Mr Wiesner,

Does the Bible actually say that the universe is geocentric? Was not the Catholic Church's stance on geocenrism based on a theological deduction rather than reading comprehension? Just because some people interpret the Bible incorrectly for one thing does not mean that skeptics have carte-blanche to attack all exegesis. That's like saying we should prohibit all alcohol sales because many people drink irresponsibly. Why punish the ones who are responsible?

The Bible is absolutely a textbook for human sexuality. For heterosexual men, Jesus condemns even the act of lusting after women without a marital bond (Mt 5:27-28). Likewise, Paul makes it clear that homosexuality is banned in God's kingdom (1Co 6:9).

If the Bible is so irrelevant, where do we go to learn about Jesus Christ? Tacitus' "Annals?" Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum? If the Bible is not a guidebook, how do we know how to pray? Even though many like to pick and choose at their convenience, Christianity does not allow us that choice. Either Jesus is true and the Bible is his valid testimony, or we are really just humanists seeking to make God into a what C.S. Lewis calls our grandfather in heaven - a senile benevolence who says at the end of the day, "A good time was had by all" (from 'The Problem of Pain').

Respectfully,

James Pirrung-Mikolajczyk

James, I don't know what Kurt's views on the subject are, but you shouldn't assume that because one of the bloggers on The Lead posts an item that they agree with all of its contents. It may the that the Rev. Susan Russell who wrote the article will discuss it with you here, but I can't guarantee that.

James there are plenty of great exhaustive studies on the Bible and homosexuality that disagree with your position. I suggest you check some of them out.

Eric

Anyone who says that we know as much about sexuality as we do about celestial mechanics needs to have their education checked.

Mr Sinkula,

Let's get real: most of the people who want to justify the compatibility between homosexuality and Christianity do not care at all about biblical exegesis. Instead, they attack the Bible's integrity, just like the original story. However, I have been on the liberal side before. I know all the arguments about temple prostitution and pederasty. Yet, these arguments have the same effect as, "We believe that incest was not performed in the context of committed relationships." I think you get the idea...Where does this explanation stop?

Mr Wingate,

That's why God forbids us from leaning on our own understanding. To employ purely scientific arguments is to appeal to a body of ever-changing explanations that are based on as much as speculation as actual evidence. For about 100 years, Evolution was inseparable from racism (e.g., look up Ota Benga). Yet, many liberal Christians blindly follow theistic Evolution w/o comprehending the racial implications of it.

With human sexuality, we have the same problem. We have many moral relativists who don't have a correct view of heterosexuality, let alone homosexuality. In a world where parents are encouraged to dress their little girls as bait for pedophiles, I strongly doubt its stances on sexuality. Also, in a world where pornography and degradation is commonplace, do you suggest that humankind really knows better than God?! Take a look at the lives of those who make such arguments...

Respectfully,

James Pirrung-Mikolajczyk

James, a friendly warning here. First you have represented that you know that minds of "most of the people who want to justify the compatibility between homosexuality and Christianity." You followed that with a comment urging us to "take a look at the lives of those" who believe something other than you do on LGBT issues. This kind of rhetoric is over the line. You need to dial it back a bit, or your comments will not be published.

And if you'd like to meet a few hundred LGBT parents raising adopted children with significant problems so that you can "take a look at their lives", I can arrange the meetings.

Geez, and no sooner have I published this than I find another comment from you demanding that another commenter explain how he can consider himself a Christian. Really, stop it.

James,

It stops when you read Romans 13:10, Galatians 5:14. When it comes to morality, how we treat our neighbor is how God judges our actions as righteous or unrighteous. The law and the prophets are summed up in the commandments to love God and love and treat your neighbor as you wish to be treated.

Eric

@James ... as one late to the party here -- but as the author of the post in question -- let me start by questioning what it is that I've written that leads you to reference the "Bible as irrelevant."

As one who swore that I do believe the Holy Scrpitures to contain all things necessary to salvation, my commitment is to making the Bible MORE relevant to 21st century seekers yearing to find God and live their lives in alignment with God's values of love, justice and compassion by following Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

I do not believe we advance that mission by allowing the Bible to be used as a weapon against LGBT people by texts used out of context to oppress, marginalize and dehumanize them.

If you'd like to use the Bible as a personal handbook on sexuality then party on. But do allow the rest of us to get on with the work of building a church where there will be no outcasts by challenging those who would misuse the Bible as a blunt instrument against God's beloved LGBT children.

The Reverend Canon Susan Russell
All Saints Church, Pasadena CA

"Where does this explanation stop?"

Yes, where DOES the Slippery Slope Explanation (fallacy!) stop?

"I have been on the liberal side before": you made a quick drive-by through the neighborhood, huh? Without getting too much of their "pornography and degradation" on your bumper in passing?

I heartily recommend, "respectfully", Mr Pirrung-Mikolajczyk, you take up Jim Naughton on his meet LGBT families offer. We're really all around you, if you'd climb down from your Throne of Judgment to meet us.

JC Fisher

Mr Naughton,

Just because this is a liberal site does not mean you have the right to take away my freedom of speech since I don't take the liberal side. I don't claim to know anyone's minds, but I do see their actions - especially since the original story sums up the idea that homosexuality cannot be justified with Scripture.

BTW, I am not a child. You have no right to say, "Stop it."

James, if you want your posts to appear, you will heed my advice. You did, in fact, claim to know the minds of "most" people who disagree with your views. You did, in fact, pass a very harsh judgment on the lives of people whom you don't know. You did, in fact, question--in a comment I did not publish, whether another commenter was really a Christian. If you want to express your opinions--which you are welcome to do--you will express them with civility. Or they will not be published.

James, your free speech rights, as delineated in the first ammendment, provide that the government cannot pass laws that curtail your right to free speech. That is not the case here. You are free to start your own blog and post, or not post, any responses as you see fit.

Homosexuality is part of the normal spectrum of human sexuality. There is no nexus between morality and sexual orientation. Volumes have been written on this subject. There will always be people (like many of the current presidential candidates) who refuse to look at the Bible in context, refuse to look at the medical research, and refuse to listen to the stories of the LGBT faithful.

@Mr Fisher,

The "slippery slope" already exists within the Anglican Communion. At the time, there's a listening process about sexuality regarding the compatibility of homosexuality and polygamy with Christianity. Even in U.S. society, there's the beginnings of a movement toward the recognition of polygamy (watch the media). You may slight me for it, but it's already here.

@ Rev. Russell,

TEC is in decline. The Gospel of radical inclusion is actually failing to bring people in. Instead, we have a mass exodus of people jetting from TEC. Additionally, Jesus talks about truth as a sword. Otherwise, us feminists would not be able to use convenient verses like Galatians 3:28 to rebuke those opposed to women's liberation.

If we believe that Jesus and God are one and the same, Jesus did in fact call homosexuality in abomination in Leviticus. His servant Paul was also correct in saying that God does not recognize non-celibate gays in his kingdom.

@ Mr Naughton,

I have a gay family member, of whom I care deeply about. Knowing people with a problem shouldn't mean compromising the truth. I know plenty of men who look at pornography; that doesn't make it right.

Respectfully,

James Pirrung-Mikolajczyk

Mr Naughton,

When someone uses a source called "Evil Bible.com", I have every reason to doubt someone's faith. The Bible is no less than God's revelation to us of his Son, Jesus Christ. To call it evil is to call God evil. Additionally, the man references an atheist. "Atheist" means "not a theist", i.e., against God.

Respectfully,

James Pirrung-Mikolajczyk

James, think about what you are saying. Based on a citation in a debate that you found troubling (and into which you are reading way too much--who cares what the name of the site is, what matters is the nature of the argument it makes) you claim a right to question something very deep and personal about someone whom you don't know. Think too about the notion you seem to be advancing that there is nothing a Christian can learn about the Bible from someone who is not a Christian. My appreciation of who Jesus was has been deeply enriched by the scholars Paula Fredrickson and Gaza Vermes, both of whom I believe are Jewish. It's fine to have these arguments here on the blog but, really, some of your debating tactics are just not acceptable, and when you deploy them, your comments will not be printed.

James - a-theist is not against God - an Atheist just does not believe God exists. Most are content with allowing others to believe whatever they want to believe about God's existence.
re: comments - we delete liberals and conservatives when they go over the line. A good discussion helps us all.

~ed. on Tuesday - Ann

Even in U.S. society, there's the beginnings of a movement toward the recognition of polygamy (watch the media).

Mr Pirrung-Mikolajczyk: Even if I accepted your assertion (I don't: there's NO serious discussion of the recognition of polygamy in the U.S., outside of the sects which---regrettably---still secretly practice it), it's irrelevant to the practice of "the clear truth of Scripture" as found in TEC. I'm only (slightly!) responsible for TEC; it's the only community of faith whose interpretation of Scripture I'm committed to.

If we believe that Jesus and God are one and the same, Jesus did in fact call homosexuality in abomination in Leviticus. His servant Paul was also correct in saying that God does not recognize non-celibate gays in his kingdom.

Neither of these statements are true. "Homosexuality"---the sexuality of persons with an innate homosexual orientation---has only been understood since no earlier than late 19th century. You've really got to examine this facile anachronism.

[Does *God* understand homosexual orientation? Of course: God created it! And called it (with and amongst all his Creation) "GOOD"! :-D]

JC Fisher

Mr Fisher,

Here's an Anglican Communion source that mentions polygamy in the same context as homosexuality. If you don't think there's a slippery slope, guess again...

http://www.aco.org/listening/book_resources/2.2.cfm

BTW, Paul uses the word "arsenokoitais" in 1Co 6:9 to mean "male bed partner" as derived from Leviticus. No "male bed partner" nor "malakoi" (i.e., "soft one") can enter God's kingdom. If God and Jesus are the same, then Jesus did call homosexuality (i.e., man having sex with a man per Leviticus) an abomination. Your discussion of certain vocabulary terms is irrelevant. Leviticus simply describes an action without naming it "homosexuality." Moot point.

Respectfully,

James Pirrung-Mikolajczyk

James, the discussion in the Anglican Communion regarding polygamy has not been of the slippery slope variety. The discussion has concerned how to incorporate the great many polygamist Africans who have converted to Christianity into the church. Were you to read the materials that are described quite briefly in the link you provide, that is what you would find.

In the Anglican Communion, polygamy is practiced primarily in those countries most opposed to marriage equality, and opposed most strongly in those countries more favorable to marriage equality.

This doesn't bear directly on your argument, but I think it might help you make better sense of the Anglican context, if that is something in which you are interested.

Mr Naugthon,

I understand the context very well. I don't think Gospel-believing Christians should bend on polygamy because of cultural values, either. The Anglican Communion's desire to "listen" to dialogue regarding both homosexuality and polygamy come from a desire to compromise with cultural values, not godly ones. In context, my friend, that was my original point.

Respectfully,

James Pirrung-Mikolajczyk