mistakes!

  • Frank6548

    What’s AATTP?

    What people think of me is irrelevant.

    I am still looking for the intelligence you speak of.

  • George M Melby

    Americans Against The Tea Party, have you forgotten already? Dementia is a terrible thing to have at any age. Your comment noted… dismissed. Now go molt somewhere else! You wasted enough of our time!

  • Frank6548

    So not only are you ignorant about the topics you discuss you don’t even know who you are talking to. Pitiful.

  • George M Melby

    Yep… you’re Hooper/Susie Sotar alright. Hope your transition goes well here. Next?

  • Frank6548

    Oh dear…. Clueless.

  • anakinmcfly

    The Hebrew word translated as ‘wife’ is actually just the word for ‘woman’.

  • I am glad that Achtemeier changed his mind upon becoming friends with gay persons (poll after poll has shown the same thing — people who claim to known gay persons as friends and / or relatives are much more likely to harbor pro-gay attitudes than are people who claim not to know gay persons in such capacities), but this does very little to change the attitudes of so-called “Evangelicals” and, of course, Catholics. I remain horrified and disgusted by the attitudes of BOTH groups towards gay men and lesbians. The Catholics church continues to teach that gay persons are “intrinsically disordered” and that the sole purpose of sex is procreation (in a world with a total population of 7.125 BILLION as of 2013). I am also disgusted by the manner in which the Catholic church teaches that the usage of condoms by gay men is, in and of itself, a grave sin — despite the fact that condoms are highly effective in saving lives!

    The Evangelicals have also been instrumental in exporting their hatred to African nations such as Uganda (as detailed by “The Advocate” about three months ago).

    I am therefore extremely (almost reflexively) disgusted by the mere mention of Evangelicals, Southern Baptists, and Catholics. I recently watched a documentary named “Kidnapped for Christ” (see http://www.kidnappedforchrist.com), which detailed the manner in which young gay men and lesbians were abducted and sent to a reform “school” in the Dominican Republic, where they were subjected to gross abuse, including assault and battery, public shaming and humiliation, assault in the form of being struck with a paddle, and removal to a “quiet room” for several days at a time where they would have nothing but a thin mattress for sleeping. One of the rules of this school (named Escuela Caribe) was to obey authority without ever questioning that authority. I watched this documentary and was both horrified and appalled. One 18 year old was only released after a federal judge issued a writ of habeas corpus demanding that this boy be released..

    The behavior of Evangelicals has hardened my determination never to enter a chuch again as long as I live.

    PHILIP CHANDLER

  • And who says that gay sex is sinful, and that gay relationships are sinful? I do not choose to live my life according to the dictates and dogma of a religion based on a text which is more than 2,000 years old and which is simply no longer applicable to our lives today.

    I, for one, do not seek the forgiveness of a Christian god. I believe in the “golden rule” above all other commandments — to treat my neighbor as I myself would like to be treated. This rule is not unique to Christianity — there are many atheists, agnostics, and members of other religions who believe in this rule and who lead morally virtuous and decent lives.

    Opponents of gay marriage are fond of trotting out Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 — yet they eat shrimp and lobster, wear clothing made out of two different fibers. have sex with women who are menstruating, engage in crop rotation, etc — all of which are condemned by Leviticus.

    It’s nice to be able to pick and choose, isn’t it? However, this is not how people of integrity lead their lives.

    PHILIP CHANDLER

  • George M Melby

    Even though I don’t agree with all that you say, I will back you 110% in your right believe what you want! Please be kind to our resident troll, Frank. He isn’t feeling well… must have been someone he ate (Did I say that?!?) At any rate, I support you, straight, gay, or bi. Blessings and peace! Pastor Dak!

  • George M Melby

    Nope… Frank is belching… again!

  • Aravis Tarkheena

    No reason to talk with him. There’s a perfectly interesting conversation going on amongst the adults.

  • Aravis Tarkheena

    Don’t you understand that by talking to him, you give him a reason to stay? if everyone ignored him, he wouldn’t continue.

    Don’t feed the troll.

  • George M Melby

    Philip, not all Christians are bad, just the ones like Frank and uber christian extremists. Jesus would never tolerate what goes on in extremist evangelical groups, not by a long shot! Just know that we’re not all bad. Blessings and peace! Pastor Dak!

  • George M Melby

    Sorry. Actually we had a “avoid the troll” week at AATTP and it held for two weeks; they finally booted his butt out and he came over here under a new handle name. But yes… you ARE correct. Ignore at ALL cost! Thanks for the reminder!

  • WilmRoget

    Nice slander Frank. As usual.

  • WilmRoget

    Your false comparison only reveals your character, – it tells us that you know yourself capable of loving money as much, if not more, than people.

  • WilmRoget

    No Frank, it is a rejection of you.

    Remember, as I’ve told you many times, Christ’s own test for false teaching convicts you – you, and everyone who teaches ‘homosexuality is sin’ bear evil fruit.

  • George M Melby

    Wilm, thank you for this clarification. As a educated ordained Christian minister, we run into these self-taught, self-loathing people every once in awhile and they must be dealt with gently but firmly. Most are uneducated and rely on backwoods teaching. Most mainline Seminaries and churches today are seeing the light regarding GLBT issues and are intelligent enough to accept all God’s children under God’s loving care. Thank you for pointing this out… you and many others are “doing” the work of God, and not just “hearing.” Blessings and peace! Pastor Dak!

  • James

    “And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man
    should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”

    In Hebrew the two words that “help meet” are derived from are the words “ezer” and the word ‘k’enegdo.” Ezer which is commonly translated as “help” is really a rich word with a much deeper meaning.

    In her book “Eve and the Choice Made in Eden,” Beverly Campbell explains,

    “According to biblical scholar David Freedman, the Hebrew word translated thee into English as “help”
    is ezer. This word is a combination of two roots, one meaning “to rescue”, “to save,” and the other meaning “to be strong.” Just as the roots merged into one word, so did their meanings. At first ezer meant either “to save” or “to be strong,” but in time, said Freedman, ezer “ was always interpreted as ‘to help’ a mixture of both nuances.”

    Diana Webb in her book “Forgotten Women of God” also clarifies this word by explaining,

    “The noun ‘ezer’ occurs 21 times in the Hebrew Bible. In
    eight of these instances the word means “savior.” These examples are easy to identify because they are associated with other expressions of deliverance or
    saving. Elsewhere in the Bible, the root ezer means “strength…. the word is most frequently used to describe how God is an ezer to man. ”

    http://www.womeninthescriptures.com/2010/11/real-meaning-of-term-help-meet.html

    Could “help meet” any better denote what it means to be a wife?

    You mentioned infertility in your initial comment: “It also never says that if you are infertile and can’t multiply, you shouldn’t get married.” Fertility is not a prerequisite for marriage, though the commandment for (fertile) married couples to multiply was also re-delivered to Noah after the Flood (Genesis 9:1), which again demonstrates its importance, and why infertility is consequently lamented among believing peoples.

    Scripture indicates that there are at least two primary purposes of marriage: 1) each sex is to complement the other (as evinced by the “help meet” description and 2)
    man and woman are to fill the earth with their posterity. To the extent that the latter is not physically possible, it’s a shame, but the former purpose of marriage can still
    be fulfilled.

    The lesser Law of Moses, including the dietary laws to which you allude, was a temporary “schoolmaster” for a then-spiritually-immature Israel that had recently gone astray with orgiastic golden calf worship. As said law was fulfilled by the ministry of Christ, I’m accordingly free to eat shellfish to my heart’s content while remaining adherent to the precepts of the Tanakh as I celebrate YHWH’s covenant with Abraham, rather than the lesser law of Moses (see Galatians 3).

  • James

    “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but
    after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.”

    As an “educated ordained Christian minister,” George, you might want to look into both Paul’s epistles and the appropriate use of indefinite articles.

  • Aravis Tarkheena

    I am Jewish and do not accept the NT as Canonical, just as you do not accept the Koran or the Book of Mormon as Canonical, so quoting Galatians to me is utterly irrelevant. What some pagan Greeks thought about God’s law carries no authority whatsoever.

    You also obviously do not know Hebrew. The word used to describe homosexual conduct–“Toevah”–is exactly the same word used to describe the eating of shellfish. The word means “foreign” or “alien”, not “abomination” as poor translations, like the King James version allege.

    So, while you pick and choose from God’s laws, and allow pagans and idolators to tell you that the Torah is not binding on you, you then go and lecture other people on whether or not they can get married.

    Got it.

  • James

    Her argument is “love is love is love.” I’m consequently applying it to reveal its patent absurdity. You are attempting to rejoin with an ad hominem fallacy.

  • Andre M

    You don’t know what you’re talking about, Frank. Call it a day.

  • Andre M

    Your reasoning is specious.

  • Andre M

    You claim to know the mind of God, blasphemer.

  • Frank6548

    We all know the Will of God for sexuality and marriage, man plus woman, because he told us as clear as day.

  • Frank6548

    Thankfully God does and told us. Your choice to accept or reject this truth.

  • Andre M

    No we don’t and no he didn’t.

    When God tells me something “clear as day,” I’ll let you know.

  • Frank6548

    Since every argument you present has been demolished by me and others there is no reason to take you seriously at all.

  • Frank6548

    Hmm…still waiting for the educated part and anyone can get ordained online so no great feat there.

    Since you clearly have no idea what you speak of I think we can safely ignore what you say.

  • Frank6548

    As if you are required for the truth of God? Pitiful.

  • Frank6548

    Slander requires a false statement. Since mine is true there is no slander.

  • Andre M

    Hey, you said he told us clear as day, not me.

  • Frank6548

    No you just choose to reject it.

  • Andre M

    You seem to know a lot about others–you know the mind of God, you know whether a person has heard God “clear as day,” and whether or not he or she has ignored hearing God. With that kind of knowledge it sounds like you think you are God, Frank.

  • Frank6548

    It’s your choice to ignore scripture and biology.

  • Andre M

    Interpreting scripture is pretty different from hearing God telling me something “clear as day.”

    Also, ignoring biology? That’s a funny one Frank.

  • Frank6548

    So sad.

  • Andre M

    I’m sorry, what’s sad? That I don’t interpret scripture (or the world) the way you do? That I find you touting some biological knowledge hilarious?

  • Frank6548

    Wow as a Jew I am surprised at your ignorance of Levitical law.

  • Aravis Tarkheena

    I read Hebrew fluently. Do you?

  • Frank6548

    Sad that you reject reality and truth. Your choice however.

  • Andre M

    The reality and truth that God told me something “clear as day”?

  • Frank6548

    You are welcome to run in circles, I however have better things to do.

  • Andre M

    If you refuse to answer any question directly, than what can I do but circle around it?

  • James

    On the contrary, reductio ad absurdum is commonly accepted as a very legitimate form of argumentation.

  • WilmRoget

    Your application was predicated on an absurd comparison, so the the absurdity is yours, introduced by you –

    unless –

    you believe that people truly are equivalent to money. If you do, then I made no ad hominem. If you do not, then you simply engaged in deliberate deception.

    Which is it?

  • WilmRoget

    However, the absurdity was entirely yours.

  • WilmRoget

    No, that is your will. You are not God.

  • WilmRoget

    You should not accuse of others of your own sin.

  • WilmRoget

    Yet it is you who have made that choice. Both Scripture and biology embrace homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality.

  • WilmRoget

    Your claim has no basis in reality.

    Now here’s how it really works. If you actually could refute my position, you would keep doing so, over and over again if necessary, because even if you could not convince me, other people might learn something.

    But you cannot, so you sinfully and wickedly dismiss me.

  • WilmRoget

    Your statement is false, you are a slanderer. As such, you are barred from the Kingdom of Heaven, unless you repent. You are engaged in to-ebah, detestable things, behavior God hates:

    16 There are six things the Lord hates,
    seven that are detestable to him:
    17 haughty eyes,
    a lying tongue,
    hands that shed innocent blood,
    18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
    feet that are quick to rush into evil,
    19 a false witness who pours out lies
    and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

    You commit all of these, Frank, in thought and word if not in deed.

  • James

    Whether or not you accept it or the New Testament as canonical is your
    prerogative. However, it is precisely relevant to the conversation
    because you presumed
    that I keep the Mosaic dietary laws. I don’t, and I explained why—they are a portion of the lesser law, which I believe
    has
    been fulfilled. It’s not what the pagan Greeks think about God’s law
    that matter, but what an extremely shrewd rabbi-turned-apostle named
    Paul does.

    Regardless of the English renderings used by KJV
    translators, YHWH is unequivocally condemning both homosexual behavior
    and shellfish consumption (though it’s worth pointing out that the
    former warranted capital punishment—one of the few crimes that did under
    Mosaic Law). The intent is clearly the same—don’t do it.

    To
    the extent that the former lies solely within the purview of the Law of
    Moses, it wouldn’t apply to contemporary Christians. But as Paul
    repeatedly condemns it, the prohibition still applies post-Law of Moses.
    I’m not “picking and choosing from God’s laws;” I’m simply
    acknowledging that the statutes of the Law of Moses have been fulfilled.

    Anyone
    can get married under the auspices of any entity that elects to endorse
    them. Given their canons, it is a non sequitur for believing Jews
    and/or Christians to support same-sex “marriages.” And, in the case of
    the former, to serve shellfish at the reception.

    Lastly, what leads you to believe I don’t accept the Book of Mormon as canonical?

  • James

    Perhaps, then, you could appeal more to the Tanakh and less to your own authority.

  • WilmRoget

    I do find fault with this: “It was essentially an argument from silence, which I don’t find compelling.”

    It demonstrates bias against homosexuals. Human lives are full of things on which the Bible is silent, like computers and the internet, cars and planes, electric lights. No one assumes that these things are sin.

    But the standard ‘absence of affirmation = condemnation’ is used on GLBTQ people, and essentially, no one else. That is bias. We are presumed guilty until someone can prove that somehow we are actually innocent.

    So while the material here is useful to rebuking those who embrace that false standard, that favoritism against homosexuals, it is still problematic, there is still a fundamental injustice involved.

    “Again, there’s not a statement in the Bible that says, “Same-sex
    relationships are okay,” just as there’s not a statement in the Bible
    that says, “A world without slavery is what we should be working for,””

    Nor is there a statement that anything not condoned is condemned. So holding us to this standard it unjust, even when you can make a good argument on our behalf.

  • James

    As the only constraint that she places on unions is that “it does no harm to another person’s soul (a decidedly subjective question),” I’m afraid I do meet Ms. Noll’s requirements.

  • Andre M

    On the contrary, your reasoning is specious.

  • James

    Are you going to claim that ad nauseum, or bother to actually substantiate your claim?

  • Andre M

    Good lord you’re a horse’s ass.

  • Aravis Tarkheena

    How is it my authority?

    The word “toevah” is applied to both homosexual conduct and forbidden food. On what basis does Frank or anyone else pick and choose between them?

  • James

    Ad hominem–logical fallacy. If you can’t substantiate, you concede.

  • Aravis Tarkheena

    1. You misunderstand me (and its my fault — I often forget how poorly things like sarcasm and irony communicate in print). I am not orthodox myself and do not consider others “idolators” and “blasphemers” and the like. I was simply trying to illustrate how easy it is for a person who considers themselves righteous and orthodox to be viewed as idolatrous and blasphemous from the perspective of another tradition. The lesson I take from that is that because I do not have a God’s eye perspective on the world, I would be wise–and prudent–to be as tolerant of others and their practices as possible.

    2. The whole “Rabbi Paul” business is a lot of nonsense. Paul was heavily influenced by Greek mystery religion and it shows. The proto-Christianity that he fashions is fundamentally un-Jewish in its theology, soteriology, and eschatology.

    3. That gay and lesbian people can get married and share in the happiness that this institution brings people can only be a good thing. The God that you imagine, which condemns people for such things–as opposed to condemning people for things which actually harm others–is a relic of our ancestors’ more primitive sensibilities. It is a fortunate thing that we–and our understanding of our tradition–has evolved and grown since the Iron Age.

  • Andre M

    Spoken like a true horse’s ass.

  • James

    Tolerating others is a very different proposition from that of using state resources to sponsor/endorse their cupidity and self-destructiveness.

    You make a very broad indictment of Paul, which I would be interested in seeing you substantiate by contrasting his epistles with the Tanakh.

    “Happiness” is a highly subjective proposition, and the scriptural record is clear that what frequently masquerades as it is little more than self-indulgence of the flesh. YHWH frequently cites inappropriate sexual relations as the reason for his condemnation of societies
    (Numbers 25 comes foremost to mind), as any scripturally-knowledgeable Jew could tell you. Why would any Jew or Christian engage or support behavior that
    has been repeatedly shown to draw his wrath unto physical death?

  • WilmRoget

    ” I’m afraid I do meet Ms. Noll’s requirements.”

    Well, if you believe that money has a soul.

  • James

    This horse’s ass gladly accepts your concession of rhetorical defeat. Better luck next time.

  • James

    So long as one of the entities involved has a soul, who cares? As there’s love involved–and there iss–adding a further stipulation is just plain bigotry.

  • WilmRoget

    So the ‘love’ between a man and a car is the same as that between a man and a woman?

    Of course, historically, women were considered to only have half of a soul so maybe you still have something of a point – if you are a misogynist.

  • James

    Yes. To asset otherwise as a matter of religious dogma is nothing less than bigotry.

  • Andre M

    I didn’t say I was conceding defeat. You act like internet arguments are some sort of battle of pure logic and that you get to moderate the parameters. That’s not how any argument works and especially not internet arguments.

  • WilmRoget

    Your assertion is irrational.

  • WilmRoget

    As I’ve told you, Frank, when you do that, you put yourself in danger of the fires of Hell, according to Jesus:

    Matthew 5:22

    But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be
    subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

  • WilmRoget

    Nope. They deny your will. You are not God.

  • James

    “Bigotry is a state of mind where a person holds stubborn and complete views regarding other groups with fear, distrust, prejudice or hatred solely on the basis of ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other group characteristics.”

    In this case, bigots are those who view man/car relationships as inferior or inherently less loving as those between men and women.

  • Andre M

    I love wikipedia, but it’s plain silliness to assume it as the ultimate authority for a definition of bigotry.

  • James

    You didn’t explicitly concede defeat; you did tacitly by an inability to rejoin. Arguments, by the way, are a subset of logic: “In logic and philosophy, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons for accepting a particular conclusion as evident.”

  • Andre M

    You’re assuming that I share your rules of argument. I don’t. I don’t concede defeat. Just because a horse’s ass farts doesn’t mean it deserves a rejoinder.

  • WilmRoget

    As I stated some time ago, the absurdity is entirely yours.

    “solely on the basis of ethnicity, race, religion, national origin,
    gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other
    group characteristics.”

    None of which apply to cars.

  • James

    Then pick another legitimate source you’d like for the definition and I’ll show you how those who view man/car relationships as inferior or inherently less loving as those between men and women are bigots.

  • James

    It applies to the sentient participant entity in the marriage–the man with the car fetish–and is therefore bigotry.

  • Aravis Tarkheena

    Leo Baeck, “Judaism and Christianity” has, in my opinion, some of the best analysis of Pauline theology and its relationship to the Greek Mystery Cults.

    The picture of God that you paint at the end of your post here is just one that I find completely alien. Indeed, reading it makes me thank God that I am a Reform Jew and don’t belong to the sort of harsh–in my view vicious–religious orientation to which you seem to subscribe. Fortunately, too, the country is running from that sort of point of view as quickly as possible, with state after state legalizing gay marriage and ban after ban falling in the courts.

    In short, I am mighty glad that your side is losing this fight and losing it badly.

  • Aravis Tarkheena

    As for the incompatibility of Judaism and Christianity, the soteriology is the most obvious — Judaism has a works-based-soteriology and Christianity has a grace-based one. Theologically, they are also incompatible — Christianity, with its essentially Manichean “devil”, which does not exist in Judaism (ha-Satan is not the devil), and its basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the Garden of Eden story — Judaism does not believe that man is fallen or that the sin of Adam passes down to all humanity. (The Hertz Chumash has excellent commentary on Genesis, which outlines this erroneous Christian reading of Genesis quite well)

    Christianity may be genealogically Jewish, but it is theologically Greek.

  • James

    If a given horse’s ass made a cogent argument, it would warrant a legitimate rejoinder. As it stands, you can’t offer one, so you are now attempting to rewrite broadly-accepted definitions of logic and argumentation. (It’s not working.)

  • WilmRoget

    So now you are equating a car fetish to heterosexuality.

    Just admit it, you made a incredible irrational comparison. Or, you sincerely cannot tell the difference between a living thing and an inanimate object.

  • Andre M

    You say it’s not working. I don’t care. Just because you think you make a cogent argument doesn’t mean anyone else does and never means it deserves anything. I have no interest in rewriting any “broadly-accepted” definitions of logic and argument, especially since “broadly-accepted” is just code for “the definitions I prefer.”

  • Aravis Tarkheena

    He reminds me of my freshmen Introduction to Logic students. A little logic plus a lot of immaturity equals rigid and misapplied reasoning.

  • James

    I merely applied Ms. Noll’s logic—namely, that all forms of
    love are equally meritorious—to an unconventional romance. I could even argue that any given man’s
    relationship with his car is likely to be healthier than his relationship with his wife. I’m disappointed that personal
    prejudices would stand in the way of your sanctioning said marriage.

  • James

    “since “broadly-accepted” is just code for “the definitions I prefer.” LOL

    If you choose to apply your proprietary definitions to everything you say, your words are meaningless to everyone but yourself.

  • James

    Aravis, do you have a rejoinder, or are you content to remain on the ad hominem fallacy wagon?

  • Aravis Tarkheena

    Sweetheart, I have been teaching logic (and philosophy) at the university level for twenty years. I am not going to play games with you and I was not speaking to you.

    I am simply observed (to Andre) that the formal logic cannot be applied to ordinary language conversations and disputes in the robotic manner that you describe and that thinking one can do so is very characteristic of my young and inexperienced students.

    Formal logic describes the relations between abstract propositions. Real arguments, cast in ordinary language involve speech acts and thus, have an ineliminable rhetorical dimension that cannot be adequately captured via formalization and rules of inference.

  • John Teixeira

    Reread the article. You didn’t quite understand it.

  • John Teixeira

    Well said, Philp.

  • Andre M

    Painting with pretty broad strokes there, James. Did you survey to find out what was broadly-accepted, James? And your words would not be meaningless to someone who is familiar with your definitions but disagreed with them and they wouldn’t be proprietary only unto you but unto a community that agrees on that definition. Duh.

  • John Teixeira

    Frank, you just don’t get it. Guess what though? Jesus still loves you.

  • WilmRoget

    “I merely applied Ms. Noll’s logic”

    No, you did not. You did demonstrate though that you are unwilling to make a reasonable, rational comparison to defend your position, and that strongly suggests that such a comparison would not help you.

    You tried to be clever instead of accurate, and failed at both.

  • George M Melby

    James, Paul was one of the most twisted-thinking apostles ever and even Christ told his disciples, “You still just don’t get it, do you?!?” Sorry, James, you’re in that group… you lose!

  • George M Melby

    Believe me, (he) has left no stone unturned in order to stir up conflict, through word AND deed, no matter where said troll lands. He is an abomination to common sense and logic.

  • George M Melby

    Nope, we have several million of your progeny too many as it is. Let the intelligent live!

  • George M Melby

    Shalom!, Aravis!

  • George M Melby

    The poor troll has problems with English as it is. Let’s not confuse him/her further. I took one semester of Hebrew in Seminary and needed counseling, lolol. Two semesters of Greek and I swore off classic languages forever, lol. I don’t know how you people do it… I stand amazed, lolol.

  • WilmRoget

    oh yeah. He’s been all over the progressive blogs on patheos with the same simplistic, shallow anti-gay noise.

    But at least while he is busy here, billy goats can cross bridges in peace.

  • George M Melby

    May I add, Amen, and AMEN!!!

  • Frank6548

    I understand it better than you if you believe that.

  • George M Melby

    ROFL… YES! You mean (she’s/he’s) not omnipresent??? ‘Magine that!?!

  • Frank6548

    I understand you have chosen to reject God. Your choice.

  • Frank6548

    You’ve dismissed yourself.

  • James

    And cue the “academic” condescension. Aravis, do you prefer to be called “professor” or simply, “master”?

    Perhaps I should rephrase my argument in language that even an academic who hides behind bombast can comprehend.

    Major premise (per Ms. Noll):

    “There is a purpose to all unions, and it is not procreation. It is the touching of spirit, and there are no limits to such a union except that it does no harm to another person’s soul.”

    Minor premise:
    A man develops a union with his car.

    Conclusion:
    The purpose of a man’s union with his car is the touching of spirit.

    That’s called a “syllogism.” Here’s another one:

    Major premise (per Wikipedia):
    “Bigotry is a state of mind where a person holds stubborn and complete views regarding other groups with fear, distrust, prejudice or hatred solely on the basis of ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other group characteristics.”

    Minor premise:
    Some people are sexually oriented towards cars.

    Conclusion:
    Those who hold stubborn and complete views regarding car lovers with fear, distrust, prejudice or hatred
    solely on the basis of their love of cars are practicing bigotry.

    Applying said conclusion as a major premise, and Andre’s claim that a love of cars is inferior to love between two people as the minor, the conclusion is simple:

    Andre is a bigot.

    Q.E.D.

    Pray tell, at what low-ranking state school do you impart your “wisdom” to hapless undergraduates with subpar SAT scores?

  • George M Melby

    I believe you have addressed James/Frank/Hooper most adequately and completely. A fart is still a fart, odor or non-odor! Thank you!

  • George M Melby

    Frank, go home and tend the goats!

  • Andre M

    Did you mean to say Andre? Because I wasn’t really digging into the whole car-love argument. I was coming more from the you’re-a-horse’s-ass angle.

  • Aravis Tarkheena

    As I said, I am not going to play games with you. Indeed, I have no interest in speaking with you at all. Your views simply don’t matter.

    As for the condescension, you started it with your snarky remarks about peoples’ logic. What’s sauce for the goose and all that.

  • James

    If the Jewish soteriology is purely works-based, then that pretty much obviates the ordinances of the Day of Atonement, doesn’t it? Why would YHWH bother with a mercy seat on the ark if he wasn’t prepared to dispense grace to a penitent Israel?

    שָׂטָן

    translates to “Adversary” in the English. He is certainly prominent in the story of Job, though you correctly assert that he figures less prominently in the Tanakh than in the NT. But I’ve never heard it alleged that Jews do not recognize a prominent antagonist in the theological drama. I’d be curious as to your interpretation of the Lucifer figure mentioned in Isaiah 14:12.

    Original Sin (“the sin of Adam passes down to all humanity”) is a mere Catholic contrivance; it is not justified in the New Testament, and is therefore not universal Christian doctrine.

    “Before Abraham was, I am.” Adam testified of the Messiah 2,000 years before Abraham walked the earth. Ergo, Judaism is the descendant of pre-Abrahamic Christianity.

  • James

    And we’ll keep right on losing until Messiah comes and burns the chaff. But in the interim, we’ll gather the penitent wheat sheaves that don’t subscribe to an increasingly pervasive moral relativism.

  • John Teixeira

    Awww, you will be ok. God still loves you.

  • George M Melby

    But God is thinkin’ twice about that, lolol.

  • George M Melby

    James doesn’t even deserve the respect or comparison to a horse’s ass. He will be trotted out to dry in any case.

  • George M Melby

    I do believe James is Frank’s conjoined twin at the hip.

  • George M Melby

    James, you shouldn’t be up-voting your own comments! Shame on you!

  • WilmRoget

    No, the goats need both James and Frank to stay out from under their respective bridges – winter is coming and the goats need extra calories.

  • WilmRoget

    Nice sin of pride.

  • WilmRoget

    Homosexual behavior is not sin, since, after all, it does not damage everyone.

    But anti-gay theology damages everyone. It trivializes all human relationships, it promotes violence, turning many heterosexuals into murderers and rapists. It devalues both men and women. It drives many people away from God altogether.

    Face it Frank, by your own reasoning, you are sinning here.

  • WilmRoget

    Mostly he’s chosen to reject you. You are not God. And you’ve created such an ugly idol with your face to call god, which people like Philip reject, thinking they are rejecting the Creator, when they are simply rejecting your idol.

  • WilmRoget

    That is why people rebuke you. You engage in sinful behavior.

  • Jim Reed

    Hating sin might be an act of hate. Certainly it can be an obsession.

  • James

    Can you present a syllogism as to why my views matter less than yours? Be sure to include “I teach at a low-ranking state school” as one of your premises.

  • Aravis Tarkheena

    As I already said, I have no interest in speaking with you, so the answer, I’m afraid, is “no.”

  • George M Melby

    Thank you, Aravis! Inch by inch… Shalom!

  • Aravis Tarkheena

    His is the sort, I am afraid, who can only be ignored, not spoken with. Unfortunately, this forum attracts them like flies–due to the subject-matter–which is why my participation tends to be sporadic.

  • George M Melby

    DON’T be sporadic. Intelligent people appreciate each other while troublemakers are, or should be, avoided like the plague. I look forward to more communication with all who agree to disagree!

  • Frank6548

    Hating sin is never an act of hate. And if its an obsession its one I share with God who had to send and sacrifice his son to deal with it.

  • Frank6548

    All sin, including all homosexual behavior, affects the Kingdom of God and therefore affects all of creation.

    Wise up!

  • Frank6548

    Your desperation to sin is showing.

  • Jim Reed

    Sin is a religious concept, and without a strong market for hate religion would be out of business.

  • Aravis Tarkheena

    Actually the Bible says nothing about homosexuality, as the term is understood today. It speaks specifically to male-on-male sexual interaction.

    The funniest thing, however, about the Christian appeal to the Mosaic law, on this issue, is that the Law only applies to Jews. Gentiles are only bound by what are called the “Noahide” laws, which do not include the prohibition on male-on-male sex.

    So, these gentiles are all worked up about a prohibition, which appears in a Law that does not apply to them. God gave the Law to the Hebrews, in part, as a way of setting them apart from the other nations. That’s why the chosen word for the prohibition of certain foods and sexual practices is one that connotes foreignness (toevah), rather than a moral term, which would apply universally.

  • WilmRoget

    “It speaks specifically to male-on-male sexual interaction.”

    Not exactly. It speaks of a husband cheating on his wife in her bed with zakar, a priest or other male set aside for high office. It describes and prohibits many forms of male-on-female sexual interaction as well. One could argue, more honestly than those who preach ‘homosexuality is sin’, that there is considerable condemnation of heterosexual sex, perhaps even enough to constitute a blanket condemnation of it. After all, when homophobes use the alleged attempted rape in Sodom to denounce all gay sex, then the explicit condemnations of heterosexual rape, adultery, incest must create a much stronger rebuke of all heterosexual sex.

    And it speaks of heterosexuals abandoning their innate sexual use of the opposite sex as a part of idolatry.

    And the reference to the centurion and his pais probably does address an intimate, male-male sexual relationship.

    Of course, my point is that the ‘absence of affirmation = condemnation’ is only used to bully GLBTQ people, and as such, it demonstrates an intrinsic bias, an expression of favoritism that makes those who wield it lawbreakers.

  • Aravis Tarkheena

    I was only speaking to the alleged ban on homosexuality. Of course it speaks to all these other things as well.

  • WilmRoget

    So you see things that are not there. Interesting.

  • George M Melby

    I could give “him” a wide swath if poor vision were “his” only problem. It will be interesting to hear the Almighty and “him” converse on the Day of Judgment. (I wonder who’ll win THAT argument?!) Kudos, Wilm!

  • Laurie Neufeld

    Blasphemy. Using the name of g-d. Not capitalizing “he”.

  • Laurie Neufeld

    Oh, now not only do you have personal conversations with your sky fairy, you’re also a biologist? HAH!

  • Laurie Neufeld

    Money can’t love you back, genius. Unless you have a hookup with a hooker named Money.

  • Laurie Neufeld

    “assert” not “asset”

  • George M Melby

    From the information I have attained from the comments of Aravis, I would prefer to call her “Her Holiness,” if you don’t mind! (Sorry, Aravis, wrong religious theology, I know… lol).

  • Frank6548

    Exposing your ignorance, idiocy and immaturity I see.

  • fiona64

    Yes, Frank. Let’s understand Levitical law, shall we? It’s already been explained to you, repeatedly and with references, why you are WRONG about the verses in Leviticus that you support.

    How many of the other Levitical laws are you following, Frankie? You’ve never answered that.

  • fiona64

    Is there some reason why you did not address the pastor by her title?

    The rest of your post is asinine nonsense, but I seriously want to know why you so lack respect for the clergy that you cannot be bothered to refer to her as Rev. Noll.

  • fiona64

    If you want to marry your car, rock on. As soon as you can show me a Buick capable of reading, understanding, and consenting to the terms of a marriage license, I will champion your union and dance at your reception. I will also caution you to be careful during the consummation.

  • George M Melby

    Yes! Those tailpipes can kill one in any number of ways. 😉 Thanks!

  • Frank6548

    Poor Fiona. Instead of actually growing and learning you are content stay in the same place: ignorant of Levitical law and their purposes. Wow.

  • fiona64

    I guess you’d better run and tell Jesus that he shouldn’t have healed that centurions’ beloved slave …

  • fiona64

    Every time you claim to have “demolished” someone’s argument, you show what an imbecile you are. Your “arguments” consist of “You’re wrong because I say so.”

    You’re a freaking joke, Frank. Just go away.

  • fiona64

    I have opined for *ages* that Cranky Frankie is one of the biggest closet cases ever …

  • fiona64

    Can’t answer the question, eh?

    That’s about what I thought.

    For those who are curious about just how wrong Frank is re: Levitical law: http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/leviticus.html

  • George M Melby

    Sorry, SFBs, I sat in every class at an accredited Baptist Seminary in the upper midwest. No online here, but they do now offer online courses, IN ADDITION to onsite classes. You are just a born loser, Frank Edsel Ford.

  • Frank6548

    Referencing a source that has no authority and is a embarrassing display of ignorance doesn’t p help your case at all. You really aren’t that smart are you? So sad.

  • Frank6548

    Telling us of your education history and looking at your lack of understanding as demonstrated by your comments doesn’t help you at all. It makes you look even more ignorant.

    What’s SFB?

  • George M Melby

    If Frank/Hooper/Susie Sotar, the transexual, knew anything about the Old OR New Testament, s/he would know that God is not a man or woman, God is a Spirit. It’s the heterosexual patriarchs that fu*cked that up!

  • Frank6548

    Only the most ignorant would even try and suggest:

    1. That the servant was anything but a servant
    2. If Jesus did heal a homosexual that it would mean that homosexual behavior isn’t a sin.

    How embarrassing for you.

  • Frank6548

    Keep posting and exposing yourself for the fool that you are. Take note everyone.

  • George M Melby

    Frankie… Sweetcheeks… read the comments and down votes regarding your dismal comments and peoples’ comments regarding mine and I think you have a lot more to worry about than me. I’m just not particularly worried… I and we are too busy laughing at you, numbnutz!

  • Frank6548

    Yeah allying yourself with a bunch a fools make me looks bad. :rolleyes

  • George M Melby

    For redundant brainless people like you, Shit For Brains… or do I need to explain THAT to you, SFBs!

  • Frank6548

    Keep exposing your foolishness. Well done!

  • fiona64

    Thanks for once again proving your ignorance of biblical-era mores and history, let alone linguistics. The Greek word used, pais, means “lover.” The word for slave is “doulos” … and that is not the word used.

    You would think, if Jesus had an issue with homosexuality (not that it was understood then as it is now), he would have mentioned it to the centurion.

    Here, for the edification of those who may be reading and be unaware, is everything Jesus ever said about homosexuality: ” “

  • fiona64

    Can’t answer the question, eh?

  • fiona64

    Jesus still loves him, but the rest of us think he’s a giant tw*twaffle.

  • Laurie Neufeld

    Poor Frank. Here are some more “i” words for you to use while you’re projecting. “impotent” “imbecilic” “insane” “infantile” “irrational” “irritable” and “insipid”.

  • George M Melby

    fiona, Frank doesn’t have the ethics, intelligence, or creds to even be commenting on blogs. He is a mental infant in a world of intelligent people. Shalom!

  • fiona64

    I have to admit, part of what bugs the heck out of me is that there will be someone reading who does NOT know how wrong Frank is. I studied Biblical archaeology and linguistics, and I know I’m correct and he isn’t. That’s why I put up the links I do.

    You’re right, of course; Cranky Frankie is a mental midget who doubtless believes that the Bible was written in English with modern definitions for everything.

  • Frank6548

    Don’t you think it’s time for you to grow up?

  • Frank6548

    Nothing to answer. When you ask a cogent question not steeped in ignorance maybe I will. Poor Fiona.

  • Frank6548

    Past your ignorance is showing again. Seeing sex where there is none.

    The Greek noun pais is used in the New Testament 24 times and has a range of meanings that include “adolescent,” “child” and “servant.” In the LXX (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) it appears numerous times and it always refers to a “servant.” There are no occurrences of the term anywhere in the Bible that can be interpreted a referring to the junior partner in a homosexual relationship.

  • fiona64

    Still no answer. The question was not hard, Cranky Frankie: how many of the Levitical laws are you obeying?

  • bbmike

    Of course companionship and love are good for you. We’ve all known that forever.

    What’s at issue in the community over same sex marriage is not the fundamental principles upon which sound communities are built – that is clearly kindness, friendship and positive reinforcement.

    What’s at issue is can you replace the positive effects of heterosexual marriage wth hoosexual marriage. And the answer is clear – it doesn’t work that way.

    Even if you add adoption, surrogacy, IVF, 3rd party insemination or other means to same sex marriages they do not become the same as homosexual marriages in totality.

    The question being put by those who support same sex marriage is the wrong one. What they should be asking is can we change the law of the land to enfranchise our same sex marriage?

    The question they seem to be asking s can we make ur same sex marriage the same as your hetrosexual marriage? The answer to that question is clearly “No. Neither you nor anyone can make the two marriages the same.”

    The problem is that proponents seem to want to eradicate natural differences by legislation, brow-beating and intimidation. It doesn’t work that way either. That’s war.

    Whatever happened to the maxims around accepting differences, live and let live? That’s what same sex proponents were asking for wasn’t it?

    How come it’s morphed into strident carping and ignoring the differences as if they don’t exist?

  • WilmRoget

    Matthew 5:22

    But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be
    subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

    You are endangering yourself again, Frank.

  • WilmRoget

    “What’s at issue is can you replace the positive effects of heterosexual
    marriage wth hoosexual marriage. And the answer is clear – it doesn’t
    work that way.”

    Sure it does. Of course, your post is largely incoherent, so your unsubstantiated claim has no merit anyways.

    “How come it’s morphed into strident carping and ignoring the differences as if they don’t exist?”

    Since that is your nasty fantasy, only you know the answer. Perhaps if you stop your strident carping and your fake differences, you’ll learn.

  • George M Melby

    LOLOLOL… Ohhhhhh, thank you! LOLOL.

  • George M Melby

    ROFL… I think the vast majority of commenters here had your number a long time ago, PussyWillow. I’m really not too worried about your prognoses, much less your total lack of education and intelligence, little genie!

    Your score: 917 comments/337 votes;
    My score: 2086 comments/4172 votes.

    As I said… no worries here, lolol.

  • Frank6548

    You are right there are no worries. We all know you act like fool. A child could see it by looking at your words.

    Keep up the great work! You do a better job in invalidating yourself then I could ever do.

  • Frank6548

    I don’t think further exposing your biblical ignorance is helping you. But hey keep it up. You invalidate yourself better than I could ever do.

  • Frank6548

    The only ones we have to try and obey are the moral ones. If you were educated in the subject you would know this already.

  • fiona64

    So, no answer then. That’s what I thought.

  • George M Melby

    Heh heh heh… spot on the mark! Normal Jewish and Christian observers “get it”!

  • George M Melby

    Then please, for God and us, go do them! But please don’t rub the walls with your Play Dough… just eat it!

  • WilmRoget

    Your insults only put yourself in danger of the fires of hell. Please repent.

    Well, that and prove that you have no cogent rebuttal.

  • George M Melby

    Wilm, something tells me this Frank Jackass is already in hell and doing Satan’s bidding. Therefore we would say, “Get thee behind us, Frank,” and we would be rid of the satanic fool. Amen and AMEN!

  • Frank6548

    Rightfully pointing out that you don’t understand the verse you quote is not an insult, it’s reality.

  • WilmRoget

    But since you are not right, but simply a slanderer, you are sinning. Please repent.

  • NancyP

    Ha-ha! NPC for sure. No independent thought. No unpredictable behavior. No compassion. No humor. No humility. Just a machine view of life. NPC.
    Frank, you might get more traction if you confessed to a sin, and then railed against that very same sin.

  • NancyP

    So, Frank, get down to proof-texting already. Or maybe you just can’t defend your theological claims. Or maybe your NPC program just isn’t sophisticated enough to deal with such demands.

    You are highly ineffective as an evangelical. “Do “X” because I claim that God says to do “X” ” is not effective. Being an unpleasant whiny nag is ineffective. Being holier-than-thou is ineffective raised to the nth power. Remember, your style of Christian behavior just repels potential converts.

  • Frank6548

    First I am not an evangelical.

    Second every theological position I have is supported scripturally and has the support of millenia of accepted scholarly interpretation. The onus is on those that fallaciously claim homosexual behavior is not sinful. Many have tried, all have failed.

    Third it is the Holy Spirit that leads people to Christ not me. No one can use anyone else as an excuse for not following Christ but themselves.

  • George M Melby

    YOU… are a very poor example of a Christian. Who would want to follow Christ after reading your twisted theology?!?

  • Valk-Orion Yoder

    So you bend your thinking and will to an authority other than your god who said the kingdom is within?

    Pitiful subhuman.

    “Only Slaves Kneel, only beggars pray, and only the terrorized repent” Odinist Proverb

  • Valk-Orion Yoder

    Liar.

  • Valk-Orion Yoder

    She has and as a scoundrel you hide behind fallacious arguments to conceal your lies and justify your stupidity. Not very becoming of the follower of the truth that at dwelt in flesh.

  • Valk-Orion Yoder

    Liar. You are to obey the whole of the law as Jesus said, he hath come to fulfill it.

  • Valk-Orion Yoder

    Wise up stupid, the kingdom is not creation. Jesus said many will claim to know it and say “here it is” but it is not of this earth. Keep failing theologian and you will be asking the same question as Jesus did ” Father, why have you forsaken me” and he will respond “Because I never knew you”.

  • Valk-Orion Yoder

    And that’s why you follow a deceiver for you hate that which God has deemed he is the master over. It is your god you confuse with love.

  • Valk-Orion Yoder

    Wrong, fallacious arguments are the hallmark of children and zealots. And the only good zealot is a dead zealot.

  • Valk-Orion Yoder

    Well it does have the ability to speak according to the zealots on the supreme Court.

  • Valk-Orion Yoder

    Wrong again stupid. Slippery Slope fallacies are not generally accepted either.

  • Valk-Orion Yoder

    Says the kettle.

  • Valk-Orion Yoder

    That is true but the subject matter was constructed by flies. Or we wouldn’t have to be discussing this in the age of universal rights. The flies must be swatted, but a general cleaning of the culture must be done also so not to give the flies room to lay their maggots.

  • Frank6548

    Was this suppose to make sense?

  • Frank6548

    I suggest you overcome your ignorance with more study.

  • Valk-Orion Yoder

    Yah and Paul was a liar and a zealot just like you and has no authority or monopoly on the teachings of jesus. He was exposed as a fraud when comparing Pauline orthodoxy to the Christ’s teachings and Paul couldn’t even keep a cogent argument on the teachings of Christ just as you and James can not. Carl who you are following on that road to Damascus, he could be a murderer of Christians and just lied to save his skin.

  • Valk-Orion Yoder

    Take your suggestion and stuff it theofascist.

  • George M Melby

    YOU??? SUGGESTING??? ANYTHING??? TO ANYONE???? ROFLMAO!!!!

  • Frank6548

    Yes I understand I have reduced you to all caps and more nonsense. No surprise.

  • Valk-Orion Yoder

    Obviously not to you stupid.

  • fiona64

    I guarantee that if you were the first self-proclaimed Christian that someone met, he or she would NOT be interested in following Jesus. Jesus wouldn’t recognize his words in your hate-filled, self-loathing mouth.

  • fiona64

    You first, Frankie: Matthew 5:17 would be a good place to start.

  • George M Melby

    Cranky Franky wouldn’t even know that Matthew is in the New Testament… he cowers only in the Old Testament and his basement.

  • FrJesusGaylord

    What equal marriage activists are asking for is equal treatment under the law. What you are offering is the separate but equal crap bigots have been pushing since at least the 1950s. What you believe personally means nothing to me at all. But when you try to force me to live according to your weirdo beliefs, then there’s a problem. Fortunately, people like you are losing. What an embarrassment you’re going to be to your children!

  • fiona64

    To be perfectly honest, I think he’s cowering in his *mom’s* basement.

  • Frank6548

    Further displaying your scriptural ignorance isn’t helping you. Sad,

  • Frank6548

    Aww how cute. Clueless but cute.

  • Valk-Orion Yoder

    And this endth the lesson.

  • fiona64

    What’s the matter, Frankie? Won’t Mommy let you look at the Bible? I told you you should have washed your hands first …

  • Frank6548

    Poor Fiona. The trainwreck continues. Sad.

  • Frank6548

    The train wreck continues. So sad.

  • Frank6548

    Yes. Thanks for teaching us how to look foolish and ignorant. Well done!

  • Frank6548

    Thanks for confirming our dismissal of you was valid.

  • George M Melby

    The people commenting here have more Scriptural Foundation expertise in their little finger than you do in your whole body, SFBs. We’re simply not impressed with you lack of knowledge in any sphere.

  • George M Melby

    And you’re the old caboose bringing up the ‘rear’. So sad.

  • Frank6548

    Aww how cute. Trying to play a grown up.

  • Frank6548

    I understand. You’ve been beat down. We get it.

  • George M Melby

    LOLOL… yeah, those old apron strings are a hard thing to let go of for Franky/Christopher. We got rid of Christopher. I hope they keep Franky here for our entertainment.

  • fiona64

    I don’t. He’s been banned several times already, and I am hopeful that it will happen again soon.

  • Valk-Orion Yoder

    Keep talking fool. The Raven Banners are flying once more and what has been done shall be undone with the same ferocity and guile. You thought you had established 6 out kingdom but as Fabius taught, we are just buying out time.

  • George M Melby

    I have bad news for you Frank SFBs! NOBODY has dismissed Valk-Orion Yoder or his comments! 99% of the commenters on any blog you land on dismiss YOU and YOUR comments! Sorry to burst your tiny bubble but ‘facts is facts’! Get used to it or grow up. On the average, we think you’re hoot!

  • Frank6548

    You are welcome to live in your delusion.

  • Janice Best

    Good points. I would guess that part of the reason that the pastor says that those who are as hateful as he was, is that he wants to think of himself as good-hearted but uninformed. And the only way he can do it, is to say that they still are.

    One thing that makes me quite uncomfortable about this is that he can only see things as “okay” if *he* finds something in his bible that makes it so. It is still quite narrow-minded.

    But I’ll take his narrow-mindedness over Pat Robertson’s.

  • JCF

    I reject your “god”, Frank. Fortunately for Christian wee me, NOT the same one revealed in the New Testatment.

  • George M Melby

    I support you 100% JCF!!! Frank’s idea of being a Christian is standing in church hoping and praying he’ll be transformed; I stand in my garage hoping I’ll transformed into a Lamborghini but, alas… ain’t gonna happen any time soon! Don’t let Frank6548 aka a host of other names, buffalo you. He’s a medical instrument disguised as a rectal thermometer!

  • Frank6548

    It’s so blatantly obvious you have created your own god. Sad.

  • George M Melby

    I’ve succeeded… your excuse is???? 🙂

  • George M Melby

    Get thee behind us, Satan Frank!

  • George M Melby

    Ohhhh, Frankie, Baby… you had “foolish and ignorant” down pat looong before you met us, SFBs!

  • JCF

    No moreso than you have. Sad? My God is revealed to me via the GOOD News. What have you got? “My god is as judgmental {cough *of those unlike me* cough) as I am!” No thanks…

  • George M Melby

    THANK YOU, JCF! We need your voice to combat Satan Frank, the christian troll. Your voice has, and will be heard here! Blessings and peace! You are spot on the mark!

  • KS

    Please read Acts 15:22-31 regarding the Old Trstament Law.

  • fiona64

    Please read Matthew regarding Jesus’ remarks on the old law.

  • George M Melby

    EXCELLENT reference and source. I’ve read this about once a week and it bears repeating. It’s even very self-explanatory which would obviously stymie our loco/local troll! Thank you!

  • Laurence Charles Ringo

    Having said all that, Philip, your point for being on this site is…what, exactly? Isn’t this a site primarily for Christians, even nominal ones?

  • Laurence Charles Ringo

    After reading your sad post, Philip, I have only one relevant question for you: Have YOU ever met the Saviour, presonally?

  • George M Melby

    You are the epitome of what Mr. Chandler was talking about and describing regarding arrogant, ignorant Talibangelicals! As an ordained Christian minister, it is quite frankly none of your damn business whether Mr. Chandler has, or has NOT met the Savior! That is a personal domain of which you need to BUTT OUT! Is that clear enough for you to understand?? George M Melby, M.Div. Pastor/Hospital-Hospice Chaplain (Ret.). (BTW, say Hi to Hooper/Susie… you faux christians are so easy to spot!)

  • George M Melby

    Phil… me again. Please forgive Laurence Charles Ringo/Susie/Hooper for being such an arrogant Talibangelical extremist. He does not know any better. No all Christians are as ugly in showing their love as he is. Have a super week!

  • And you still don’t answer the question. This question has been put to you repeatedly, yet you continue to evade it. Do you eat (or have you ever eaten) shrimp? Do you wear blended shirts? Do you eat vegetables which were grown in fields subject to crop rotation? Do you shave your sideburns?

    Please explain to us how “Levitical law” no longer applies to these proscriptions, but still applies to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. I await with baited breath — although I expect I will not be able to hold my breath for very long!

    PHILIP CHANDLER

  • You have been asked, several times, cogent questions about the fact that people such as you routinely ignore or fly in the face of Levitical proscriptions and prescriptions, while trying to ram 18:22 and 20:13 down the throats of gay men and lesbians (although lesbians are actually not mentioned — yet I suspect that you don’t give them a free pass either). You have failed to answer, merely repeating the same phrase over and over again (“Nothing to answer” or “Instead of actually growing and learning you are content stay in the same place: ignorant of Levitical law and their purposes”).

    So yet again — please explain to the rest of us benighted contributors to this thread how the other proscriptions no longer apply, yet 18:22 and 20:13 are still valid.

    PHILIP CHANDLER

  • Laurence Charles Ringo

    WOW.After reading your less-than-gracious reply to the fairly innocuous question I posed to Mr.Chandler, I must confess I was somewhat taken aback at the venom and vitriol that literally leapt off your post, Mr.Melby. (I’m also curious as to why Mr.Chandler didn’t reply himself;does he need a champion?)—At any rate…You know what I like about Disqus, Mr.Melby? They keep everything. I not sure how far back they go, but I read quite a few of the comments you posted to people on various sites, and your speech is VERY intemperate for someone who makes the claims that you do.Belittling, condescending, vitriolic, insulting, profane…I must admit I’m baffled and more than a little suspicious of your depiction of yourself. I cannot imagine in my WILDEST dreams Jesus or Paul or Peter addressing those with whom they disagreed in the vicious, hateful manner you display on these sites! And I’m sorry, but given Mr.Chandler’s practically pathological desire to throw literally ALL Christians under his bus, I have and had no qualms about asking him has he himself met the Saviour; his language would suggest otherwise, and for YOU, a self-profess Christian minister to question that…well, perhaps you’ve been retired too long.I’ll leave it at that, but I was REALLY, REALLY shocked by your crude, intemperate language on these sites, Mr.Melby. (And by the way, I have no idea who “Susie/Hooper”is.)—Good day, and God bless you!

  • Frank6548

    Only the moral laws are still in effect and binding.

  • AHA! I KNEW IT! I KNEW THAT YOU WOULD RESPOND AS YOU HAVE DONE!

    Now please tell me — who decides which of those laws are “moral” and which are merely “ceremonial” or redundant? Are you seriously going to try to answer my question with a cogent and coherent response? I am willing to bet that the very people who condemn gay men and lesbians are the people who decide which laws are “moral” and which laws are merely “ceremonial.”

    I eagerly await your response!

    PHILIP CHANDLER

  • Frank6548

    So are you admitting you cannot tell the difference between a health law and a moral law? A ceremonial law and a moral law? Best do some study first before you attempt to engage in a discussion you know very little about.

  • Frank, Frank, Frank — how do I get through to you? I asked YOU to tell me who decides which laws are “moral” and which are merely “ceremonial” or “health” laws. Instead of answering this question cogently and coherently, you threw it back into my face. Could this be because you cannot furnish me with an answer which comports with the requirements I specified? And you have the gall to accuse me of knowing very little about this issue, when you yourself refuse to answer a direct question — and one which should be very easy for you to answer?

    That takes some nerve — or lack thereof, depending on one’s perspective!

    PHILIP

  • And YET AGAIN, you fail to furnish me with the answer I requested — instead choosing to duck the question entirely with what you doubtless consider to be a profundity. Instead of throwing the question back into my face, PLEASE ANSWER IT! Let me refresh your memory, in case you have forgotten the question — WHO DECIDES which laws are “health” laws, which laws are “ceremonial” laws, and which laws are “moral” laws?

    Instead of telling me that I know nothing, ANSWER THIS SIMPLE QUESTION!

    Of course, you won’t — because the answer would be embarrassing to you. YOU DON’T KNOW!

    PHILIP

  • You should be profoundly embarrassed. I have asked you a simple question, yet you keep dodging the answer. I put the question to you again — WHO DECIDES which laws are “health” laws, “ceremonial” laws, and “moral” laws? Instead of throwing the question back at me, please take a stab at actually answering it. Instead of focusing on whether or not I am able to answer this question, please tell us — WHO DECIDES this?

    PHILIP CHANDLER

  • Would you please have the decency to respond to my question, instead of evading it every time it is asked? You constantly resort to the usage of non-sequiturs in your efforts NOT to answer what should be a very simple question for a person of your ilk. I repeat — who decides that the proscriptions against eating shrimp, trimming sideburns, wearing shirts made of two different fibers, etc. are no longer binding, whereas so-called “moral” proscriptions are still binding? And who decides which is which? Instead of stating that I have not “put in the work needed to study Levitical laws,” just try to answer these easy questions.

    PHILIP CHANDLER

  • When “Christians” resort to the most un-Christ-like lies, evasions, and blatant distortions of the truth in their efforts to promote a social agenda which, if implemented, would have an adverse and serious impact on my rights to enjoy the benefits of being an American on the same terms as these so-called “Christians,” then I have to respond. A lie travels halfway around the world before truth has time to lace its boots up.

    I feel obliged to respond when somebody imposes their religious beliefs on me by making them a bludgeon for the crafting of law and public policy. This is what many “religious” people do, or try to do.

    The title of this Website is religiondispatches.org, not christianreligiousdispatches.org. I therefore believe that I have the right to respond to messages posted on this thread.

    Furthermore, I was forced to attend church by my mother and her second husband, and was even forced to take confirmation classes (she was Anglican). I got kicked out of confirmation classes for asking too many inconvenient questions — e.g., Where did Mrs. Cain come from?

    My point is that gay marriage is now here to stay in approximately 32 states. That train has left the station. As for gay sex being inherently sinful — I will not sit idly by as a troll like Frank quotes selectively from Leviticus, picking and choosing which proscriptions are still valid, and which are no longer valid.

  • George M Melby

    YOU.. have spoken the truth and spoken it well! This arena is not just for the christian extremists (I call them the AcT = American christian Taliban) but for all people with different religious beliefs and backgrounds. Trolls such as Frank/Hooper, Inc. do a great disservice to real Christian folks who follow the teachings of Christ in their behavior toward others. I would invite you to my church, Philip, but I realize, from the painful experiences you have had, that may not be possible at this time. Just remember that trolls like the above-mentioned are not Christians, but measly christians.

  • George M Melby

    For you, yes. The rest of us just laugh at your ineptitude!

  • Frank6548

    Sad.

  • Frank6548

    Oh stop whining and start studying. If you are actually interested, I think you are not and simply want to justify the way you want to live, you can do a search for “tim Keller shrimp.”

  • Laurence Charles Ringo

    WOW.Do you presume to know the mind of God, sir?

  • AGAIN — Please explain to us how “Levitical law” no longer applies to these proscriptions, but still applies to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Stop evading the question with non-sequitirs and actually ANSWER THE QUESTION in what will doubtless be a stunning display of erudition on your part. I await with baited breath — although I expect I will not be able to hold my breath for very long!

  • Frank6548

    God decides and has laid it out for us.

    Do a search for “Tim keller shrimp” if you are actually interested. But I know you are not because you refuse to accept the truth.

  • Frank6548

    Thanks for confirming you don’t have a case simply a selfish desire to live the way you choose. Sad.

  • George M Melby

    Philip, Frank is simply unable to answer the question… you have stumped what he would call his tiny brain.

  • George M Melby

    But true! That’s what counts, lolol.

  • George M Melby

    Frank’s religious philosophy and beliefs are simply a revolving door into oblivion! He is lost, lolol.