Openly Gay Clergy

PSolus

You wrote, "If everything that you claim about yourself is true (and there is no rational reason to believe that any of it isn't true), you are on a much higher spiritual level than the rest of us."

I, most definitely, do not look at it this way at all but that God chose me for the "job" that God chose me for.

Then you wrote, "The next time you see your imaginary three-in-one god, tell him a said hello."

As I have said, I did not "see" God at least not in a "physical sense" but I do not have to "see" God to tell God that you said "hello".

Don't worry, God already knows.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Fine don't want to listen to Paul let us look at the Torah. Read Leviticus then we'll talk. When you can decipher cultural beliefs and God's mandates I'll listen.

Thomas Paul Moses Baum

You wrote:

"I am special for the same reason that every other human being is special and that is that we are created in the Image of God."

You are being much too modest.

If everything that you claim about yourself is true (and there is no rational reason to believe that any of it isn't true), you are on a much higher spiritual level than the rest of us.

As a matter of fact, you're right up there with the BVM; there is every reason to believe that people will soon be building cathedrals and naming them after you.

The next time you see your imaginary three-in-one god, tell him a said hello.

Don't worry, be happy.

Peregrine Bartleby Rumplestiltskin Solus

testing

I think being natually gay is a physical genetic birth defect, like a heart defect, cleft palate, and schizophrenia. I would guess some things that God created do and some do not disqualify one from being a philosophical role model...as I'm sure you will agree.

What cracks me up is the left believe all homosexuality is natural, and the right believes all homosexuality is a choice. That is why, of course, the left believes no neurotic who has sex with members of the same sex can be helped by counseling, and why the right think that all folks who practice homosexuality can be changed. Am I the only one in the world who knows that not all people who do homosexual acts are not naturally gay and vice versa.

No, in any case, I would not attend a church with a gay leader (natural or neurotic)...wouldn't trust the skewed view.

PSolus

You wrote, "So, I guess this makes you special; one might think that this makes you a prophet--is that why you have "Moses" in your name?"

I am special for the same reason that every other human being is special and that is that we are created in the Image of God.

As I have said, God chose me.

Moses is my confirmation name and I have also been called Moses since before I can remember which happens to be before it was my confirmation name.

You then wrote, "Were you put on earth to save mankind from... something?"

I never said that I was the Saviour, I said that I am a messenger.

You then wrote, "Are you going to lead us to the promised land?"

I do not know all of the details, God is God, I am a messenger.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

walter-in-fallschurch

You wrote, "i meant to say that you think you have ACCURATE communications with god, right? i mean, however s/he/it communicates with you, you think you properly understand the message, right?"

As I have mentioned, when God the Father came into my heart and the Holy Spirit came into my body, neither said a word.

I have also mentioned that in a dream, I was told that only I could say it.

I did not have a "clue" what it was that only I could say, so one of the things that I did shortly after this and some other things transpired, was to "dive into" bible studies, not some "formal" kind, so to speak, but just whatever was offered wherever I saw them offered.

Denominational, non-denominational, Jewish, Messianic Jewish, whatever and wherever I noticed them.

As I have said many times, there seem to be quite a few people that "know" the bible cover to cover but seem to "know" virtually nothing about God except for God's Name.

I "know" that God is a Trinity and I "know" that God is a Being of Pure Love, so one way that I can put it, is that I had a "base" to work from.

You have probably noticed before in what I have written, that I have also met satan and that I have also experienced hell and spiritual death, these are all things that God knew that I needed to know to even "attempt" to do the "job" that God has given to me.

I cannot speak for how God works in anyone else's life but in my life, God is not like some kind of big "dictation machine in the sky", a lot of times the Holy Spirit speaks to me thru other people and I have come to notice that quite often, some of these people have no clue that the Holy Spirit is speaking thru them.

To hear, one has to listen. Sounds simple and it is but how often do people not really "listen"?

God being a Being of Pure Love is beyond my comprehension and I believe that it is beyond anybody's.

There is a big difference between Love being an attribute of God and Love being God's Very Being.

All of God's attributes, so to speak, flow from God being Love and some of the vile, putrid garbage being spewed out in God's Name is sickening.

As I have said: God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable; See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas Paul Moses Baum

You wrote:

"God chose me to speak, so I speak and I am counting on God to see me thru the "job" that He has chosen me for."

So, I guess this makes you special; one might think that this makes you a prophet--is that why you have "Moses" in your name?

Were you put on earth to save mankind from... something?

Are you going to lead us to the promised land?

Don't worry, be happy.

Peregrine Bartleby Rumplestiltskin Solus

I am strongly opposed to gay marriage, and have recently confirmed that god, jesus and many saints fully support my position. When, as must happen, gay marriage is made illegal, we must form a uniformed federal sex polizei that will closely examine all candidates for marriage, and also already “married” couples, to ensure that this prohibition is not violated.

ThomasBaum,

you said,
"...it is up to God how He communicates with someone, that is there is no "proper" way."

what i meant by "proper" was "accurate". i meant to say that you think you have ACCURATE communications with god, right? i mean, however s/he/it communicates with you, you think you properly understand the message, right?

Freestinker

You wrote, "My approval is not required but cold hard objective evidence to support such outlandish claims certainly is."

I believed in God "Faith" before I met God "Knowledge".

Having met God, there is still plenty of things concerning God that I have "Faith" about.

I could say that I look at the bible thru the eyes of "knowing that God is a Being of Pure Love" and, to put it mildly, this gives me quite a different perspective.

If someone has "cold hard objective evidence" concerning the "existence of God, there would be absolutely no need or room for "Faith", would there?

One day all will "know" that God Is but until then one needs "Faith" to "believe" or some kind of "personal revelation" to "know".

There seem to be quite a few that interchange these two words, believe and know, and they do not mean the same thing.

God chose me to speak, so I speak and I am counting on God to see me thru the "job" that He has chosen me for.

The message that I proclaim is the same message that the Angels proclaimed at Jesus's Birth, "This is "GOOD NEWS" for ALL PEOPLE", it is not 'good enough news' for some.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

walter-in-fallschurch

You wrote, "ThomasBaum is one of those who believes HE has communicated properly with god"

What I said was that I know It was God the Father that came into my heart and the Holy Spirit that came into my body and I also said that it is up to God how He communicates with someone, that is there is no "proper" way.

To put it mildly, it came as quite a shock and when God the Father came into my heart, He did not say a word, He did not have too and when the Holy Spirit came into my body, He did not say a word either but did reveal to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus.

Also, God the Father is not a Male, neither is the Holy Spirit, God-Incarnate was a Male, Jesus. God is a Being of Pure Love and I repeat, Love is not an attribute of God but is God's Very Being.

And then you wrote, "and ALL the OTHER PEOPLE who believe (with the same "certainty" as ThomasBaum) are wrong about what they "know" to be true."

I have not said "ALL the OTHER PEOPLE", what I have said is that there are many that say that they speak for God but have not been chosen by God as a spokesperson.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

sokumina,

you said,
"I am appalled that the church would let this fly. Paul says it to the church in Corinth that homosexuality is a sin and must be stopped. This is just unbelievable. If the church does not uphold the doctrines it was founded upon anymore it just shows how WEAK it has become."

appalling indeed. and despite paul's clear warning (1cor11), some churches even let women in to pray WITHOUT HATS on. some churches, ignoring paul again, even let them in if they have SHORT HAIR.

though pauls warns of it (1cor14:34), i've been in churches where i've heard women TALKING! (probably hatless women with short hair at that!)

these churches think we can pick and choose parts of the bible we like. of course they're all goin' to h-e-double-toothpicks in a handbasket. liberals...

Concerning "Speaking for God"

I think everyone should just lay off and say what they think God is saying to them on a personal level (whoever believes in God).

Some accuse others of the hubris of speaking for God while some deny that this is possible, yet these very people turn around and say what they, themselves, think God is saying, which makes their arguments kind of silly.

When we start respecting the right of other peoples' convictions and acknowledge that those convictions that disagree with ours are not necessarily prejudicial or malicious or are intending to harm, but are simply sincere, personal convictions on moral and spiritual issues, a truly enlightening conversation may ensue.

I can firmly and confidently state that the truth exists and I live in close relation to it. I can firmly state that as I try to grasp it more, I feel rewarded in that my ability to perceive truth improves. I can firmly state that I have often been and will often be mistaken about what that truth is.

I believe that that truth is experienced by everybody else in intimate imminence.

The fact that the christo-islamists have ruined the meaning of God is relevant to the discussion, thus we as a society needs to learn that their construct of a book based god is not the only option. Christo-islamic clergy are now confronted with the immaturity of their book constructs. If they are forced to repeal their new knowledge (say like Galileo) then the world is thrust back into the darkness of biblical teaching. But in the future society of nuclear proliferation into states and ideological groups, we need to address this hate based ideology and open up the world to a freer spirituality. These gay church clergy have to take a stand viz, I disagree with parts of the book and you should feel free to do so, or I agree with the book and live a life leading to eternal damnation. Otherwise, they need to abandon the book entirely and become aware of a spiritual dimension of life that transcends categories as christian, muslim, buddhist, etc. (of course it is not a free for all, it is after all based on a truth that I assert I can state firmly exists, and I suggest I worship in all its complexity and apparent diversity).

hariaum

Understandably, people believe different things--and it is not just with religion. Consequently, each of us will live according to our convictions and respond to a host of issues within that schema.

Three points:

1. If two people find themselves in the same threatening life-and-death situation, each person will react according to their own conviction as to the correct way out of danger. In the end, who is correct will be clearly seen. But until then, each may try to convince the other of their own conviction.

2. It is only natural and right for a person to resist any attempt for anyone to force them to accept as part of their personal belief system anything they consider to be objectionable.

3. Impugning the intelligence, integrity and veracity of those who resist forced intrusions upon their personal beliefs is an act of agression that should not be tolerated by reasonable people.

"But if you accept that God=Truth=Tat Sat=that which is=Being/awareness/bliss=sat/cit/ananda then the reality all around us is that being expressing itself through the laws of gravity, the laws of karma, and the relationships you and I engage in. To be listening to such God-speak, you have to be here and now. (not some book written by a political conference a few hundred years ago.) And yes, with limited mind, we will get it wrong sometimes, but it is that wrongness that allows us to hypothesize and challenge what we think is true and thus get closer to that which is true = Tat Sat."

-----------

NAVIN1,

I can dig that but that's not the ordinary western understanding (definition) of God. If we take a god to be that abstract and all-encompassing, the conclusion is still the same ... it's intent (if any) is immpossible to ever know. The pursuit of the question might still be useful and rewarding but a firm, verifiable conclusion on such matters can never be reached. God is a question that cannot be answered.

DanielintheLionsDen

Wow! I mean...wow! Can I go now?

"So you are saying that if there is a God or gods then God has to communicate to us by a method or methods that you approve of?"

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

ThomasBaum,

Of course not but if god(s) exist, they would certainly be able to communicate with each of us in a way that we could clearly detect and understand, omnipotent as they are.

With all the disagreement between those who claim to know that gods exist (without evidence) and with so many others who have never been spoken to (in a figurative sense) by any gods and who seriously doubt their existence for that same lack of evidence, it just seems highly doubtful that a single, omnipotent god exists at all much less communicates with us in the way that so many people claim.

My approval is not required but cold hard objective evidence to support such outlandish claims certainly is.

daniel12

You are absoultely correct!

Isn't that how it is? Which of us can state, without appealing to faith, that our own beliefs are the truth to the exclusion of the beliefs of others?

The defenses we offer on behalf of what we believe inevitably lead to statements that leave us vulnerable to the criticism you made of my statement. And rightly so.

"Paul says"??? Give us a break!!! He was wrong about women, the followers of Judaism and also about the second coming i.e. he was never a "rep from god"!!!

*pounds her head on the desk...repeatedly*
So now we are ordaining people who think it is okay to live unrepentant of one's sin. Does anyone else have a problem with this? Using biology as an excuse just does not cut it in a field that transcends into the supernatural. I am appalled that the church would let this fly. Paul says it to the church in Corinth that homosexuality is a sin and must be stopped. This is just unbelievable. If the church does not uphold the doctrines it was founded upon anymore it just shows how WEAK it has become.

*pounds her head on the desk...repeatedly*
So now we are ordaining people who think it is okay to live unrepentant of one's sin. Does anyone else have a problem with this? Using biology as an excuse just does not cut it in a field that transcends into the supernatural. I am appalled that the church would let this fly. Paul says it to the church in Corinth that homosexuality is a sin and must be stopped. This is just unbelievable. If the church does not uphold the doctrines it was founded upon anymore it just shows how WEAK it has become.

The words of MGT2 below, against the assertions of those who disagree with his Christian beliefs:

"And, just because you repeat something over and over does not automatically make it true. For example, if you have a piece of lead, and stare intently at it and say it is a piece of gold, no matter how long you do that, it will remain a heavy piece of lead, even if you manage to get six billion people to agree with you".

You should be more careful MGT2 making defenses like the above for your beliefs. Anyone can reply to the above by saying: "MGT2, just because you keep repeating something over and over does not make it true. For example, if you have a book and stare at it intently and say it is the word of God, no matter how long you do that it will be just a book--even if you manage to get six billion people to agree with you".

Once again:

The NT says nothing about gay sex? Au Contraire!!! Thou shalt Not Commit Adultery and Thou Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbors Wife/Husband/Partner with the corollary of Thou Shalt Not Fornicate pertain not only to heterosexual couples but also homosexual couples. This probably is no concern to non-Christians or non-Jews or non-Mormons but it should be a major concern to those religious types who believe in the teachings of the OT, NT, the Commandments and all of its corollaries.

So we have a Christian/Jewish/Mormon God who supposedly created all of us to include homosexuals. Said God is therefore responsible for the defective gene/mind-set that causes homosexuality. One might conclude from this that the Christian/Jewish/Mormon God would therefore approve same-sex marriages since that is the only sin-free state where any type of couple-sex can be performed.

And just a reminder, reiteration is good for the brain and the soul!!!

"If you believe that God made human beings in his own image, can you be against the ordination of lesbians and gays in the church?"

Sure you can. What has one got to do with the other? Children are made in God's image, but I wouldn't ordain a six year old. The question is almost implausibly silly. No offense.

It's not a slight against persons with gay people - I wouldn't ordain me, either. Ordination's not a human right. It's a gift.

The thing is that there is a difference between having a temptation to something, like stealing or lying, and acting on it. And there is another difference between acting on it and then changing one's mind and deciding to live in a new way, and publicly making a lifestyle out of it.

Whether they like it or not, the Bible and orthodox Christianity and traditional morality of whatever religion (all of them, really) label homosexual acts as sinful - harmful to society, violations of the natural order, and offensive to nature's Creator. As long as it believes that, a traditional Christian denomination cannot possibly consider ordaining for leadership someone who has publicly enshrined homosexual acts as part of his or her identity.

If a gay person wants to be ordained, it behooves him to find a clear, rational explanation for why he thinks 2000 years of Christian tradition (and more generally, the entire of recorded history of morals up until the last 50 years or so) is wrong. An argument better than, "that's not nice," would be good for starters. And that accumulated wisdom has gathered a great deal of rationale - more than the "God hates fags" slogans that are caricatured. And "God loves everyone equally" is hardly sufficient justification for abandoning that tradition, when that tradition is precisely the vehicle by which that truth has become widely known, to the point of being cliche.

As a last point of fact, Walter-in-Fallschurch implied that 10% of the population is gay. That outdated "finding" of the Kinsey reports, rather dubious from the outset, has been debunked several times, most thoroughly by the University of Chicago's study in 1993. The percentage of exclusively or primarily homosexually-oriented men is 2-3%, according to that study. Not that a number legitimizes treating such people unkindly, or harshly.

Ryan Haber
Kensington, Maryland

ThomasBaum is one of those who believes HE has communicated properly with god and ALL the OTHER PEOPLE who believe (with the same "certainty" as ThomasBaum) are wrong about what they "know" to be true.

i have to agree with Freestinker. the lack of verifiable proof of god's communication with us speaks volumes.

further, we have proof that most (if not all) people are making things up on behalf of god. i mean, we have 1000s of religions/sects/cults etc...who all say god told them DIFFERENT things. this doesn't make sense unless all but AT MOST one group/person is lying or deluded.

alternatively, god could be kind of a prankster: telling different people different things about himself and the cosmos. this conception is similar to those who suppose that god made the universe "look old" and made it look like all animals (including homo sapiens) did not descend from those on noah's ark so as to trick scientists and others in the "reality"-based community.

another way out of this dilemma is to propose a god that is so devoid of specific characteristics that we can call "him" (her? it? them?) "truth" or "karma" or "gravity" other mushy terms like that.

of course the simplest way to avoid any contrivances about god is to propose a god that does not exist.

Freestinker

You wrote, "If they are gods, they don't need any help. If they exist, they can surely communicate their messages to us on their own."

So you are saying that if there is a God or gods then God has to communicate to us by a method or methods that you approve of?

There are plenty of people that "know" God's Name that seem to believe the same thing, that God can only "communicate" to us by "a method or methods" that they approve of, as I have said many times, God will not fit into any "box" that any of us try to cram God into.

You also wrote, "Meanwhile, their silence is deafening!"

Or could it be that we are just "deaf" to the silence, God can speak to us thru the silence, if we would just listen.

This could be one of the reasons that so many people seem to be terrified of silence.

You also wrote, "So far, I haven't heard any gods speak. Not a single word."

Do you really believe that words or speaking is the only way that God can communicate to us?

Sometimes, the most meaningful "communication" between people is without words, do you not think that God can communicate to us in other ways besides words?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Considering the historical and theological flaws and errors in the foundations of all religions, there should be no clergy at all, straight or gay. Next question!!!

Funny, another blog on this was who speaks for women's rights.

Freestinkeer:
If you simplify the belief of god to an old man with superhuman powers, you are quite correct.

But if you accept that God=Truth=Tat Sat=that which is=Being/awareness/bliss=sat/cit/ananda then the reality all around us is that being expressing itself through the laws of gravity, the laws of karma, and the relationships you and I engage in. To be listening to such God-speak, you have to be here and now. (not some book written by a political conference a few hundred years ago.) And yes, with limited mind, we will get it wrong sometimes, but it is that wrongness that allows us to hypothesize and challenge what we think is true and thus get closer to that which is true = Tat Sat.

hariaum

Nobody can speak for gods. If they pretend to, they are really just speaking for themselves, not for any god. The only ones who can speak for gods are the gods themselves. Gods must always speak for themselves, otherwise the message is not authentic.

So far, I haven't heard any gods speak. Not a single word. And even if I did, I could never prove it. There are those who claim to speak on behalf of gods but since the gods on whose behalf the speech is made have not confirmed their agreement with such speech, it's hard to conclude that the speech was really from a god and not just from a person falsely claiming to speak for the god.

So as far as we can tell, gods don't speak at all, so anybody claiming to speak for any god is just not telling the truth. Why would a god need a human to communicate it's message anyway. If they are gods, they don't need any help. If they exist, they can surely communicate their messages to us on their own. Otherwise they are pretty weak gods, and hardly omnipotent.

Meanwhile, their silence is deafening!

MGT2

I am not the one who believes God is homophobic, you are. I believe quite the opposite.

My issue is not with God, it is with you because you continue to promote a false doctrines that are against God, while pretending to be speaking in the voice of God.

I am merely trying to defend the basic goodness of gay people from people like you. I am not going to sit back and let people like you dish out your proud and pretentious passive aggressive insults.

You are a snob. You obviously feel superior to gay people. I cannot imagine why that would insult you or hurt your feelings. By no stretch of the imaginations do you think otherwise. So why is someone pointing it out such a terrible thing?

If you feel superiior to gay people because you are in greater compliance with God's rules than gay people are, then you should be proud, and not take offense when someone else notices.

Does it make any sense to join a group whose very existance is based on ignorance, superstition, and fear, and then expect the people in the group to act intelligently or rationally?

Yawn.
This is the third week in the last four discussing gays.

Move on, please.

THOMASBAUM,

You said "Even tho this comment was not directly directed to me, I wish to state that just reading the bible does not mean that one understands it, Jesus did say that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide, did He not?"

That is what the Bible says.

The Bible says that He is Love, as you rightly stated. But it also says that he is Righteousness, and Justice, and Holy; and it says that he will judge us all and separate us into those who will be rewarded with eternal punishment for continued disobedience and those who will be rewarded with eternal joy for obedience.

That is what the Bible says, not me. Am I speaking for God? No, I am telling you what I read in the Bible just as I entered the quote from your post.

Some may say I did not read that; to this I have no response.

DanielintheLionsDen

Tell me this: If I direct someone to read your posts, am I speaking for you?

If you say yes to this, and reasonable people agree that it is so, then I am guilty of speaking for God. Otherwise, you continue in you dishonesty by misrepresenting my posts.

However, if reasonable people agree that by so doing, I am letting you speak for yourself, then I am not guilty of speaking for God, and your issue is with him. And you can tell him you think that he is wrong and homophobic and bigoted.

The superstition of the christo-islamists is beyond argument. They are so darkened by their false prophet that they can not see to judge their prophets by the fruits (genocide over and over again). The bible does not speak for god but for an anthropomorphic demon.

Each of can speak for the God that is Brahman who has spoken through many sages and many incarnations of God itself: all is love, all is truth. You are not hated by God. You are not to fear god but for your own hold of a tiny thing called ego. You, that human spark of the supreme, that atman that is parataman, are higher than any scripture. If people hate you because of their ideology, their ideology is the demonic ideology of hate. Abandon such nonsense. Read the real scripture of humanity - your own individual soul.

But alas, the ignorant that read a book and think it is true will chose to remain ignorant for they are deluded by false prophets and mythological saviors. Sadness to those that place a book, a savior, or a prophet before their god. Pray, step away from the darkness, come to light.

hariaum

MGT2

You wrote, "By the way, you can read his words for yourself...it is apparent that you don't. Otherwise, you would not be falsely accusing me. I simply go by what he says because he is infallible."

Even tho this comment was not directly directed to me, I wish to state that just reading the bible does not mean that one understands it, Jesus did say that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide, did He not?

You mentioned that you have "never said or claimed to speak for God", I have said numerous times that I was told in a dream that I know was from God that only I could say it.

God's Plan, which God has had since before Creation is unfolding before our very eyes and will come to Fruition.

God's Plan is referred to as "the mysterious Plan of God".

Jesus did say, "Love one another as I have loved you", there is no "except for" anywhere in that, said or implied, is there?

God is a Being of Pure Love, it is that simple.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

MGT3

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchers which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
Mathew chapter 23 verse 27

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mathew chapter 7 verse 15

MGT2

Well, at last, there is one thing that we agree on. Repeating a lie over and over again does not make it true. Only, from my perspective, this is a lesson that you need to learn since I already know it.

If you do not want to speak for God, then why don't you stop, and let God speak for himself. He can handle himself, honest.

I have a Bible; almost everyone does. I know how to read; almost everyone does. I am well aware of your Bible verses that you have memorized and repeat over and over again. In case you are not aware of it, the world is filled with people like you, who carry these exact same verses around like weapons. To me, these verses form a cobbled together and synthetic narrative that tell your story, not God's.

I am not mad at you and I do not hate you. I am just tired of people like you. Because even though you may think that your comments here are original, they are not. They are old cliches.

As I said, why not let God speak for himself. I am sure he would not get caught up in old tired cliches. If you think that he may be stumbling, and need your help, trust me, he will be fine on his own.

DanielintheLionsDen

Ah..you found me. But again, your dishonesty. I never said or claimed to speak for God.

He does a much better job than I could do, anyway. In addition, being human, I may be tempted to twist his words to suit my position. It would be dishonest, and he prohibits that.

By the way, you can read his words for yourself...it is apparent that you don't. Otherwise, you would not be falsely accusing me. I simply go by what he says because he is infallible.

And, just because you repeat something over and over does not automatically make it true. For example, if you have a piece of lead, and stare intently at it and say it is a piece of gold, no matter how long you do that, it will remain a heavy piece of lead, even if you manage to get six billion people to agree with you.

Maybe you do not care, though. Maybe you are trying to convince yourself and hoping to bring others along as well?

Considering the historic and theological flaws and errors in the foundations of all religions, there should be no clergy, straight or gay. Next question!!!

MGT2

I am afraid you will never understand.

Being gay is not a biological drive.

Nor is it an ideology.

Being gay is not a life style.

Being gay is not immoral and it is not a sin.

Being gay is not a defiance against anything, certainly not againsst God, and not against any religion, nor any church.

As sexual orientation, being gay is simply an aspect of personality and identity.

Your bias against gay people is based on false doctrines and lies. You say that you speak for God, but you do not.

But all of this is beside the point.

Whether you like it or not, and no matter how many excuses you can make for your ill-will towards gay people, and no matter how your ignorance may resist unwanted wisdom, gay people will continue to ask for their rights, forever, until they get them.

walter-in-fallschurch

Here is the thing, God is not located in the past or the presence or the future, he just is. He does not change. Consequently, his words are neither ancient or passe, they are as eternal as he is--never out of style, never irrelevant. Alas, you will never understand, I'm afraid.

MGT2 and mike27 prove my point perfectly:

judeochrislam is NOT about morality. it's about following the rules put forth in ancient scripture (to please god and thereby get to heaven). whether or not those rules are moral is beside the point.

It's quite simple. I have a church. If you want to join here are the rules. If you don't like the rules don't join. Sheeesh.

I do not suppose that there will ever be an end to this debate, at least not this side of eternity.

For me, what it comes down to is whether we regard what the standard of the Christian Faith--the Bible--says. Because, contrary to what some would like to see, one cannot disregard Biblical injunctions and remain Christian.

The Bible tells us that there is nothing new under the sun. With that in mind, I remind you of the scripture in Jeremiah (either chapter 28 or 29) about a prophet called Hannaniah.

Jeremiah prophesied that God would send Israel into Babylonian captivity because of their sins and that some would die horribly. Hannaniah opposed Jeremiah and prophesied that it would not be so, but that God would save them all.

Of course, Jeremiah was right and Hannaniah, who wanted to appease the people against what what God's word clearly stated, was proven wrong. he paid with his life.

This debate seems old. God says one thing and some, even in the church, say another. God's word is and always will be, right.

Walter, I sort of agree with you. Though I would rephrase what you are saying to catch a different sense: The christo-islamic cults don't care about Truth, Morality, or human suffering. Since they are doctrinally driven, they are superstitiously bound to their mythological books, they are unable as ideologies to look within the human and find divinity - this inward path is something largely universal to all other religions. To the rest of the world, God, the Supreme entity, Brahman, Truth, Morality, and bliss / peace are a single entitity that through our work is clarified - enlightenment.

There is no doubt in my mind that the christo-islamic ideology would rather define things than actually look at things. Thence the problem they have with science and secularism.

But where we disagree may be that other religions are trying to teach and find moral values of the divine that we can express in this world - not as dogma but as self realization. And again, if religion is not teaching morality (how we should live our lives) what the heck is it doing here? (answer: provide control structures to sustain economic and political regulation of socioeconomic resources to sustain religious hegemony, but that's another debate :) )

hariaum

oops...gosh darn it...that first sentence of the third paragraph is supposed to read,

"the bigger point is that judeochrislam is NOT about morality, per se."

judeochrislam is NOT about morality.

some have implied (and said) "religion is about morality" and so on. "moral" instruction is really just a byproduct of religion, at least for the judeochrislamic religions. first and foremost is doing what (you think) god wants. in a-religious terms, sometimes god wants things that are moral (like loving your neighbor) and sometimes not so much (like "eat this", "wear that" and "pray like this") and other times he wants things that are "objectively" immoral (like "kill your infidel brother" or "persecute gay people").

how can this be? is god schizophrenic? well, no, WE are: sometimes we're nice, sometimes we do what's comfortable and sometimes we're mean - just like god. this is of course because WE created god in OUR image.

the bigger point is that judeochrislam is about morality, per se. it's about doing what god wants, which, by judeochrislamic lights, is BY DEFINITION moral. in the real world, the points on which "doing what god wants" and "being moral" overlap are coincidental, and incidental to religion's overriding aim - which is following god's (sometimes moral, sometimes immoral) instructions to get into heaven (and thereby never having to die).

Being gay is not a biological drive. Nor is it an ideology.

Being gay is not a life style.

Being gay is not immoral and it is not a sin.

Being gay is not a defiance against anything, certainly not againsst God, and not against any religion, nor any church.

As sexual orientation, being gay is simply an aspect of personality and identity.

The Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, the Baptist Church, and many, many other politically conservative churches would seek to destroy and annihilate the personhood of gay people, by erradiation of their sexual orientation, which forms and sustains a major part of their personalities for all their lives.

These politically conservative religious people are therefore more than merely malevolent, they are a mortal threat to gay people, and in fact, have a history of driving gay people to suicide.

The question stated, If you believe that God made human beings in his own image, can you be against the ordination of lesbians and gays in the church?"

Since God is a Being of Pure Love in that Love is God's very Being and not just an attribute of God then that is the "Image" human beings are made in, Love.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

If a religion does not clarify what is moral, what the hell is the religion offering? I as an individual am free, more than I even realize. But a religion /re-ligation or a yoga / yoking are about discipline. It is the promotion of real freedom through the transcendence of biological / prakrit drives. We can, of course, see those bonds as restraining or liberating depending on where we stand on our spiritual journey.

But a religion / yoga must reflect the doctrines of the ideology. If it fails to do so, it really has given up its soul. For if the leadership can pick and choose the interpretation of the religion, then so can the following. The demise of scriptural authority is a fait accompli.

The old testament must be interpreted as a holocaust brought on the people of Sodom and Gomorrha. The only question is why - a demonic yahveh, a just yahveh that burns sinners, an act of jewish terrorism (not an act of god), a less than perfect yahveh... If the god of the old testament is to be believed in, then the act was just(ice) genocide and all of our liberality and respect for human rights is irreverent and irrelevant.

For me, as I do not believe this entity of the old testament was much of a historical god, rather a people's quest for the divine, I can say, grow up and keep on the search!

But as a church leader, that believes in the sanctity of the word of god, or his last prophet, there is no place for compromise but as a human failing. I welcome the abandonment of strict scriptural dogmatism but I caution that you surrender the base of you moral authority when that base is in compliance to a scripture. (I also welcome the maturation of the monomind cultures to surrender up such a silly base - those parts of their doctrine that just make no sense - and join the rest of Brahminical being in loving the reality that is with its freedoms and moral ambiguity.)

daniel12

You wrote, "The more clergy are reduced to the common level, do not live a life higher than the rest of us (in religious terms of course) the more religion becomes nothing special--until one day no religion is practiced at all."

This is quite a cop-out isn't it?

Did Jesus ever say anything to the effect: Some of you will live "higher" (in religious terms of course) than the rest so we will call them clergy?

A "Christian" is suppose to follow Jesus, not the clergy, not the church, not the bible, not Jesus's teachings but to follow Jesus.

Sometimes it seems as if Jesus stated it too simple, plain and straight-forward for some to grasp it but the invitation that Jesus extended to us was to "Come follow Me" was it not?

It is not about "religion", it is about "Relationship", actually about relationship restored. This "relationship restored" is between God and humanity, ALL OF HUMANITY.

Jesus died for us and He asked us to die for others, did He not?

This is what "Christianity" is about. Christianity is just part of God's Plan which will come to Fruition.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

In this day and age, why should anyone care.

As long as my minister can fulfull the duties listed in his/her job description, I don't care if s/he would rather get jiggy with the opposite sex or the same sex.

This is so peculiar this "opening up" conversation about gay clergy. On one hand we have centuries upon centuries of religious admonition against sexual impulses and on the other we now have evident celebrations of gayness by clergy. It seems rather than this recognition of gayness being just one more type of sexual impulse to by warned against, it is the last of the sexual impulses to be celebrated against centuries upon centuries of religious admonition against sex. This last step being recognized and accepted by clergy will not be the success of religion against this impulse but the reduction of clergy even more until one day obviously the word "clergy" will be meaningless...The more clergy are reduced to the common level, do not live a life higher than the rest of us (in religious terms of course) the more religion becomes nothing special--until one day no religion is practiced at all.

To walter-in-fallschurch:

Oh my God!

Are you implying that God likes boy Gods and not girl Gods?

For the love of God! What are you trying to imply, Man?

if we're in his image, apparently god is about 10% gay!