Well the whole Biblical basis for being against homosexual marriage is a sham (see the comments); the Bible doesn’t say those things some religious leaders and some posters here have been claiming. Simply reading the Bible and checking those claims, as anyone should always do to claims, shows that.
So I’d say the Episcopalians are doing the right thing morally and clearly not the wrong thing theologically.

Who is taking cues from the culture here? Last I checked (and as nnmns mentions above) arguing that the Bible is anti-gay is a serious stretch at best, and only six states have legalized gay marriage (seven if you count CA, who retracted the decision). I’d say that if anyone is taking cultural clues it’s those arguing against gay bishops– granted, they’re taking their cues not from the modern culture but from the culture of the US in the 1950s, a moment in time they seem more comfortable with than the present day.

“Does the church takes its cues from the culture, or stand against it?”
Neither!
Our church is leading our members. Through out the years, our church has had periods of great leadership….followed by some periods of rest. I am inspired that our church is again in a period of great leadership!
Peace!

Conservatives, however, have accused Episcopalians, in the words of one activist here, of “having an adulterous relationship with the spirit of the age.”
I love this quote it is true and it is interesting that there are six distinct condemnations of homosexuality in the bible and six states that openly approved homosexual marriage.

“there are six distinct condemnations of homosexuality in the bible”
No, cknuck, there are not. I looked at your Bible and at the standard “condemnations” and they are nothing of the kind. You can read about it here in the comments.
This Biblical crusade against homosexuality you’ve signed up for is a sham. You need to actually read your Bible and just maybe you’ll see how wrong you are. But you are pretty invested in this and you’ve lied about it to a lot of people, so I’m guessing you won’t.
But as to your charge: many of those “condemnations” aren’t about homosexuality at all, as you can see at the link. The others, which touch on it, also mention a lot of other groups right along with homosexuals which, if you took your Bible seriously you’d have to also be condemning, but you don’t. I can only presume that’s because of your anti-homosexual bias and your realization you can’t take on all those groups, some of whom include your political heroes, your friends and family and yourself. So you take on the poor homosexuals; nice to have someone to beat up on who can’t fight back very hard isn’t it, cknuck.

How many denominations of Christianity are there now? With so many interpretations of the Bible, how can you say that one is any more “true” than any other?

PJI, the Episcopal Church leadership is clearly following the lead of the subculture of which most of them are a part: the liberal wing of America’s upper and upper-middle classes. And no, it is by no means a stretch to argue that the Bible (and classical Christianity theology) expresses a clear preference from heterosexual marriages, which is why the best “pro-gay” theologians have recognized the need to do creative theological work to find a way to accommodate homosexuality within a Christian framework; only the sloppy and the careless make the simplistic argument that homosexuality’s okay because the Bible and, more importantly, the apostolic and patristic tradition that gave us the Bible have noting negative to say about it.
The gay marriage/consecration debate in the Christian churches should not be about human rights, which is what the liberals too often want it to be. No one’s rights are being violated if a church doesn’t consecrate practicing gay bishops or doesn’t treat gay marriages sacramentally. If liberal leaders want “progress” to made on the homosexuality issue, then the proper approach is through the church and in communion with the whole church, not unilateral action that threatens schism. In that regard, liberal congregations and leaders, however open and affirming they are of gay couples, often fail in their duty of love: they fail to love their more traditionalist brothers and sisters, living and dead, strongly enough to carefully guard their communion with them and to submit their own private opinions about what is good and noble to the judgment of the communion as a whole. That is the very essence of heresy: not the preaching of a false teaching, but the exaltation of one’s own opinion above the judgment of all. If the the two-million-member Episcopal Church wants to deviate from Anglican tradition and take the secular liberal culture’s definition of human rights more seriously than the objections of the rest of their brothers and sisters, then they’ve become heretics and schismatics, not in any sense heirs of the Gospel.
I personally am not entirely conservative on sexual issues, but the way to reform is not the way the liberal Episcopalians are doing it.

nnmns quote, “I looked at your Bible”
that is some amazing ego nnmns so you looked at the bible and of course since you are so superior you were able to do what scholars have labored to do in the course of lifetimes in a “look”.
I Timothy 1:9-10
I Corinthians 6:9-10
Romans 1:26-27
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
Genesis 19:4-11
Jude 6-7 and II Peter 2:6-10

So mothers and fathers who give birth to homosexual children should look upon their offspring as only being accepted secularly in our present day culture, and not worthy of Church acceptance? Little wonder that people are leaving Churches and arguments continue. If the little ones that you nuture and protect growing-up are suddenly demonized by the Churches or at very least condescended to by Ministers that you have trusted as serving the Lord and being a leader in your religious part of your life, then can’t help you, what is the Gospel about anyway? The American Medical, and Psychiatric Socities, etc. have information explaining their sexual orientation, and most intelligent parents have availed themselves of the info.. Families are being attacked and their children put asunder as though it were a plan, people should wake up and see it for what it is. Love and understand your children, relatives, and friends, and stand up and fight aganist this attack on the LGBT. Accept nothing less than full equality.

Nate W,
You write: “only the sloppy and the careless make the simplistic argument that homosexuality’s okay because the Bible and, more importantly, the apostolic and patristic tradition that gave us the Bible have noting negative to say about it.”
Apostolic tradition? None of the gospel writers knew Jesus personally. Scholars agree that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are early second century documents. The earliest parts of the Old Testament are Paul’s letters, comprised around 60 CE. Paul didn’t know Jesus except though a vision. The Nag Hammadi texts give clear evidence that the earliest Christians held a variety of contrasting beliefs about Jesus and God. The idea that we have an unbroken tradition stretching neatly back to the apostles is straight out of Eusebius’ 3rd century history, largely a work of propaganda. Now intellectual dancing around here; I am arguing in accord with 99.9% of serious academics.
Are you arguing that “back then” people had a negative view of homosexuality? If so, history doesn’t bear you out. It was common practice amongst the Greeks and Romans, although I would accept the argument that the Greek practice grew partially out of cultural misogyny, and the in many ways well ordered and disciplined Romans liked cutting loose in wild parties– not the type of attitudes one finds in a stable gay marriage. As residents of the modern world we make a number of assumptions about attitudes towards sexuality throughout the ages, including the idea that other cultures saw homosexuality as “unnatural.” They did not, even if we wish they shared our views.
You write: “In that regard, liberal congregations and leaders, however open and affirming they are of gay couples, often fail in their duty of love: they fail to love their more traditionalist brothers and sisters, living and dead, strongly enough to carefully guard their communion with them and to submit their own private opinions about what is good and noble to the judgment of the communion as a whole.”
So the real sin here is that the liberals are refusing to acquiesce to their conservative brethren? Loving someone doesn’t mean agreeing with them all the time. If a child reaches out towards a hot stove I will pull its hand back. The child may not see that as love but letting someone get hurt because I’m too busy thinking “who am I to interfere” is silly. I agree with you that the best way forward would be to have everyone vote, but the TEC is not a pure democracy. The Bishops are following the rules. The Bishops have voted, now everyone else will get to weigh in. Should the conservatives care to vote with their feet, fine. They have that right, but walking out while laying blame for the schism on someone else is a tad disingenuous, don’t you think?

H22 how do children know that they are homosexual, how do the parents, who ultimately defines them, how do they learn what homosexuals do?

PJI,
Scholars simply do not agree that the Gospels are second-century documents. The current general opinion is that John is the latest and was probably written in the 90s. The Synoptics were almost certainly written earlier, Mark perhaps as early as 70. Even a quick look on Wikipedia would point this out to you. But of course, that’s largely irrelevant to my point, because I do not use the term “Apostolic tradition” to suggest that that the Apostles themselves wrote all of the Bible, or that there was no diversity within early Christianity (there’s clearly diversity WITHIN the canon), or anything else of the sort. The “Apostolic tradition” idea assumes that the patristic option for the “proto-orthodox” writings over the “proto-Gnostic” ones was the proper move and is normative for Christianity that wants to call itself orthodox. Now if a group of people wants to abandon that tradition in favor of one of the traditions preserved in some of the “lost books” of the NT, they’re free to do so, but they’d have to acknowledge that they’d be making a clear break from the historic Christianity of the last 1700 years or so. And those “lost books” don’t have any surer a claim on representing the real Jesus than the orthodox Gospels do; some are even quite a bit more fantastical and “mythological”, and some more controversial to modern sensibilities, than what you find in the canon.
Yes, the Greco-Roman world was largely accepting of homosexuality–yes, usually in forms that would have more in common with NAMBLA than with the the mainstream gay rights movement–but my concern is not with them. My concern is with Christian statements on sexuality, and Christian statements on sexuality show a clear preference, first of all, for celibacy, but secondly for heterosexual sexual relations. The best, most historically-informed pro-gay theologians realize this and therefer make there case as a form of creative, constructive theology; they don’t appeal to some mythic past when Christian authorities said nothing about homosexuality and gay marriage was okay.
The problem with many of the liberal Episcopalians is not that they disagree, but that seem to want to unilaterally make their opinion into church law when even the slightest hint of honesty would force them to admit that they are doing something that is outside the bounds of how most Anglicans, and most Christians, both historically and in the present, interpret their faith tradition. Their council voted, yes, and followed their church’s protocol; the problem is that they didn’t seem to care for the rest of the global Anglican communion, let alone other “Apostolic” Christian traditions, when they made their decision. It’s schismatic. They’re willing to follow this path even if it separates them from the rest of global Anglicanism, and that’s a sign of lack of love for the rest of the communion. The liberal elites of the American church think far too highly of themselves if they fashion themselves as the parents showing tough love to all the traditionalist children by smacking their hands away from the hot stove of “homophobia.”

Well I admire them for following their hearts and their intellects even if it puts them out ahead of the others in their administrative grouping. Half of leadership is going the right way. The other half is getting others to follow you and it looks like that could take some time.

nnmns quote, “I looked at your Bible”
that is some amazing ego nnmns so you looked at the bible and of course since you are so superior you were able to do what scholars have labored to do in the course of lifetimes in a “look”.
Aww, shucks, cknuck, anybody could have done it. In fact a lot of people should have done it sooner; I suppose a lot did and that’s why you don’t have more blind followers. And I’ve left the heavy lifting for biblical scholars; never fear. This was just common sense.
Seriously it’s pretty easy to see that parts of the Bible you claim refer to homosexuality don’t, parts are very equivocal and parts do refer to it, putting it in with several other groups it doesn’t care for but which you and your ilk ignore in your urgency to put down the homosexuals. If you were attacking all those groups, including for instance the divorced, the covetous, the envious and so very many more, more people might take you seriously. But you ignore any the Bible opposes who might have enough power to make your lives uncomfortable, just bullying the homosexuals and claiming the Bible makes you do it. Hah! That’s pathetic.

Our brothers and sisters in Christ in the German church under National Socialism were outstanding at taking their cue from culture. There were, however, a few nuts like Karl Barth and those who signed the Barmen Declaration who for some reason thought that the church should take its cue from Jesus Christ. Cultures and worldviews are always in flux. Jesus Christ–the same yesterday, today and forever.

Alan K-
Following your thought then, since Christ never spoke on homosexuality….I suppose you support full inclusion for gays/lesbians in the church.
Peace!

JQ there is a lot of things Christ never spoke of a list I can’t mention here because of certain views.

JohnQ-
You are correct, he never did. But I must say that the line you draw is rather huge leap forward. If God speaks the words “gay” and “straight” then we in the church must learn them. But how do we know what God says? This is where TEC has let the culture do the talking, just like the German church did. When it came to the reading of scripture, the German church let the culture dictate how it should be read and in what manner it should exercise authority–in short, they let the culture tell them what God says (the first and foremost being that Judaism was somehow the wrong kind of religion). We all know what this lead to.
Our present culture tells us in no uncertain terms that sexual desire and identity are inseparable, but I am nowhere near certain that this is a theological anthropology. Thus, I don’t use the same categories for understanding the human being that you utilize in your post. Why? Because I don’t believe Jesus does either. I believe in the inclusion of everybody, regardless of how we categorize ourselves or understand ourselves. The basis for our inclusion is what God has done in Christ, not our being able to think correctly on what constitutes the human being.
The gospel is also the basis for an understanding of the human being that the culture may sneer at, or know nothing of. The human being in the Gospel of John is quite different than the Oprah human being or the religious right human being or the reality TV human being. Will the church start where the gospel starts, or will it hand over authority to those not in the church?

Alan K.
Your suggestion that the TEC has handed over authority to culture/society is your opinion. As an Episcopalian, I clearly see our Bishops guiding and leading the flock.
To borrow a phrase from the UCC….”God is still speaking”!
Are you willing to listen?
Peace!

Cknuck, I don’t think that children below puberty know. Parents say they were aware that their little ones preferred toys that were the opposite of whatever sex (m. or f.) would play with. After puberty they were either attracted to their s.s. as heteros are attracted to to the opposite sex. They don’t learn what homosexuals do, it just comes naturally to them as it came naturally to you and me as heterosexuals. Obviously as they become older teens they will read books and talk between each other, as we heteros did.

John Q-
Thanks for the reply. Concise, and raises a lot of questions. Who is it, or how is it, that Bishops are tested to see if they are right? Who determines what qualifies as guidance? How do we know if or when God is still speaking, and through whom? Is authority a matter of opinion? How does the church know when it is doing theology as opposed to mythology?
How to I differentiate between the spirit of the UCC and the German church under National Socialism? How is the voice of God to be authenticated? If this is not spelled out, then I’m afraid all we are is a bunch of Neo-Kantian mythologizers for whom religion and God are nothing but projections and who need to give up the game as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris implore us to do.

…if you have to ask…
Relinquishing it’s authority to administer God’s word, they have become a non-profit social club. All vanity, all the time.

The debate here and everywhere God is central to the discussion always comes down to the clash of irreconcilable worldviews.
I believe in God. There is no God.
Finally, God decides who is correct, even if you don’t believe in God.
The battle lines in this commentary are spiritual; light against darkness. Light wins!
Darkness has no substance, serving only to obscure truth.
Analyze ANY argument against God and discover for yourself the origin it has in sheer confusion. Baseless, powerless, often irrational, these arguments lead only to more of the same – sheer confusion.
So, from start to finish, denying God is a losing proposition.
Episcopalian churches have become audacious in their “teaching”.
The audacity of liberalism.

(quote from my earlier post):
Either God exists and humanity has accepted God’s revelation or God exists and humanity has not accepted God’s revelation.
God’s community can no more accommodate activism against revealed truth.
No more compromises.
The world is degenerating and needs truth.
Advanced degrees, personal experience and rhetorical devices do not truth make.
God is truth. God is love.
Love God, love truth.
Love your neighbor, tell them the truth.
The audacity of liberal disbelief.

“Who is it, or how is it, that Bishops are tested to see if they are right?”
Good question. Much earlier in our history religious leaders were regularly tested; if the rains came as needed they lived to lead some more. If the rains failed to come, or an important battle was lost, the religious leader might lose an important body part or two.
That’s all changed now. Religious leaders can make the silliest statements and they never suffer for them. I want to see all the religious leaders who claim to know the mind of “God” lined up on the coast praying away our hurricanes. While they succeed they should be rewarded handsomely. When they fail no doubt there will be others anxious to take their vacant places.
Thus should religious leaders be tested if they claim to know their god. Religious leaders with less extravagant claims might be spared such a test.
It’s funny how no one has volunteered to take their rightful place out on the coast.

But currently there seems to be a different kind of test: can the religious leader keep the church’s records secret? And can records about a religious leader be kept secret? In this AP story the Bridgeport, Con. diocese is appealing to keep its sex abuse records away from the public and news media; they are expected to include records about Cardinal Edward Egan and how he handled sex abuse cases.

“Thus should religious leaders be tested if they claim to know their god.”
Quoted from the darkness, this comment is excusable.
In the light of day, this comment makes sense only because it acknowledges religious leaders are indeed accountable to God.
At least THEY are accountable. Those who doubt it are simply accountable to the fashions and novelties of the day.
Deny God exists and there is no where to go from there. Entire foundations cannot legitimize their existence based upon denying God (or “religion”), neither can liberal churches deny God and be legitimate.
There simply is no denying God.
Except rhetorically.
The audacity of liberal rhetoric.

The point that TEC is so willing to alienate the rest of the community is no different than the men in Sodom who even though the angels struck them blind for their wicked desires the still fumbled for the door.

cknuck: “The point that TEC is so willing to alienate the rest of the community is no different than the men in Sodom who even though the angels struck them blind for their wicked desires the still fumbled for the door.”
So Episcopalians = rapists now for supporting LGBT Christians? Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds, or are you that far gone in your hatred?

Dear “Mordred08″,
Please read what you criticize before you make a statement. Read the history of Sodom in the Bible to gain accurate context and valid insight so you can attempt a fair rebuttal.
Do you also criticize movies you have not viewed, books you have not read and average people you have not met?
Do you see how your statement looks in this light?
Pretty audacious.

I don’t see it as the church bending to culture, that could be bad in some cases. But the church has long felt compelled to throw out all kinds of crazy assertions about the world and science. These claims should be shot down and revealed as distractions, the careless speculations of arrogant men.
So I see TEC as one of the few churches humble and honest to admit that the church dogma has been very wrong. Evangelical Christianity has asserted that sexual orientation is a choice. Every study that has come out paints a very different picture. There is such a thing as orientation, and it appears to be much more than a choice. Perhaps genes, perhaps hormones, neurological differences or early life experiences. For that matter some recent studies with PET scanners call into question even the notion of free cognitive will.
I guess if honesty was the first priority, we would all be agnostics, no ? It just seems that if there were serious questions about a dogma, people could somehow find a way to temporarily set aside prejudice and be a friend to those who suffer.

GodsCountry: “Read the history of Sodom”
I did read it. And had it preached to me. Again and again and again and again…town full of “queers”, tried to rape male angels and refused to substitute Lot’s daughters instead. Were blinded and nuked by god, who then killed Lot’s wife for looking…etc.
I’ll admit I’m not terribly bright. But I don’t think I’m an idiot for interpreting cknuck’s statement as equating the Episcopalians with the evil angel-rapers of Sodom. If you have a different interpretation, feel free to share it.

I’ve listened to University Professors of Religion explain this story and didn’t sound like Ck. and GC. There is no way I could explain it, didn’t try to memorize it.

So, “cknuck”, please explain your comment. How should we interpret what you have said?
The Spirit will lead you in all truth.
Reveal…

It’s a fable. Don’t worry about it and for Pete’s sake don’t let it lead you to harassing people. And odds are it’s about being terribly inhospitable to strangers, not just to male strangers or angels. After all, would it be any better to demand a band of traveling women be sent out to be raped? Anyone here willing to say that’s more moral than wanting to rape the men, as in the fable?
Anyone of good will would not use it, or anything like it from the Bible with such obvious bad morality, to guide them to harm others. But bigots, on the other hand, leap to do so.

So, bigotry is a sin, but homosexuality is not.
Who decided this? You.
Where do you find essential evidence to back up your claims? No where.
Does it fit in a systematic approach to morality? Never.
Are “meds” the ultimate solution for those who disagree with you? Yes, sadly.
No one can make up rules better than someone who doesn’t believe in them.
Please, everyone, ask God to lead you to truth then examine your heart for you will find JOY.
There is no other way.

“So, bigotry is a sin, but homosexuality is not.”
That’s right. It’s a no brainer. Bigotry harms everyone involved, but especially the innocents being picked on and the young people who see it happening whose morality may be cheapened.
Homosexuality is no more a sin than black skin or blindness. In a consensual homosexual relationship of caring, careful adults no one is harmed. And of course that’s exactly the same with heterosexuals. If someone is harmed it’s because force of some kind was used, like by the religious leader Tony Alamo.
Now if you care to claim your god defines sin and he’s concerned about homosexuality but not bigotry I’ll have to point out your Jesus hated divorce but you’ve had little to say about divorce here. Your god was said to hate eaters of shellfish but you’ve had nothing to say about them here. Your god hated covetousness yet I don’t recall you saying anything about the covetous. Your god hated the proud but you seem remarkably proud of yourself. And on and on and on.
No, GC, you are entirely too inconsistent and hypocritical to be taken seriously.

nnmns the fact that you take the liberty to compare homosexuality to “black skin” only shows that you are to be taken seriously, a atheist whose only interest in the church is to support a homosexual movement in the church, outside of a interest in the destruction of churches, hmmm, if I were slow (which I a not) I still could see the evil motives.
GC my analogy of the event at Sodom and comparing it to TEC is that once a sinful intent becomes a desire then the subject can see very little else.

cknuck-
Since Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their inhospitably and the TEC is working to end inhospitably at least in our church (TEC)…..I find it odd that you are attempting to suggest that the TEC is heading the way of S&G.
Peace!

Yeah it is pretty inhospitable trying to force homosexual sex on strangers JQ and yeah your church is working on finding a more hospitable way of achieving their desires I’ll give them that. But no that was not my suggestion, as I said before sometimes a people can be so focus on one thing that they miss the other. The amazing thing is the schism, will make the church’s main mission homosexuality in a first world country rather than oh let’s say healing the sick, or bringing the lost to Christ, or feeding the poor, or education: no, it’s now “let’s getting our freak on! (main mission). The bible supports the healing, feeding, and evangelizing, but nowhere does it support the homosexuality mission. I’m just saying maybe TEC has lost focus or has been blinded

Ck, quote: it’s now “lets getting our freak on? (main mission).
I’m not sure if you meant that the TEC is helping to show Love for people born Homosexual as aganist heterosexual already (hopefully) showing love for this part of God’s children, or if you were refering to the GLBT as freaks. What did you mean? If it was the latter that was a graceless thing to say and very hurtful. If it was the former they are doing what the Lord would want them to do.
The Heading of this article is: Episcopalians ask: Who should lead: Church or Culture
They should live a blend since they are in this world to live both, as we all should to have peace with each other.

It seems surprising to me you’d complain about TEC’s concentration on homosexuality, whatever it turned out to be, when your posts here must be 50% or more on homosexuality. Theirs would be comforting, yours are harmful and based on false and misleading interpretations of, and quotes from, the Bible.
They are right and you, and the larger Anglican community, are wrong in basing your response to homosexuals on outdated bigotry and false theology (incredibly easily exposed false theology).

cknuck: “The amazing thing is the schism, will make the church’s main mission homosexuality in a first world country rather than oh let’s say healing the sick, or bringing the lost to Christ, or feeding the poor, or education: no, it’s now “let’s getting our freak on! (main mission).”
If by “getting our freak on!” you mean “stopping people from murdering us!”, you’re absolutely right.

“It seems surprising to me you’d complain about TEC’s concentration on homosexuality, whatever it turned out to be, when your posts here must be 50% or more on homosexuality. Theirs would be comforting, yours are harmful and based on false and misleading interpretations of, and quotes from, the Bible.”
The central topic of the article is homosexual accommodation by these former churches.
The Bible represents God’s truth, within which God’s church is to abide. These are no longer churches, they are non-profit social clubs that promote the homosexual choice. So, yeah, they will provide “comfort” to homosexual practitioners. Just like a brothel supplies comfort to those otherwise needy.
The audacity of liberal rhetoric.

“The Bible represents God’s truth”
Let’s take a quick look at “God’s truth”.
You’d think the Bible could get Jesus’ last words right, but:
MAT 27:46,50: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” …Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.”
LUK 23:46: “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, “Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:” and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.”
JOH 19:30: “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished:” and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”
———
How many years of famine? Three or seven?
II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?
I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;
———
Which super-entity got David mad at Israel?
II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
———
And on and on. It’s a strange “truth” indeed that can’t even agree with itself.

It saddens me that the Church is allowing the wind of popular “culture” to get under its sails. It has become a vessel to help people feel better about their behaviour rather than guide souls to salvation.

Lynne, quote: It saddens me that the Church is allowing the wind of popular “culture” to get under its sails. It has become a vessel to help poople feel better about their behaviour rather than guide souls to salvation. Does it sadden you that mortal doctors can now save souls from not having to leave their bodies early in their lives of diseases that science has conquered? Does it sadden you that epileptic ill people are no longer considered being invaded by devils? Culture did not make Homeosexuality and Heterosexuality Lynne. God did. Now we know and no longer have to think like children. That verse is in the Bible, too. The “bible exacters” in Oregon have in advertently allowed their children to die rather than take them to doctors. Do you ascribe to that?

Lynne-
If you are referring to the TEC, allow me to point out that our church is guiding souls to salvation. That is what the whole inclusion issue is about.
IMO, your sadness is misplaced. It would be better directed at the people who continue to discriminate against and judge our gay/lesbian brothers/sisters.
Peace!

H22 quote, “Does it sadden you that mortal doctors can now save souls from not having to leave their bodies early in their lives of diseases that science has conquered?”
H you should stop worshiping man that ego (Edging God Out) thing of yours is non productive. If God does bless man with discovery then man almost always use it for selfish reasons like only the rich get cutting edge technology and the poor continue to die. Just about all wealth is used in ways contradictory to the teaching of Christ. Culture down through the ages has always played a part in the rise of homosexuality and it always surface in popularity during the height culture “awareness. Rome, Greece, France, all the same now the US.
nnmns the Bible does not contradict itself but to those who wish it so and only read it to such inspection.

JQ in salvation men don’t have sex with men nor women with women that my friend is purposeful sin.

nnmns you are so unremarkable in that you would try to get people to look at the cross through your kaleidoscope being up the different gospel approaches instead of the main theme of Jesus on the cross that we might be saved. I’m not surprised your assignment has always been the same. If you are good at what you do then certain so-called Christians will join you certainly many other atheist will and others. But the message of the cross has stood the test of time and remains salvation for those who choose say what you offer is not real and does not last.

Well cknuck some people on here say the Bible is truth or inerrant or such. I’m just pointing out that’s nonsense. I guess you agree the Bible is neither purely truth nor inerrant. Right? Otherwise you need to be explaining those internal contradictions in the Bible. And I warn you, there are several others.

Can’t you disagree without throwing stupid remarks to people who you don’t agree with Cknuck? I wouldn’t think of worshiping men on this earth. Do not accuse me of any other ridiculous far right thing you think of. God has given our doctors the ability to work in science to help mankind. Do you understand that much? Homosexuality doesn’t crop up like old fashions in clothes and furniture like our current culture uses at the time. Homosexuality has always been here and now Science explains it to the horror of “Bible Exacters”. Justice now for these people and their families is not going away.

H22 I only comment on your false statements for instance homosexuality cannot be identified on any medical level there is no gene, hormone, or DNA evidence to your statements but you continue to ignore the fact that the evidence does not exist. You also have placed science in front of God on several conversations. So I can only respond to your position.
nnmns unlike H22 I disagree with you right down the line yes the bible is the truth, no it does not contradict itself and yes I have far more faith in it than I have in you. I hope that is clear so post some more scriptures they are good to read.

Brilliantly obvious that there are two, mutually exclusive worldviews presented to people looking for truth.
If one is truth based, the other cannot possibly be anything but misguided, novel free-thinking.
Pointing out “errors” and “contradictions” in each worldview only points to the fact that both worldviews are expressed by fallible people. Shortcomings of individuals does not necessarily make the worldview they hold false.
Believe it or not, there is only one way to understand one worldview, the one which I hold, that is through faith.
Believe it. Or not.
Those who believe gain a powerful insight, beyond the power of the will.
p.s.
“Stupid”???

I need not explain that’s not how one come to a understanding and relationship with God being explained into it. God can handle it by himself and he also can handle through who use your kaleidoscope stumbling block reasoning of the cross. The bible also prepares those who believe for false prophets and God haters.

Well said, “cknuck”.
God’s Holy Spirit leads us in all truth.
Gifts are generously added; wisdom, prophecy, knowledge, and more. You have your share as the evidence is all over these pages.
I am puzzled by the “stupid” remark.
You neither earned it nor deserve it. No one does. It is evidence there is nothing left to say, the last rhetorical recourse.

After all this discourse, sound and fury homosexual behavior remains a sin and the church must not have anything to do with it.
Also remaining are those who disagree.
They have run from the light.

If you love Me the world will hate you.

…Amen and amen.

A match made in Heaven or somewhere.