Episcopalians to consecrate second gay bishop
Today the Episcopal Church announced that it will consecrate its second non-celibate gay bishop this May. Mary Glasspool was elected bishop on December 5 but was waiting for a majority of the diocesan bishops and “standing committees” in the jurisdiction to approve her consecration.
To approve a bishop’s consecration, a majority of the standing committees must agree that the candidate is “of such sufficiency in learning, of such soundness in the Faith, and of such godly character as to be able to exercise the Office of a Bishop to the honor of God and the edifying of the Church, and to be a wholesome example to the flock of Christ.” The majority agrees, so the Church will move ahead with consecrating Glasspool as bishop in the Los Angeles area.
The American Anglican Council responded to the news with the following strongly worded statement from Bishop David C. Anderson, president and CEO:
“What this means is the majority of The Episcopal Church’s leaders – down to the diocesan level throughout America – are exercising no restraint as requested by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the primates of the Anglican Communion. Despite pleas to the contrary, they have given their consent for a partnered lesbian to become a bishop, not just for Los Angeles, but for the whole church. Unfortunately, this comes as no surprise because The Episcopal Church, at its General Convention this summer, voted in favor of allowing dioceses to determine whether they will conduct same sex blessings using whatever rites they deem appropriate. Even if The Episcopal Church should eventually decide to sign an Anglican Covenant, it has shown time and time again that it will not abide by traditional Christian and Anglican Communion teaching on marriage and sexuality.”

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top105 Comments to “Episcopalians to consecrate second gay bishop”
Kinda sorta like dismissing the requirement of the Constitution to vote yea or nay.
Report comment to moderator
Consecrate doesn’t sound like the right word.
Report comment to moderator
an they wonder why the Christian Community has reject their churches and are calling them a fallen church.
Report comment to moderator
“an they wonder why the Christian Community has reject their churches and are calling them a fallen church.”
I thought the Bible teaches that followers of God would face persecution and that men would call evil good and good evil? Oh wait, that is kind of a two faced passage isn’t it!
Report comment to moderator
mynock – they are calling evil good and good evil. The reason they are supporting sin.
Report comment to moderator
Ah yeah, here comes Pastor Roy to tell us who is and who is not part of the “Christian community.”
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 03.17.10 AT 5:42 PM
Ah yeah, here comes Pastor Roy to tell us who is and who is not part of the “Christian community.”
–
no, God’s Word tells us who is and who is not a Christian. An why the personal attack?
Report comment to moderator
Discuss the topic and not one another.
Report comment to moderator
Since they are supporting sin and promoting a sinful behavior I believe the Word of God has something to say about it.
Galatians 5:19-21 (King James Version)
19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Since a Christian Marragie is between a man and a woman, then fornication is the sin.
Report comment to moderator
WMB Editor 03.17.10 AT 6:07 PM
Discuss the topic and not one another.
–
thank you
Report comment to moderator
Once they abandoned the Scriptures as normative, I wonder how much it even matters what they do. I mean, it’s not just the fact that this woman is a “non-celibate homosexual,” that disqualifies her for this ordination–it’s that she’s a woman.
Report comment to moderator
1 Timothy 3:1-5 (New King James Version)
1 Timothy 3
Qualifications of Overseers
1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)
Titus 1:6-9 (New King James Version)
6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.
Report comment to moderator
Can’t wait to read how Titus and Timothy didn’t mean what they wrote.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer 03.17.10 AT 6:51 PM
Can’t wait to read how Titus and Timothy didn’t mean what they wrote.
–
Paul wrote it to both men. An we know how the left feels about Paul.
Report comment to moderator
I must say when I read your quotes, the language seemed rather plain, simple and direct. I don’t see where they’ll find double or questionable meanings.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think the rationale is that the authors of Scripture didn’t mean what they wrote, but that we’re oh so much more enlightened than they were. Scripture just isn’t “relevant” for these sorts of things, you know.
Report comment to moderator
Do other people actually show up at these places?
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
“Paul wrote it to both men. An we know how the left feels about Paul.”
I don’t think the left has a unified opinion about Paul.
Report comment to moderator
The left may not be unified in their opinion of Paul, but they are clear in their opinion of his teachings:
Homosexulity is a sin…
Fornication is a sin…
Men should be the leaders in the home and the Church…
Salavation is only thru Christ…
Ect, ect. ect. …
Report comment to moderator
The Left HERE does.
Report comment to moderator
God answered YET another prayer.
Report comment to moderator
To paraphrase Don McLean, “Bye, bye, Miss Episcopal Church…” It will continue to dwindle in numbers and importance and eventually disappear in a puff of smoke, while the biblically faithful Anglicans grow strong worldwide and in the U.S. So it has always been with apostate denominations, so it will always be.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for stepping in so early WMB editor.
Report comment to moderator
The real tragedy in the story is the people that are deceived. The leaders have studied and rejected the Word, then they deceive thousands and lead them to destruction.
Report comment to moderator
LLoyd, perhaps christians should just kill the gays while they have the chance. God is good for answering my prayers. I prayed and it happened, SEE!
Report comment to moderator
The apostle Paul saw homosexuality (along with other serious sins) as “godlessness”, “wickedness”, ungrateful to God, “futile” in their thinking, “degrading”, “indecent”. He considered it “perversion.” (See Romans one).
It does not matter what leftists think about Paul, but what Paul thinks himself. Read his letters for yourself.
Report comment to moderator
scott – you are so wrong. Please God wants to restore these people to Him. He wants them to repent of their sins.
Report comment to moderator
This denomination sold its soul long ago. Depravity is its core value. The honest and decent beleivers left long ago, so this is no surprise.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark – God always have a smalk group to remind the larger group of what they have losted
Report comment to moderator
Why would I want to kill the gays? I believe if they die before they repent and accept Christ as their savior, they will be eternally condemed.
Most Christians, me included, do not want anyone to be condemed. That is why we try and spread our message of salvation, not death and hate.
Report comment to moderator
Scott, reread my post #25. These church leaders are not teaching Bibical Christianity! They are leading the sheep to the slaughter!
Report comment to moderator
This is not Christianity, it’s the deceiptful, corrupting influence of Communism:
Strategies of the Homosexual Movement: “The Overhauling of Straight America”
http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/overhauling.htm
The Frankfurt School: Conspiracy to corrupt
http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_882.shtml
Cloward-Piven Strategy (CPS)
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6967
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, Lloyd, and I believe I was touched by the noodley appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. See, Lloyd, silly claims like this are meaningless to anyone who can think with a post bronze age mind. And, Lloyd, the bible tells you that most people won’t be saved, you already know this. The ONE way to heaven is through Jesus, not converting people. ONE WAY and only one way.
#32, it’s fun just to watch the christians go after each other. You’re wrong. No you’re wrong? Meanwhile, back on earth, we’re moving right along without you.
Jesus fulfilled the law and never addressed homosexuality just like he never mentioned that you shouldn’t eat shrimp or that you should stone unruly children. Christians like to think that Jesus only fulfilled the law they don’t like and the other law, STILL IN EFFECT. Well, christians, you can’t have it both ways. Either he fulfilled the laws or he didn’t. Pick one and stick to it.
Report comment to moderator
The LORD Jesus Christ made a clear statement recorded in Matthew Mark and Luke regarding the sins of Sodom and Gomorrha. In Genesis we see the sin which the men surrounding Lot’s house wanted to do to the angels.
When someone says that Jesus Christ never made mention of homosexuality they lack knowledge of the Word of God — Jesus clearly mentions the cities and the ruin which came upon them, they were all DESTROYED.
The LORD Jesus Christ made a clear statement recorded in Matthew Mark and Luke regarding the sins of Sodom and Gomorrha. In Genesis we see the sin which the men surrounding Lot’s house wanted to do to the angels.
When someone says that Jesus Christ never made mention of homosexuality they lack knowledge of the Word of God — Jesus clearly mentions the cities and the ruin which came upon them, they were all DESTROYED.
The apostles new that homosexuality was a sin, Paul mentions it in Romans 1, Jude mentions it in Jude 1 and Peter talks about it in 2 Peter 2. The disciples knew about what was sinful, and they wrote about homosexuality -
==================================================
—————————————————————–
Jesus was present from everlasting — as stated in John 1, he created the world — knowing this, HE knew all things. Homosexuality was always a sin, nothings changed — READ ON
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3
Sorry, some of this is repeated – I have no idea how this happened.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe the repeat will make some of the liberal/anti-Christians on here pay more attention to the Word of God. Probably not but it was a good accident Victoria.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, some of this is repeated
Oh that’s fine. This whole topic is a re-run, as are the usual comments from the usual crowd.
But as an Episcopalian, I feel compelled to point out that we are part of the Christian community, even though we take a different view on this topic than our more conservative brethren. Don’t worry though; unlike some conservatives, we’re not rushing to declare you as not part of the body of Christ.
WMB Editor, perhaps I was guilty of a personal attack, but it was only because Pastor Roy attacked me (indirectly) first by trying to kick me out of his narrowly-defined “Christian community.”
Report comment to moderator
Please, everyone, don’t make the WMB editor play whack a mole today.
Signed,
The Wacky Mole
Report comment to moderator
Homosexuals are not big on the First Amendment free exercise clause, are they?
Report comment to moderator
NJL: What are you talking about?
Or I should say, how is the evaneglical-conservative funhouse mirror that shapes your view of the world distorting reality for you today?
Report comment to moderator
Surely, Victoria, someone as learned as you knows that S&G’s evil was idolatry not homosexuality. Also, if homosexuality was all that bad, why didn’t Jesus be that direct about it? But, I digress.
Congratulations to the Episcopalians, their prayers have been answered by god. This, is undeniable. Prayer WORKS.
Report comment to moderator
American Anglican Council had better look to its own troubles with genocidal bishops in Africa before selecting them to be shepherds of any more of our people.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks IBF –
Report comment to moderator
GOD allows evil, he always has – Satan exists because GOD allows him to, – it won’t last forever.
Report comment to moderator
But as an Episcopalian, I feel compelled to point out that we are part of the Christian community, even though we take a different view on this topic than our more conservative brethren. Don’t worry though; unlike some conservatives, we’re not rushing to declare you as not part of the body of Christ
—
Per God’s Word the problem with the Episcopalian are not with the Christian Community but with God and His Word
Galatians 5:19-21 (King James Version)
19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Timothy 3:1-5 (New King James Version)
1 Timothy 3
Qualifications of Overseers
1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)
Titus 1:6-9 (New King James Version)
6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.
An it is not my narrowly-defined “Christian community.”
It is God’s narrowly-defined “Christian community per His Word.
Report comment to moderator
“..waiting for a majority of the diocesan bishops and “standing committees” in the jurisdiction to approve her consecration…”
—–
Tell me I’m not scanning some new partial clip of an upcoming TV “monty python…”, comedy script.
Report comment to moderator
“..waiting for a majority of the diocesan bishops and “standing committees” in the jurisdiction to approve her consecration…”
—
Tell me I’m not scanning some clip from a new and upcoming, “monty python..” TV comedy series.
Was it some kind bad water I had yesterday?
:-O
Report comment to moderator
Surely, Victoria, someone as learned as you knows that S&G’s evil was idolatry not homosexuality. Also, if homosexuality was all that bad, why didn’t Jesus be that direct about it? But, I digress.
—-
When Christ address the City of S&G it reminded the people of their actions. An the fact that the people were involved with homosexuality and idolatry. I remind everyone when S&G was destroy the Law of Moses was not written yet.
Report comment to moderator
Simply a test post.
Seems some vanish.
Report comment to moderator
#41
That is really one of the lamest arguments I ever hear in support of homosexuality.
Jesus said that He came to change not one jot or tittle of the Law. He spoke out when the Law was being ABUSED or followed INCORRECTLY.
Since homosexuality was against God’s Law, and no one (back then) was trying to change it to be accepted, there was simply no need for Him to comment on it. He left it as it was, just as He did for the vast majority of other parts of the Law.
For murder, He qualified the Law to be even stricter. For adultery, similarly.
To say that homosexuality is okay because Jesus didn’t specifically condemn it is ludicrous!
The important thing is that He didn’t change its status or modify the Law in its regard one iota.
Don’t you think, that — being God — He would have changed the viewpoint on homosexuality by saying something if He thought (as with other things) that the people were interpreting it incorrectly? Instead, He allows the laws on homosexuality to stand as they were and without comment.
Report comment to moderator
#34
The ceremonial laws were repealed in the New Testament (see Peter). The moral law does not change.
The political law of Israel does not apply to us because we live under a different political system, just as it no longer applied to Jews living under Roman law. They were expected to live properly under Roman law.
So, political laws don’t apply. Ceremonial laws were repealed. The moral law never changes.
It is very easy to understand.
Report comment to moderator
#42
Because no one back then was trying to say that it was okay to be a homosexual. Even those who practiced it recognized it as sin.
Report comment to moderator
Scott – 42
You can go back and read post #35. I know the format is not my usual neat and clean, but the facts are there for you to think about.
Jesus did talk about Sodom and the surrounding area, you just don’t want to accept it. You can skip it, ignore the passages of Scripture and go on your merry way, it won’t change what the Bible says.
Report comment to moderator
For the record, blaming another commenter for your pointed comments directed toward that or another commenter is not a defense.
Report comment to moderator
#48, so TRS, you don’t eat shellfish or pork? Do stone unruly children? Do you kill liars? Do you kill your wife if she worships another god? No? Yet the bible commands it. Why not TRS? Did Jesus change those laws and if so, citation, please. You can’t have it both ways, either the laws are in effect or they’re not. (Now’s when you pick and choose between ceremonial law and Mosaic law. How convenient for your faith)
GOD allows evil, he always has – Satan exists because GOD allows him to, – it won’t last forever. You know not the mind of god and shouldn’t really question His will or decision. Are you suggesting that my prayer isn’t quite as good as yours? If so, I’ll need a citation for that as well.
#51 Victoria, I didn’t say he didn’t. You’ve just misinterpreted the sin the S&G, that’s all. Moreover, those are not “Facts” in the bible, those are passage from a 2000 year old book written by nomads wandering the desert. They are almost certainly not factual.
Report comment to moderator
#38 – “But as an Episcopalian, I feel compelled to point out that we are part of the Christian community…”
But it appears clear that they are not part of the honest community, or the repentant commuinity, nor the obedient (to God) community, which makes their “Christianity” pretty much a nisnomer.
Report comment to moderator
If you consider the Bible not be factual, then there is no reason for you to comment, it’s a moot point.
AGAIN, it is a moot point since you don’t believe it anyway - It’s just these sort of remarks Scott, that prove how little you understand, using what you don’t believe in, to argue against what others do believe. You obviously don’t understand the difference between the Old and New Testament, …. and then you don’t believe it anyway.
People like you want to argue about the Bible even though they don’t understand it. Playing the GOOGLE game to get into a discussion on this blog is OBVIOUS.
Report comment to moderator
#53
See Acts Chapter 11 and and Acts 15:19-20, amongst others. All foods were declared “clean” except for meat with blood in it and strangled meat.
We do not kill our wives (although I’m female and would have a husband) because our laws say, “no, don’t do this.” And because Jesus said to turn the other cheek, do good to those who hurt us, forgive 70 x7, and so on and so on and so on. (There are so many citations that I’d be quoting you half the New Testament.
We know that the moral law still exists because Jesus said that He didn’t come to change one jot or tittle of it.
We know that ceremonial does not because it was specifically rescinded in the New Testament (see Acts again).
We know that we follow our country’s laws because we are told to in the New Testament. Hebrews 13:17
This isn’t a hard thing, Scott. I’m sorry that you are having such a difficult time understanding it.
Report comment to moderator
# 53
#48, so TRS, you don’t eat shellfish or pork? Do stone unruly children? Do you kill liars? Do you kill your wife if she worships another god? No? Yet the bible commands it. Why not TRS? Did Jesus change those laws and if so, citation, please. You can’t have it both ways, either the laws are in effect or they’re not. (Now’s when you pick and choose between ceremonial law and Mosaic law. How convenient for your faith)
Jesus left the apostles and other disciples in charge of His church. In Acts 15 the question came up about whether Gentiles were requires to keep the entire Mosaic law.
6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter…19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God…
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
And there is no doubt that homosexuality was included under sexual immorality.
Report comment to moderator
Again, the laws on stoning, execution of any sort, and punishment fall under the rights of the State. They are political laws.
We have chosen to run our government differently.
Morality (which has not changed) still says that the offense is an offense, but the punishment for the offense bows to our laws, not those of a theocracy (i.e. Old Israel.)
Report comment to moderator
#38 Steveg
What do you do with the verses on Homosexuality, take a black marker on your Bible?
This is a REAL QUESTION, not sarcasism.
Report comment to moderator
“And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” (Lu 16:17)
Last time I checked, heaven and earth has not passed away.
The power of lightening striking a graveyard can greatly affect the living traveler, passing through on the lawn.
Thus, it’s best to be already dead.
“For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, [who is] our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.” (Col 3:3-4)
“Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, [even] to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.” (Ro 7:4)
Report comment to moderator
Because of the fall, the sinner receives the just consequence for the horrific condition..
..capital punishment, and ultimately, even worse.
God is not in the “patchwork business”.
He does a complete work..
“Now if WE be dead WITH Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:” (Ro 6:8)
“[It is] a faithful saying: For if we be dead with [him], we shall also live with [him]:” (2Ti 2:11)
When the homosexual becomes a new creation in Christ, he has a new identity..
“And hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus:” (Eph 2:6)
God provides the freedom from the penalty and power of sin. Thus, the homosexual is now enabled, through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit, to be free from homosexual affections, thoughts, and actions. He is thus finished with his old, sinful lifestyle AND now has available, the abounding blessing of victory WITHIN. Onward then, to a holy and godly life.
This is GREAT news for the homosexual.
Report comment to moderator
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. Umm, expect it’s not true. We all know that you follow some rules of the OT and not others. TRUE. One tittle…expect for those we deem ceremonial/political. Doesn’t sound like a tittle hasn’t changed.
Again, the laws on stoning, execution of any sort, and punishment fall under the rights of the State. They are political laws.I knew this one was coming, so let me destroy it. And you know this (that they are political), how? How do you know what’s moral and what’s ceremonial and what’s the law of the land? Do you apply… gasp…logic? Do YOU determine morals? For, TRS, you know NOT what is in the mind of your lord. Don’t pretend to do so, it will make him angry.
Report comment to moderator
#55 Victoria, AGAIN, it is a moot point since you don’t believe it anyway
Do you argue about the contents and validity of the Koran and how it doesn’t make sense? Do point out inconsistencies in it and why it’s false? Do you read and interpret it and come to the same conclusion as I do? Assuming you do, then how is what you do any different than what I do? The Koran is rubbish. I’m sure we both agree. Yet, you insist on insulting me as if I’m stupid and uneducated in your bible. Got mirror?
Report comment to moderator
#62
Um…is it REALLY that hard for you to understand? Really?
Ceremonial: to keep them apart from the people’s around them. Unclean vs. Clean. Specifically revoked in the New Testament.
Political: Relating to running the country. Crime, punishment, taxes, law of the land. Duh!
Moral: Things pertaining to morals and ethics. What is acceptable in relationships – those we have with one another and those we have with God.
It really doesn’t take a rocket scientist, Scott. Are you really so intellectually challenged or does it just bother you that there’s a completely realistic answer to your “big gun” shot at Christianity?
Report comment to moderator
Whoops!
the peoples (people groups) around them.
Report comment to moderator
“..Umm, expect it’s not true..”
#62
————
Scott,
Yes, it’s true.
The Bible is always infallible.
It cannot be otherwise.
“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Mt 5:18)
Report comment to moderator
Except, you ignored Scott’s actual point to rebut one he didn’t make.
Report comment to moderator
Scott – 63
You don’t believe the Bible to be true, if you did you wouldn’t have posted:
It is a moot point as I pointed out earlier #55 -
Report comment to moderator
Scott doesn’t think we can use logic to understand our beliefs? Actually, Christianity is very much based on logic and history. If Jesus didn’t die, then we’re wrong. It’s not like other religions, where it doesn’t particularly matter whether or not the stories were actually true.
I think of my beliefs logically. I argue them on logical grounds. I don’t think I’ve ever pulled the “you can’t use reason: you must mindlessly believe” card on this blog. There, of course, comes a point where it is impossible to reason any further, but that is the case with absolutely everything.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, what Scott is trying to do here is point out inconsistencies and errors in Christian thought and, ultimately, the Bible. So his points aren’t really moot because he doesn’t believe the Bible. If he believed the Bible, there wouldn’t really be a discussion.
Report comment to moderator
It would be interesting to see ancient Israeli legal records and precedent. Just when and how often did they actually stone people? Were they right or wrong to do so?
But that is not the purpose of the Bible. A main feature of the New Testament is that the Law is impossible to follow, and that man cannot be saved by adherence to it or any good works. Thus, we need a Savior to cover our sins.
The idea that modern Christians should be going around stoning people is ridiculous. Of course, that is the point that Scott is trying to make. He would like that to mean that Christians are inconsistent, but I don’t think it does. One of his premises is wrong, namely, that the Bible teaches that we should be stoning people in the first place.
As specifically regards homosexuality having a death penalty: perhaps it did. In ancient Israel. Lots of things had rather severe penalties, but they could usually be forgiven. I don’t really know though, since, as I’ve already said, the Bible does an abysmal job of laying out centuries of Israeli legal precedent and decisions and God’s reaction to each one.
Anyway, in the New Testament, we learn that it’s even worse. You see, not only does homosexuality merit the death penalty, but so does lying, being (unrighteously) angry, and thinking of a woman lustfully. All sin merits death. This is what we needed saving from.
Report comment to moderator
TJS – 70
I disagree -
Report comment to moderator
No TJS, the Bible doesn’t do an “abuysmal” (horrible) job in any way shape or form – the Bible is the inerrant inspired Word of God – HIS way was the way in which the Bible was written. We have been given what the LORD wanted us to have –
I hope you aren’t going to come back with ‘humor’ – etc., as an excuse for that remark.
Report comment to moderator
TRS, Political: Relating to running the country. Crime, punishment, taxes, law of the land. Duh!
Moral: Things pertaining to morals and ethics. What is acceptable in relationships – those we have with one another and those we have with God.
Again, how do you know this? How do you know anti-homosexuality wasn’t the “law of the land”? How do you KNOW which ones are MORAL and which ones are not? I argue that you apply, ummm, logic to figure it out. If that’s the case, then your morals are as subjective as mine (as a christian might argue). It’s also why they’d changed over the last 2000 years. I maintain, through all your slurs against my intellect, that you cannot tell the difference without logic, which of course is subjective. If logic wasn’t subjective, everyone would agree, just like we all agree that 1+1=2. You have no idea of the mind of god, you can’t by your own definition.
Remember though:
Leviticus 23:14,21,31
It shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations
#70 Thanks for the support
#73 – beyond reproach. Apparently, TRS, you are NOT allowed to think for yourself. Victoria, do you ever speak negatively about the Koran? You dodged my question above.
#66 Yes, it’s true. The Bible is always infallible. It cannot be otherwise. It makes for a good mantra, but how do you know? Let me guess, the BIBLE tells you it’s infallible, right?
Report comment to moderator
scott your problem is you are qouting Jewish Law. Jewish Law was unyeilding and did not show grace. The fact if you broke the Jewish Law you faced the punishment of Jewish Law.
As Christian we are under grace not the jewish law
Report comment to moderator
Soooo, Roy, how do you know that homosexuality wasn’t part of this “Jewish” law of which you speak? See Roy, I get what you’re saying. But, you cannot arbitrarily pick and choose, presuming to KNOW, which parts of the bible are Jewish law and which parts are ceremonial or otherwise. So, unless you have a source to show that homosexuality was a Jewish law, then your argument kinda falls flat. It reads and sounds to me that christians logically figure out which is which. Which, of course, makes the bible subjective and not the objective “never ending, never changing” moral code that it’s presented as being.
Report comment to moderator
Scott,
AFTER you become a NEW CREATION in Christ, you’ll learn about covenant, dispensation, law, grace, faith, works, promise, oath, priesthood, Jew, Gentile, what a man is, what a woman is, what a marriage is, etc.
“And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” (Eph 4:24)
Time to join the purchased..
“..the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Ac 20:28)
Report comment to moderator
scott 03.19.10 AT 10:57 AM
Soooo, Roy, how do you know that homosexuality wasn’t part of this “Jewish” law of which you speak?
–
Genesis 2:20-25 (New International Version)
20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman, ‘
for she was taken out of man.”
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
You completely, and I do mean completely, misunderstood TJS. He was absolutely right.
Report comment to moderator
Scott what you are having a hard time understand is sin does not change. What Changed from the Old Testament Law and New testament Grace is the punishment.
“which parts of the bible are Jewish law and which parts are ceremonial or otherwise. ” The Jewish Law is clear on what is Ceremonial Law – which takes places in the temple and during their festivals.
The ten commands reveals God’s Desire relation for man.
Exodus 20:12 (New King James Version)
12 “ Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you
Report comment to moderator
homosexuality came about because of sin. Any sexual relationship out side of marriage is a sin. Since for the Christian marriage is between one man and one woman. Then homosexuality is a sin.
Report comment to moderator
Scott,
I know the difference because:
1) I’m not stupid. Sorry, but you are acting as if you are.
2) Centuries of thought on the subject (not just me, of course, but lots and lots and lots of Christians and Jews. Notice, you don’t see orthodox Jews running around stoning people willy-nilly either.)
3) It is pretty OBVIOUS except in a few small areas, and this would be the same for ANY law in ANY country of ANY people, because ALL law requires SOME reasonable interpretation.
Homosexuality is MORALLY wrong, and it carried a CRIMINAL penalty in old Israel.
Homosexuality is still MORALLY wrong, but we don’t have a CRIMINAL penalty for it in U.S. law.
Being a completely out-of-control teenager is MORALLY wrong, but we no longer carry a CRIMINAL penalty for it.
The State supplies the CRIMINAL/POLITICAL penalties for breaking its laws. Always has. Every society. This isn’t a surprise, or a silly new notion, or something I made up. This is the reason for the formation of the State and the government.
In old Israel, the State (the government) was a theocracy. We do not live under a theocracy.
As with ANY culture and ANY law, it requires interpretation, especially for nuanced “gray” areas. This is why we have lawyers and why old Israel had its version in rabbis. These people spent books and books arguing the nuances of Jewish/Torah law (see: Mishnah, Talmud, Midrash, Torah commentaries, and arguments of Jewish sages over the centuries.)
This doesn’t make the Law wrong, or void. It makes it a living, breathing thing that requires THOUGHT to implement.
As TJS pointed out, we don’t have (as we do today) books and books showing all the precedents, how they were interpreted, and God’s reaction to them.
BUT, we do have centuries of commentary (oral Torah) and centuries of actual practice that we DO know of. So, we also know that kids were never willy-nilly stoned, or wives, or even homosexuals.
The Bible required at least TWO witnesses, and there were lots of ways to receive grace. And, stoning generally required the whole community to back the sentence. And, it just didn’t happen all that often.
The POINT was that people DESERVED death, even though they rarely GOT death, as Pastor Roy pointed out. It was to point the people to their need for Christ and grace.
Basically, you are completely out-to-lunch with this tactic. Our answers are quite logically consistent, reasonable for ANY law or ANY people group, and not nearly as difficult or subjective as you would like to try to imply that they are.
I’m sorry. You lost. Find something else to rag on Christianity about.
I’m absolutely and completely convinced that we are correct on this topic. Unlike other things at times, I don’t even have the slightest doubt.
You are fishing in the wrong lake!
Report comment to moderator
#73
Let me see if I can explain it:
The Bible is not a legal document although it has legal laws in it. Its goal is not to lay out legal precedents through the centuries. (i.e. Rabbi X ruled that Jacob L. committed adultery and therefore assigned him to be stoned. This was determined by two witnesses and the neighbors from the tent next door. Sentence was commuted due to extenuating circumstances.)
In our culture, we have reams of “precedent” that helps judges decide how they should decide in present cases.
TJS was correctly pointing out that the Bible does not have this, does not do this, and was not created to do this. It is not a book of legal precedents, and does not do a good job being a book of legal precedents.
There are Jewish commentaries that do this to some degree.
So, there is nothing wrong with saying that the Bible does an abysmal job at something that it was not written to do, and does not claim to do. It is NOT a book of legal precedents set down over centuries, and it does not have to be. So, it can do an abysmal job of that because it is NOT its job.
There is no shame in being abysmal at doing something you were not created to do.
I hope I’m abysmal at lying. The word is not an insult when used in such a context.
Report comment to moderator
What is bizarre about atheists is that they somehow seem to think that no one — in over 2000 years of Christian thought and over 4000 years of Jewish thought — ever brought these things up before.
“Oh my goodness! I never thought of that before! You must be right and the Bible wrong!”
Let’s get real. If it were that easy, the Bible would have been proven wrong centuries ago.
LOTS of VERY intelligent people believe the Bible, Scott. In fact, some of the smartest people ever to have lived believed the Bible. We’re not all dummies that will be “shocked” to find out that one of Israel’s old penalties was stoning, and suddenly have our faith shaken to the core over it.
For 95% of atheist “talking points” against the Bible, we’ve “been there, done that” before and the points have legitimate, logical, plausible answers.
For the other 5%? Well, there are plausible explanations, if not completely satisfying answers. Very occasionally, the Christian has to say, “I don’t know, but I trust God to work it out.”
For me, that’s a great track record. There are very few things in life that are 100% and to expect them to be is truly unreasonable and unrealistic. I’m not even sure that we can believe in gravity 100% (probably more like 99.9999%?)
Report comment to moderator
#80, that’s pure psychobabble.
#85, all I can say is checkmate. It makes it a living, breathing thing that requires THOUGHT to implement.. These laws are subjective you said it yourself (before you contradicted what you said), thus, your morals are subjective. There’s no middle ground here. Either they are never changing or they are not. Pick one.
Ah,TRS, I’m sorry. You lost. Act like a 7 year old much? Sounds like you are stomping your feet and running off with the Big Wheel. Whatever.
Report comment to moderator
Scott,
The atheist entity is incapable of “morals”.
Remember, they’re only chemistry.
——
Actually, there are no atheists, only unregeneratists.
“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;” (Tit 3:5-6)
Report comment to moderator
TRS, who called you stupid? I believe you insinuated I was stupid (a little bit of projection on your part perhaps) but that’s perfectly fine with me. It’s happened before and it will happen again. It’s a sign of your frustration, I get it.
I never said these were my original ideas. This, my friend, is as UNORIGINAL as your refutation of those ideas. Neither of us discovered something new here. At least i don’t think we have. I’ve not heard anything original from you.
Let’s get real. If it were that easy, the Bible would have been proven wrong centuries ago.. I argue that if it were “real” everyone would be christian. But, ma’am in MY world (you’re welcome to join it) we have judaism, islam, mormonism, buddhism, baha’i faith, confucianism, hinduism, jainism, shinto, sikhism, taoism, vodun and those are just the “more modern” ones. Roughly 33% of the world’s population are christians. That means that 2 or every 3 people DISAGREE with your religion. Do not trivialize the opposition to your religion, it is not insignificant and does not apply simply to atheists.
There are many older pagan religions that pre-date christianity and all the others. As I stated to Victoria before, you, too, likely agree with my position on all of those and, as unlikely bedfellows, would rail against all of them (Joseph Smith and his magic underwear – what a JOKE – am I right?) in much the same manor.
There are very few things in life that are 100% and to expect them to be is truly unreasonable and unrealistic. I’m not even sure that we can believe in gravity 100% (probably more like 99.9999%?) Expect exactly 100% of the bible; written 2000 year ago it is infallibly true. Really? Come on TRS, even you can’t believe that. I readily admit that my position could be wrong. It’s doubtful, but, I can know with 100% certainty. Neither can you since your no smarter than me and don’t possess supernatural powers (as if they could exist). You just choose to deny in favor of the comfort you get. I’m OK with that really, except when people deny it.
Report comment to moderator
#85
No, I didn’t say they were subjective. For the most part, they are as clear as you can get. I said for the small, occasional NUANCED gray area they need to be interpreted using THOUGHT (and the rest of the Bible.) This is NORMAL and part of being HUMAN. There is no way to cover in absolute black and white every nuanced human interaction that could ever possibly happen.
HOWEVER, for the vast majority of things we have some pretty straight-forward absolutes. And, homosexuality is definitely NOT a “gray, nuanced” area. God hates it. It merits death (notice, I didn’t say we should have the death penalty for it, simply that it is a sin and merits death like any other sin). The Bible couldn’t be clearer that it is wrong.
It is a MORAL issue (relationships between people) and the MORAL law does not change (has not and will not, ever, throughout eternity). So, arguing that there are Rabbis and the need to think things through in no way allows one to pretend that obvious absolutes don’t exist.
By your argument, murder isn’t wrong in our society because we occasionally make exceptions for self-defense. Does the exception mean that the rule isn’t a valid rule? Of course not! Murder is illegal and morally wrong. The fact that there are nuanced occasions where either the morality of it or the punishment of it is not absolute doesn’t change the overall absolute that murder is wrong.
This would apply similarly to homosexuality. The Bible says it is wrong. It is morally wrong. However, I could imagine that we’d make exceptions for the boy who was raped or “groomed” or the young man who was led astray. It would still be wrong, but our reaction and punishment for it would be ameliorated by our understanding of the nuanced, gray facets of the situation.
Scott, we’re apparently at the point of calling names. You lost, but you want to say that I did, because you are OBTUSELY refusing to actually understand the arguments. (I would think you would be embarrassed to portray yourself as less than intelligent by refusing to understand, but, apparently, that is less important that admitting that your opponents have some valid arguments?)
Report comment to moderator
That means that 2 or every 3 people DISAGREE with your religion.
*****No. In my experience very few people (VERY few) actually research their beliefs or even question them. This means everyone: Christians, Buddhists, Taoists, and Atheists.)
They tend to go with what they were taught, or the first thing that questions what they were taught. (Particularly, if they have a problem at all with their parents.)
The thing about Christianity is that people who actually study it have a very hard time denying it.
I have looked at other religions. I have studied them. Christianity makes the most sense to me.
I think that if we could get other people to do the same, then we’d see more people believing it.
HOWEVER, Christianity is also the religion that requires the most from fallen humans. It actually requires that we stop trying to be in control of our own lives, stop committing our favorite sins, stop behaving in ways that we’d like to keep behaving. So, it also doesn’t surprise me that human beings might reject it so that they can continue to be gods of their own lives.
I don’t expect Christianity to be world-wide because of these two things: people’s natural lack of introspection and study, and people’s natural desire to remain the “god” of their own life.
The Bible doesn’t expect it either.
Report comment to moderator
Expect exactly 100% of the bible; written 2000 year ago it is infallibly true. Really? Come on TRS, even you can’t believe that.
*****Um. You apparently missed my whole point because your response was confusing and had nothing to do with my point.
Re-read please. Pay attention.
And, yes, I actually do think the Bible is 100% true. But, that wasn’t the point I was making and wasn’t even part of my argument.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, Scott, I do not think that you are stupid, which is why your arguments disappoint me. If you disagree, and can back your arguments and refute mine, I’m all for listening. But, when you ignore my arguments (even the good ones! lol) because of your agenda, then I lose respect for you and I start to figure that you aren’t worth debating with.
I admit that, about 5% of the time, I find an atheist argument that at least makes me go, “hmmm.” And, I admit that, on occasion, I have to answer “I don’t know.”
I also admitted that a 95% track record was pretty good IMO, and that the few less-than-5% questions that I had weren’t enough to make me stop believing.
That is a choice, a “leap of faith” that I made. I don’t think it such a broad leap. I think the vast majority of the evidence points to Christianity as true.
Do I question a few things? Certainly. I’ve told you so. But, the rest makes so much sense that I’m willing to put up with the 5% or less uncertainty. I don’t think atheism would do as well.
I honestly don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. I’d be questioning 50% plus instead of 5% minus.
The point, though, is that — if you can’t admit when an argument has been well-answered (even if you still don’t believe it) — and you can’t admit that we might be right about something, then you are simply arguing to be arguing and promoting your agenda.
And, since that means you aren’t really considering the ideas, what’s the point?
Report comment to moderator
I admit that, about 5% of the time, I find an atheist argument that at least makes me go, “hmmm.” And, I admit that, on occasion, I have to answer “I don’t know.”
******Building a bit on my answer here:
It’s just that, in this case, I think the answer I have found is rock-solid. I don’t have any questions about this. I almost wish I did.
Surprisingly, unlike many people, I don’t naturally think homosexuality disgusting. I really don’t. It doesn’t bother me all that much.
In my case, I admit, that the only real reason that I have against homosexuality is that the Bible says it is wrong.
So, I’d be more than happy to grasp at some straw that showed the Bible didn’t really mean what it said, or that such a rule was really a ceremonial or political one.
But, I have to be honest with myself. There is no way that I can see to get out of what the Bible says. And, since I believe God, and believe what He says in the Bible, I cannot condone homosexuality.
I can like the people involved. I can treat them kindly. I can be friendly. But, I can’t call the practice anything other than what it is: Sin.
Report comment to moderator
TRS, I’m most certainly not being disingenuous. I can understand how you feel that way since I don’t buy what you see as infallible truth. However, your argument isn’t rock solid, in my opinion. We can most certainly agree to disagree and I respect your attempt even though I’m not swayed. On that note, I wish you a great weekend. Oh, one last thing, I don’t think I ever called you any names. If I did, please accept my apology.
Report comment to moderator
TRS 03.19.10 AT 1:29 PM
Expect exactly 100% of the bible; written 2000 year ago it is infallibly true. Really? Come on TRS, even you can’t believe that.
–
yes by faith
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: I’m confused. Yes, it was a joke. Thus the winky face. The Bible isn’t a complete history of Israel. Nor is it a cookbook, or any number of other things. And you obviously understand the individual words I used, so your point is that… you think it does a good job with legal precedent? Plus, you seem to have understood at some point that it was a joke, since you specifically mentioned it.
So what’s your problem? That I’d use the word “abysmal” to describe anything about the Bible? I wasn’t saying anything bad about it at all, and I think if you took an extra few seconds, you’d figure that out.
Report comment to moderator
#77: The use of logic makes morals subjective? I don’t think so. Logic, and, in a broader sense, reason, are our tools for understanding our world and God’s revelation. In fact, I always thought that when the Bible referred to “the Image of God” it was talking about reason. Is it even possible to know or believe anything without logic?
I don’t know where you got the idea, Scott, that Christianity can’t be understood or believed with logic. I certainly don’t think that is the case. I’ve spent a good deal of time and effort logically coming to the conclusion that God exists. Christianity is a very logical religion, actually: it either happened or it didn’t, and it’s either true or it’s not. There’s not a wishy-washy new age-y mysticism about it.
That doesn’t make the morals subjective. Logic is about coming to conclusions that are valid and true. Two opposing things cannot both be valid and true. If someone comes to a wrong conclusion, then they are wrong. Atheists, incidentally, don’t have a logical basis for their morality, so I don’t know where you were going with that comparison.
Report comment to moderator
Tjs catlover –
I learned very early not to make jesting remarks regarding the Word of GOD, no matter how another person wanted to frame the remark.
GOD’S Word is HOLY, everything HE has allowed us to know about HIM and HIS creation, HIS works and all that we know is by HIS design – I come before HIM in reverence, and HIS Word is hidden in my heart because it is HOLY … it is the infallible, inerrant Word of GOD.
I don’t take the Bible lightly, …. that isn’t to say you do,…. I would never make any sort of remark regarding HIS Word …. HE gave us what we have, and it is all we need to know HIM, and accept such a great Salvation.
As you posted in #71:
The Bible is GOD’s Word – having said that TJS – when you are speaking about the Bible, it is HIS inspired, infallible Word you’re talking about – using “abysmal” in relation to what the LORD expressed through inspired writing in any way shape or form is offensive to many of us… maybe not everyone on this site, but it is to me and those of whom I know within the Christian community -
Report comment to moderator
#97
Thank you, Scott. I think I owe you an apology. I *did* imply that you were stupid (well, at least that you were reading my arguments and pretending to be stupid.)
That wasn’t nice, and isn’t a good way to debate. My apologies.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, btw, I’m TRS. I decided to change to my first name rather than my initials. Apparently, initials make it harder for people to remember and relate, or so I’ve been told.
Report comment to moderator
The Bible isn’t a complete history of Israel.— tjs catlover the old testament is an out line of the histroy of Israel. It shows that when Israel served and loved God. They were blessed and when they rejected God, God punished them.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy – 104
Excellent points –
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!