Church Should Repent, Not Gays

Canyon,

Thanks for the multiple libels.

My partner and I just celebrated our 9th anniversary. In a year and a few months, we'll surpass my father's first marriage.

Now, prove that you are capable of monogamy.

John and Fiver: look, guys, never mind the nitpicking exegesis of old translations from the Aramaic. Rape or not, its clear from these passages that quite a lot of people who f**k without being married should be stoned to death. That seems simple, clear and easy to understand. I say, let's go for it. Watching almost all the current Republican presidential hopefuls getting stoned to death at the gates of the city would make for great prime-time television viewing.

I stand against your views and hence I prefer stating that there is this "the man" in each one of us to question GOD for his flaws!

Mr. Spong you've have contributed a great deal to arouse the skepticism on gay or homosexuals issue, which I'd say it's mere manly effort.Perhaps you can go for the total reconsideration of what you've written in your article named "skeptic's annotated bible."
In it you compare the words written in the holy book to a factual comparison of scientific theories and hypothesis that belong to the modern world thoughts.An attribute to merely man's approach which flourished since Renaissance.Yes man's mind is even aiming for the great abomination of desolation that's about to happen when even paganism will emerge outsmarting those earthlings bound by the religious homophobia as you call it...and witness the resulting great fear that's waiting for both believers and atheists equally to be confronted with. But only will the righteous arise... the fulfillment of Daniel 12:9 where the ANgel told Daniel that ,"these words are concealed and sealed up until the end time." What do u think?

And as I believe you've have read the whole bible in verse, a research henceforth, of hidden codes instilled in the holy book is also suggested!!

-A Christian Orthodox

The Religious right is losing! They know and they're pissed! Their president wouldn't even back them. Reeled them in for those votes didn't he. Just as other eras have come and gone, "this too will pass". The religious right will just have to move on to the next big fish. Or should we say they need to clean up their own fish bowl first!

Fiver,

Your response to my last post to you seems awfully angry, especially considering the tone of my post to you. Here's a suggestion: Try to get past all of the curious Old Testament passages that you are so obviously hung-up on, and answer the question Jesus poses: Who do you (Fiver) say that I am? We have here a religion, Christianity, which has survived over 2,000 years. Presumably, we can agree that it's based on the person of Jesus Christ. If I'm not mistaken, all but one of His disciples (not including Judas) died as martyrs (if you were one of His disciples, Fiver, and you had reason to believe that his resurrection was a hoax, would you die a martyrs death?). So Fiver, did He need to come as a man and die? Fiver, who do you say that He is?

Now I really have to take the gloves off a little bit here where it comes to this idea that there can be many forms of Christianity. I'm telling you straight up that the message of the New Testament is that man is in big trouble, so much so that God provided the only way out through His Son. You wanna go at it on the New Testament, Fiver? Give me your best shot!!! People like you who try to make Christianity a buffet line where we can pick and choose whatever we want it to be are sadly mistaken. The message of the Gospel is that God's Son needed to die in order for any of us to live beyond this life. Make it a different message at your own peril. Therefore, with absolutely no hesitation, I say to you and the many false teachers out there, form your own denomination, group, or whatever you want to call it, but don't sully the name of Christ by in any way identifying with Him through a so-called Christian church. It's bad enough that you don't believe His claims or ascribe deity to Him, but it's beyond intellectual honesty to identify with Him, and is an insult to those of us who love Him for what He has done for us. No, Fiver, God does not give you the prerogative to bastardize the Gospel, and I really don't feel like standing by and letting either you or the good Reverend Semes get by with it without hearing about it from me. One last time, Fiver: "Who do YOU say that I am?"

Bishop Spong is one of your very, very finest. Wish that his hopeful final comment will come true soon, though I suspect that it will take many generations of human evolution.

Bill L,
I quoted the passage and don't really know how much more simple I can make it. The girl raped in the city must be killed "because she did not cry out though she was in the city..." Deuteronomy 22:24. If the verse were speaking only of adultery, "crying out" would be irrelevant.

The distinction is about whether or not the victim is presumed to have screamed. In the country she can be presumed not to have screamed and can therefore escape death by stoning.

"...for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her." Deuteronomy 22:27

The passages don't really require much interpretation. They easily speak for themselves. They are also a foundation for an attitude still found among some who feel that if a rape victim didn't scream loud enough, she must have wanted it. Criminal defense lawyers have quoted these passages (sometimes over objection) with some success. Unfortunately, some jurisdictions remain more backward than others.

Fiver, did you notice the lack of the word seize in verse 23? It is about adultry and verse 25 is about rape. Now read on to verse 27.

Bill L.,
23
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her,
24
you shall bring them both out to the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.
25
"If, however, it is in the open fields that a man comes upon such a betrothed maiden, seizes her and has relations with her, the man alone shall die. Deuteronomy 22:23-25

These verses are not about adultery; they are about rape. Rape in a town will be presumed to be adultery because the victim obviously didn't cry out. After all, we all know that a woman could never be raped in the city. At least the Bronze age writers of the Bible believed it.

Bill,

Like I said, shouldn't we just lock them away?

Hello, John – I thought I did answer your second question when I said, “Christianity is ever-changing and growing. You may not think there is room for Episcopalians who do not share your views of what Christians should be, but many others feel differently.” To be more specific, I don’t feel confined by other people’s viewpoints and beliefs – though it seems that you think I should. Society’s views of the expectations of religion vary quite a lot and have from the beginning of Christianity, as I mentioned before. Individuals often change their ideas about religion, e.g., starting with the religion of their parents, and changing along the way, perhaps several times in a lifetime. I’m afraid I may not be able to answer your questions as directly as you like, because your questions presuppose a perspective that I don’t share – that it would “make more sense” for a particular religious group to leave and start its own church. It may “make more sense” to you, but the attitudes of religious groups are formed by insiders, not outsiders.

Regarding Episcopalians, all I know for sure, is that a small group of conservatives has decided that it made sense to sever ties with the American church and affiliate with African Anglicans, and they have done so. Whether it makes sense to anyone else doesn’t seem very important.

Fiver, Deuteronomy 22:23-24 is about adultry! Read the next verse and you'll see the rape victim is innocent and not to be harmed.
Matthew 6:5-6 is wonderful advice and so is the next verse telling us not to babble like the pagans!

Paganplace, I don't deny homosexuals basic rights like the rest of us have unless it violates someone elses rights or the the overall good of society. There is a group {I don't recall the name, but I'll look it up} of adults who were raised by homosexual partners. They are about recovering from the mental abuse suffered from growing up in the sexually charged homosexual lifestyle. They say the abuse wasn't intentional on the part of their homosexual parents, but real all the same because of the childs exposure to the graphic sexual lifestyle. It is a small {thousand or so}, but growing organization. Before you say, it is not a Christian group. It has some Christian help, but is comprised of many different faith and non-faith backgrounds.
I couldn't care less about either political party, they all lie! They are about who can give them the most money. There are limits to "giving" legal status. Legalizing something doesn't make it decent or right! There are a host of actions, phobias, and groups that should never be legalized.

BTW, if NAMBLA doesn't exist, then why does the ACLU still actively defend it in court and demand that their names{ of NAMBLA members} be kept secret?

John,
Who appointed you as the official arbiter of what Christianity must be? If your response is to note other right wing “scholars,” sorry, that isn’t going to fly. I’ve given you several instances of where the Bible isn’t just wrong, it’s barbaric. You dismiss them simply by stating you don’t agree with them and then have the gall to ask me how I can accept teachings such as “Love thy neighbor...” and “Do unto others..” while acknowledging the Bible’s fallibility. My answer is, quite simply, that I believe I’ve gotten beyond the adolescent belief that scripture was written by God and must be accepted verbatim. I’ve actually studied scripture and, believe it or not, discovered that it was written by men.

I must also note the inherent hypocrisy in fundamentalist christianity: not only do the fundamentalist hypocrites attempt to distance themselves from the more obviously barbaric portions of the Bible as you have attempted to do, but they also don’t even follow the Bible’s basic precepts themselves. Have you even heard of a fundamentalist eating kosher? Was God just wrong about that? Too Jewish? How about burnt offerings? Doesn’t happen. Be honest, you’ve taken your own personal beliefs, found some biblical support, and taken the role of God’s spokesman. It’s very easy to do.

For example, rape victims (repeat victims) should be killed. Sounds barbaric, but if I say that I’ve been born again, and I quote Deuteronomy 22:23-24, then I’m a messenger of God and any that disagree must be in league with Satan. They should also be killed. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5).

Your repeated inquiry into why people who don’t believe in right wing “christianity” don’t just leave and form their own church is a tacit admission of the right wing attempt to hijack Christianity for your own twisted purposes. “Just leave the church and start your own” has a nice evangelical flavor given that all that is required to be an evangelical/born again/fundamentalist leader is to say so. If you spout plenty of hatred, fire and brimstone, it can be quite profitable. Has any Fundamentalist/evangelical leader not done it for profit? Name one.

You’ve mentioned you’ve at least read the New Testament; check out Matthew 6:5-6. It might be missing from the evangelical bible.

I mean, *come *on* Is anyone else sick of hearing from people who can't seem to tell the difference between recognizing a life-partnership they don't happen to *like* and (wherever they get it: I have theories) *them* screwing farm animals?

I mean, 'Thou shalt not covet your neighbor's ass' is a joke that just keeps on *giving* but I didn't think it had to be meant *that way.*

Swear to the Gods, give same-sex partners the dignity of civil marriage, and any thing you might have about the Democratic Party mascot is *all you.*

Promise.

"It won't be long before this religious "leader" calls for acceptance of beastiality. Jesus doesn't speak out against it so it must be O.K.! The same with young children! Do you, Mr. Spong, know why a homosexual gets his/her desires from genetics, but a beastial person or a NAMBLA member doesn't?"

You think so, Bill L?

Cause if you were so damn indignant about NAMBLA, you'd know the SOBs haven't existed except in the Religious Right's mind for like seventeen years, and then only when trying to associate them with people who have the temerity to suggest that people who live in thirty five year monogamous relationships you don't have to *approve* of should be subject to the whim of any Fundamentalist third cousin that figures out they might have some kind of claim on the property of those they tried to hurt at every turn.

I'm not gonna try to account for bestiality, sir but I do know some folks in Texas broke up some queer families while in the very same law *legalizing* bestiality (as long as you own the animal.)

How very 'virtuous.'

Yeah, there's probably 'genetic reasons' for rape and murder.

Maybe.

There's certainly no damn genetic reason to deny people equal protection under the law just cause you happened to think about rogering a sheep.

Tell you what, let's live up to the American Constitution, and if you can't find a good enough reason not to rape someone or screw livestock, you can take it up with your God or my crew, whoever gets you first.

Let's make the law fair.

I think you're having some difficulty on the sexual continence issue. But that's OK. It'll be worked out.

Let's start with being Americans, how bout.

It won't be long before this religious "leader" calls for acceptance of beastiality. Jesus doesn't speak out against it so it must be O.K.! The same with young children! Do you, Mr. Spong, know why a homosexual gets his/her desires from genetics, but a beastial person or a NAMBLA member doesn't? You won't answer that question because there isn't a genetic reason for these actions any more than there is one for a rapist or murderer! The only answers to these questions that people give is vitriolic name calling.

E Fovorite,

Thanks for the nice response. I've noticed in both your response and in a couple from Rev. Semes that neither of you feel constrained to answer the questions I pose. I'm all for free-flow of ideas, but I asked very specific questions (and I'll admit, you did answer my first question, and I appreciate that). I suppose that for the same reasons you are not attracted to denominations that suppose a God with expectations, you and those similar to you shy away from answering questions which confine you more than you're comfortable with. That isn't a criticism, just an observation. What do you think, am I on to something?

John – perhaps Rev Semes hasn’t yet responded because he’s having a more active Saturday night than you or I are having.

I’m not clergy, nor am I an expert in Christian teachings and dogma. I identify with Christianity much the way I identify with being American – I was born that way. To me it’s a culture and a community. I don’t agree with everything about it – certainly not its unbelievable supernatural aspects. You may think people like me do not qualify as Christian, but it doesn’t change my self perception.

There have been many different sects and changes in Christianity over the centuries, even before the official church of Rome was established in 325. The Lutherans weren’t booted out of Christianity when they discarded Catholicism, nor were the Anglicans. Then came the Wesleyans, Mormons, Quakers, evangelicals, etc., etc. Christianity is ever-changing and growing. You may not think there is room for Episcopalians who do not share your views of what Christians should be, but many others feel differently.

E Favorite,

I exchanged a couple of posts with Rev. Semes, but he apparently has decided to ignore my request for some insight, so I'll approach you with the same types of questions:

1. Jesus, Himself, said, "You must be born again." That central doctrine is apparent throughout the New Testament. Yet, Rev. Semes (and I'm guessing you'd agree) not only wrote that I "don't need to be born again," but he derides those of us who hold to Christian orthodoxy. If it weren't for the fact that he identifies himself with Christianity through both his title and his affiliation with a Christian denomination, I wouldn't think twice about his comments--he'd simply blend in with most of the rest of the bloggers on this site. There appears to be many in the Episcopal Church like him, therefore my question: Why do people like him, and I'm assuming yourself, have any desire to identify with, and be involved with, Christianity?

2. I suggested in my original post above that it would make more sense for the Episcopal progressives to leave Christianity behind and form a, for lack of a better word, "church" of their own, where they'd be free from all the current strife within Episcopalianism and where they'd be free to believe, and teach, whatever they choose. What's wrong with this idea?

As a Christian who holds to the historic creeds of the Church, I can make no sense out of this seeming confusion. It seems synonomous to my becoming a Jewish rabbi and complaining because their hierarchy frowns on me teaching that Jesus is the promised Messiah. Why would any honest individual choose to associate with an organization which doesn't hold his views, then engage in strife when they refuse to accept his views? This is insane to me--will you please try to enlighten me." Thank you.

And Rev. Semes, if you change your mind, I'd still like to hear from you on this.

And to anyone else who holds similar views to these individuals, I've now written a lengthy request twice (once to each of them) and if I continue to be ignored in my honest questioning, I won't be coming back with a third request, so get your answers in soon. Thanks.

Lepidopteryx,

"Are you by chance a member of Landover Baptist Chrurch?"

Why, yes I am. A similar abomination involves sex between separate species that produce hybrid offspring. Butterflies do it all the time, and in some cases, create new species. This is an abomination and should be stopped. How about we mate a human and a chimpanzee? Fortunately, it probably wouldn't work because humans have one less chromosome compared to great apes. Therefore, god protected humans from such an abomination.

Dear John, Papal, and Canyon Shearer,

Why don't you have to the courage of your convictions. You know you feel about homosexuality the way I do.

Papal: "Homosexual marriage denies young children mothers or fathers."

Children need parenting by people who love them. As long as they have that, number and gender of parents is negotiable.

Papal: "Homosexual relationships can not reflect the union of the sexes. It can not unify the masculine and feminine"

My relationship with my husband is not about the unification of his masculine and my feminine - it's about the uniting of our hearts and spirits as people. The fact that he is male and I am female is just anatomy.

Papal: "Homosexual relationships cannot bring new life into the world."

Nor can all heterosexual ones. When we met, my husband had long since been sterile, and I was menopausal. We could not make a baby if our lives depended on it. The fact that we can't procreate does not invalidate our love for each other or our marriage.

True Christian:

Are you by chance a member of Landover Baptist Chrurch?

Rev Semes – thanks for getting back to me. Much of what you say is what I’ve conjectured, (“To keep a job I felt I had to temper my beliefs on these issues…. Most clergy who want to be honest about the bible and traditional Christian teaching… don't talk much about [it]…or quit the ministry”) What kind of job training is it that provides the truth and then discourages trainees to tell it?

I see it as not only lacking honesty, but perpetuating myth and keeping people in the dark. I think it’s a huge deception – a huge can of worms, and I don’t blame clergy for wanting to rationalize it and deny and avoid it. How to “come clean” on something like this?? I think it’s a trap that good, decent clergy get stuck in and can’t get out of. I think a lot of them have learned to compartmentalize so much that’s it’s second nature. But this game of “don’t ask, don’t tell” can’t go on forever, can it, which so much readily available information, and growing doubts about belief in the supernatural?

You’re retired, right? So you can talk freely now? When you say you shared some of your views with people with the “most open minds” I wonder if they were people who had the courage and determination to confront you directly with information that trumped what they’d learned in Sunday school. That’s my guess. From what I’ve seen, clergy have a built-in double-speak, tilting to the comfortable faith-based explanation, without actually lying. Lay people, for their part, are unconsciously looking to clergy to assure them that indeed there still is a Santa Claus.

Rev Semes:

The final two paragraphs of your post to John are spot on in both tone and content. Many of us, such as myself, who do not believe in god, have difficulty tempering the thrust of our argument, out of, well maybe incredulousness that any thinking person could continue to hold to these ancient notions, and do damage to others in the process. There is an anger that rises from that line of thought, but, knowing that anger is only matched with anger from the other side, many of us try to keep it civil, with variable results. You were able to do just that in your post, for which I am appreciative.

To E. Favorite:

No, I am no longer a parish priest. I did openly share some of my views with parishioners or other lay people along the line, but only the ones with the most open minds. Most Christians today, however, I think, aren't really interested that much in the critical analysis that has in recent decades gone into biblical studies and textual criticism. However, I never put what I learned in divinity school in a closet and kept the door shut. To keep a job I felt I had to temper my beliefs on these issues, but I now see that as lacking honesty. Most clergy who want to be honest about the bible and traditional Christian teaching either don't talk much about either or quit the ministry. Most of my professional life was spent in the university classroom where I taught history and religion. I never had much intention of spreading myth, but did try to educate people in mythopoeic language and story. I've only in the last several years come to accept the conclusion that the biblical stories are largely fiction. For more on that see the writings of Burton Mack, Robert Funk, Gerd Ludemann, and other progressive scholars.

Rev Semes - are you a parish priest? Do you openly share your views (that most of the bible is fiction and this is the only life we have) with parishioners or other lay people?

My sense is that many "liberal" clergy feel this way, but do not speak openly and instead perpetuate myths.

What do you think?

Rev. Semes,

Thank you for responding. You suggest that I "stop wasting your (my) time telling everyone else what to believe and how to think." I guess if you're basing that suggestion on my response to Fiver above, it makes some sense. However, previous to your original response, I don't believe I did any such thing.

Speaking of your original response, it was related to some questions I had asked about the conflict ongoing within your denomination. Your most recent response highlights the basis for my original questions. I'd really appreciate your responding to some questions I have. I think they're legitimate questions, but regardless, I'm very interested in gaining some insight into your thoughts:

1. From what you had to say in your most recent response, you're very likely a spiritual individual, but I'm sure it won't surprise you to learn that I can't imagine that anyone with your beliefs would either identify himself as a Christian, or even, necessarily, want to be identified as a Christian. Am I correct, or do you see yourself as being a Christian?

2. Kind of along the lines of my first question, and going back to something I asked in my original post, with such an aversion to the orthodox creeds of the vast majority of the Christian church throughout its history, where did I go wrong in suggesting that it would be in everyone's best interest within your denomination for those who share your beliefs to disassociate yourselves from those in your denomination who hold to the majority (and historically traditional)beliefs of the Christian church? The downside to your fight, for everyone involved, is obvious. However, in contrast to my suggestion of forming a denomination built on your beliefs, what is the upside of continuing to associate yourselves with the Christian church, in general, and the Episcopal church in particular?

Though you might find these questions strange, I assure you that they're honest, and that I'm truly looking for understanding concerning some issues over which I'm very confused. If you choose to respond, which I hope you will, please try to be specific in answering my questions. Thank you.

This is for "John" without a last name initial:

Yes, John, I am an Episcopal clergyman. No, I don't hold to all the dogmatic pronouncements of the Church since Nicea. There is a long liberal tradition in the Church of England and the Episcopal Church which I share, it's usually called Broad Church, as opposed to Low or High or whatever. I find much of Christianity irrelevant to 21st century people, as does Bishop Spong, who I very much adore for his integrity.

I find many people who call themselves Christians, like you, I presume, to be ultrarigid, dogmatic, doctrinaire, closed minded, and absolutely convinced that they are right and everyone else who doesn't feel and think as they do, wrong. They believe that Christianity is true and all other religions and philosophies and life stances are wrong. They worship the Bible and find that everything they need to know is contained therein. How facile and comforting, I guess. To me, it's about as comforting holding the Hebrew and Christian scriptures that way as holding the inerrancy of the Gilgamesh Epic or Vergil's Aeneid. Most of the Judeo-Christian bible is surely fiction, and must be understood as that, as most scholars today with any integrity rightly conclude.

I suppose it gives one like this a feeling of security and satisfaction, knowing that they have nothing to fear, banking on an afterlife in "heaven," knowing that they know everything that there is to know about life and belief. But, my dear, this is hopelessly wrong and misguided. There is not one ounce of proof for the views that you and many of the same persuasion as you hold. My advice: make the best of this life, it's the only one you have, and stop wasting your time telling everyone else what to believe and how to think. That's all.

It's ineresting to watch this series of posts devolve into yet another uneventful pissing match between Bible literalist zealots and everybody else. "True Chrisian's" statement demonstrates the commonly held literalist notion that a ticket to heaven allows for unbridled indifference and dismissal of all those who don't have one. Of course, I may be jumping the gun since the referrenced "Abominations" may actually be holding bonified tickets to heaven given how easily they can be obtained. I'm not sure what God would say about some ticket holders putting other ticket holders behind bars for reasons that might be unmerited.

Shake, shake...

Abominations belong in concentration camps away from our children.

Papal wrote "Tolerance is a relative value."

Dear Papal, my tolerance for your medievalism is growing thin.

Though history and down to the present day, homosexuality has endured some of the most violent efforts to eliminate it. Why do we continue debating what to do when it seems that there is no way to cure, eliminate or confine it? Homosexuality is a fact. Who knows whether it's natural or unnatural, good or bad? It will not be encouraged or eliminated by any amount of social effort or debate. Rather than resisting the awareness of human diversity, why not make a simple choice to open your heart and see the words in the Bible that will allow love in any form to flow through. That is the salvation that God offers. It is what our planet needs most of all.

I added my last initial to disinguish myself from the other Johns on here. I am the one from the beginning of the thread. I hope not to keep coming back here for too long, because I'm tired of arguing with unreasonable people. However, I must respond to Brambleton, who accused me of not being in the same zip code of his argument.

My point simply was that you argued that homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural. Someone else pointed out the very prevelent examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom to show you that homosexuality is, indeed, natural. You did not argue with this assertion, but instead changed your argument from "unnatural is not good" to "just because it's natural doesn't mean it's good" by making your ridiculous analogy to lions eating their young. As far as my statements about you not wanting gays to have rights and wanting to control other people's lives, perhaps I was inferring too much about you, but it seems to me that the only reason for your presence at this forum making arguments that homosexuality is unnatural is that you are at least against gay marriage and don't believe gay people should be living their lives the way they do. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Fiver,

At the outset, let me commend you on backing up your assertions. I must confess that I have not studied the Old Testament as I wish I had, but let me offer some fairly educated responses to some of the things you said:

1. Though I am ignorant on what God's purpose was in the verses you identified, I know two things about what was going on there: First, God is not capricious. Rather, He is sovereign and just. The fact that we as creatures may not always understand our Creator's perspective and reasons doesn't prove anything, other than what we should already know, i.e., that "His ways are greater than our ways." Second, much of the Old Testament is historical and not intended to be applied to everyone in every generation; again, though I'm not certain of what God's purposes were in those passages, I believe they were intended for those people at that time. I say this because they are contrary to the preponderance of the rest of Scripture. Rather than seeing this as the Bible contradicting itself, I see it as the prerogative of God to deal with His creation has He deems necessary. I'm comfortable with this because I trust that God's character is true and that everything He does is based on His love for His people, i.e., those who will be with Him for eternity after they die.

2. I guess based on the reasoning I just gave, of course I wouldn't advocate killing the men you mentioned. I really think you've missed some very significant points in your study of the Bible. You seem to be like so many people, i.e., very angry with those types of men. It's hard for me to understand why the hypocracy of people like them causes people to reject Christianity. Let me share something with you and everyone else reading this: If anyone implies that because they're a Christian they're somehow better than people who aren't, there's something really wrong with how they see things. Some of the men you mentioned were turn-offs to me before they fell. However, their falling should be proof to all Christians that we're all capable of just about anything; the only thing that sets us apart from unbelievers is that we recognize that we are separated from a holy and righteous God because of our sin natures and, by His grace alone, we've accepted that there must be some form of payment for our sins -- both physical and spiritual death. I humbly thank God that He not only prescribed the penalty for sin, but He loved us enough to provide the payment as well, i.e., His Son. If I would take any credit for my redemption, or look down on others who are still separated from God, I'd be a pompous fool. Going back to what I started to say, Christians are sinners! I'd encourage you and others not to let that get to you. In your own words, I'd encourage everyone to allow the claims of God to "stand or fall on their own merits," rather than on what sinful human beings do or don't do.

3. Finally, you say that you're "a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ. So what?" Well, first of all, I can't think of any better teachings to follow. However, as you'd probably agree, being a follower of His teachings isn't necessarily the same thing as being a follower of Him. With so much certainty about the fallibility of Scripture, why do you ascribe any credibility to any of His teachings? Not only that, but how can you even hope to be sure that they were His teachings? Some would go so far as to ask how you can have any faith in His having actually existed. Even more to the point, assuming He did exist, how would you answer the question that He asks each of us: "Who do you say that I am?" These are important questions. For me, I'm confident in my reasons for following His teachings; I follow them because I believe He is who He claimed to be: the promised Messiah.

Well, this will give you some things to chew on. I'd welcome your response.

John,
Just saw your recent post, and yes, I can find a Bible. A few examples: kill the blasphemers (Leviticus 24:10-16); kill the homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13); kill unruly and disobedient children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21); kill the adulterers (Leviticus 20:10); when victorious in battle, kill the boys, kill the men, kill the non-virgin women (but save the virgins for yourselves) (Numbers 31:17-18). This list continues ad nauseam.

So do we kill Haggard, Foley, Baker, Swaggart, (another list that continues ad nauseam)? Or do we acknowledge the the Bible is not inerrant truth, but a flawed document written, translated and interpreted by fallible men? That those who claim the Bible as literal truth are ignorant in not having read it, misguided in not understanding it, or are simply barbarians preaching a message of violence and hate?

Yes, I've picked up a Bible; I've actually studied it. The thought that there are those who take it literally is frightening.

John,
Because your question has already been answered implicitly in numerous previous posts. I'm a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ. So what?

Fiver,

Any or all. However, why don't we start with you answering my question.

Since I don't know whether Rev. Semes and Fiver have had an opportunity to see the questions I asked of them, or whether they're just ignoring them, I'll go ahead and respond to the things they said to me.

Fiver: Take a deep breath. Though you know next to nothing about me, you had alot to say about what I should believe. There is a sense in which what you said about slavery could be construed as minimally intelligent. However, I'd challenge you to do one thing: Open the Bible, if you can find one, and back up the other assertions about what it has to say with specific examples, and get back to me. If you won't do that, then I'd suggest you knock off the assertions. Anybody can assert anything, but I'd prefer to limit our conversation to ideas based on something more substantial than heresay. I might also add that your assertion that it is the far right wing of the Anglican/Episcopal Church that wants to hit the road is true. However, that response misses three points:

1. It wasn't an answer to my question.
2. The far right wing is the historic wing of that denomination, not the new kid on the block.
3. The far right wing makes up the global majority
of that denomination.

Rev. Semes:

Though I'd have preferred that you were able to answer my question by now, I'll go ahead and respond to your comments with the information I have. If I miss the mark by much, my apologies.
My best guess is that with the title of "Rev.," you would probably either be, or at least once were, a part of a "Christian" denomination. With that assumption on the table, I'd say that your response misses the point on a couple of counts:

1. Despite a sincere desire on my part to have my questions answered (and I'd guess you probably could have shed some light on the issue had you been willing to do so), you chose to ignore those questions, as you indicated.

2. You decried my lack of intellectual honesty, but follow me here; if I'm correct that you are probably part of a Christian denomination, and if to be a Christian is to be a follower of Christ, and if Christ himself said "You must be born again," and you tell me that I "don't need to be born again," just exactly who in this discussion isn't being intellectually honest?

Well, gentlemen, I'd be willing to continue this dialogue if either of you would be willing to mutually and honestly discuss what we believe and why. If all you want to do what you've already done, no response necessary.

On the morality of the Bible:

The Bible is an evil, evil book. The Catholic Church found reason in it to burn heretics. Alive. For 500 years!

Think they were erratic? Think they were cherry picking? Consider this: Augustine found proof in the Bible that heretics should be tortured. Thomas Aquinas found proof that heretics should be murdered.

Think you're a better interpreter of the Bible than Augustine or Aquinas? Get real, bonehead. You aren't a pimple on their asses. These are two of the most brilliant men the human race has ever produced. If they say it's in the Bible, then, by God, it's in there.

I may not agree with canyon but i think he may overstate his case in preparation for having to defend himself-
surely no one can be surprised that since this is a faith based forun- and the question framed in relation to clergy- that christians would be compelled to weigh in-

responding to judgementalism with a heavy handed judgement only prolongs the antipathy-

BILLY i think the Bishop was referring to the traditional christian theology that says if you must marry then marry- but it is better to follow the way of Jesus(ata) celibacy- theres a running them throughout christianity of man being born in blood and pain to woman- and in a state of stained original sin- a leap of faith that the 'fruit' represented sex in the garden of eden and the unfair association of woman with sex- distracting a man from pursuing god alone-(and his salvation and purification of his soul) i.e.without the corrupting reminders of the weakness of the flesh that woman is perceived as personifying- man would easily ascend to his rightful spiritual status-

just about every major religion- buddhism- hindusim- judaism- christianity- relegate women to the same inferior spiritual plateau-

CANYON- in your zeal to be pleasing and most literal in your practice to god-
remember that in christianity you are nowhere called to judge your brother-

you personally are not engaged in what you find sinful and that is enough-

god does not require you to condemn others or judge them-

its gods job to judge- not mans

the overwhelming message of Jesus(ata) was forgiveness-
judge ot lest ye be judged and the judgement with which you judge others- is the judgement (and level of mercy) that will be shown towards you when it is your turn to be judged-

do not be arrogant and try to take over gods job-
He is not insufficent to the task

and finally the wages of sin are death CANYON-

it means- when the body dies the bodies sins are paid - death being the payment-

i know this is not how youve interperted this before but consider it-

PEACE

"[T]he average homosexual man will have 2100 partners in his life."

You have to be careful about averages. It only takes a few extremes to throw them all out of whack. In this case, you have the problem of sexual compulsives, who can rack up impressive numbers.

I don't know how it is now, but before the AIDS crisis, there were sexually compulsive men who could have 500 sexual contacts a year. Over a lifetime that could average out to 10,000+.

I know a man (who is not too far away) who has had sexual connection with 4000 to 5000 men, and doesn't even consider himself homosexual. If you average him with someone who has had one sexual partner, the average is 2000 to 2500.

Don't let people fool you with "averages." It's a case of true statistics telling big lies.

John,
The points raised can stand or fall on their own merits. I was raised studying not only multiple versions of the Christian Bible, but also history and science. In which area would you care to concentrate?

Rev. Robert Semes:

Are you a leader in a Christian denomination? I ask that in order to appropriately respond to what you said above.

Fiver:

Different question, same reason: Do you identify with any specific religious faith?

John, there is no answer to such inane questions. Fundamentalists have asked these questions for years and we have just learned to turn our heads in the other direction and ignore them. You don't need to be born again, you just need to grow up. No one is going to help you answer these questions. Only opening your mind up to critical thinking and intellectual honesty will possibly help. Strapped with a mindset like yours, there is not much possibility for growth unless you simply let go of it.

John,
Way to go! Don't bother to read; just have faith and your hatred will show you the light. Don't bother to learn that for hundreds of years Conservative Protestant denominations have held beliefs which, among others, justified slavery (until people worked within their denominations to change it). Don't bother to learn that it is the far fight wing of the Anglican/Episcopal Church that wishes to "hit the road" because it disagrees with the Church's tolerance. Don't bother to read to read your own Bible which, when its clear teachings are taken as literal inerrant truth, requires you to not only stop people from making such inane comments, but to kill them as blasphemers. You must also kill the homosexuals. There is a long list of others you must kill as a fundamentalist Christian, but, fortunately, nothing you must take the effort to read.

Dear Bishop Spong, thank you. We are so grateful to you for your voice of faith and reason.
The Presiding Bishop reminded us the other day of this wonderful passage:
"Fear not, for I am with you; Be not dismayed for I am your God. I will strengthen you, yes, I will help you, I will uphold you with My righteous right hand."
I agree with Nancy. We are angry, we are sick of dealing with closed minds and hardened hearts. But we also are so sorry that no matter what we say, we can't seem to get through to you. And I guess you feel the same. You must think that by repeating the same things over and over, you'll somehow get us to change our nature and to be what you have decided is the correct way to be. But try to understand just for a minute that we are what God made us, and that is good. People used to think left-handedness was a perversion. Now we understand differently. I hope those of you who think homosexuality is a perversion will try to evolve, just a little. Welcome to the 21st century.

Though I haven't yet read any of the comments which followed Spong's written thoughts, I feel compelled to respond to him, to other church leaders of his ilk, and to those laypeople who adhere to their theology. I'll also follow that with a question or two for anyone reading this to feel free to respond to.

It truly amazes (and confuses) me that people like Spong not only identify themselves with the Christian faith, but somehow are able to ascend to leadership positions within their given denominations. It goes without saying that their beliefs are antithetical to historic Christian orthodoxy (not to mention to the clear teachings of Scripture in any number of different areas). Though I find what Spong had to say above to be unmitigated nonsense, I would never attempt to inhibit him, or anyone else, from making such inane comments. However, I would pose these two questions to any and all who feel qualified to take a stab at them:

1. Why do people like Spong, Jefferts-Schori, and others desire to not only identify with Christian denominations which have for hundreds of years held beliefs diametrically opposed to their own, but to also battle within these denominations to have their beliefs be normalized. I would think that it would be much simpler to split from their stodgy old denominations and form new ones, free from the oppression they must feel, and free to shape their denominations and individual local churches in whatever manner they choose.

2. Why don't the denominations in question (e.g., the Episcopalians) simply nip the problem in the bud and give these people an ultimatum: either conform to Christian orthodoxy, or hit the road.

Can anyone help me understand what's going on here?

Pagan Place,
I have no idea what you are trying to say, seems like the usual psychobabble to me. Please help us understand your point. Thank you.

"Homosexual marriage denies young children mothers or fathers."

So does divorce - I see no effort to stop that.

PS to Tonio - gay couples have or adopt children, thus giving their kids two mommies or two daddies, instead of one of each, tsk, tsk.

"Homosexual marriage denies young children mothers or fathers."

I have read that claim dozens of times, and it has never made sense to me. Gay couples cannot have children, so how in the world does gay marriage deny children mothers or fathers?

We're not leaving, we're not going away. We're not going back. Homophobes can use the Bible, cite studies and polls...in younger years, they were the same people who smashed us against lockers and bullied us. The bottom line is, for whatever reason, they hate us and they fear us. Many of us still are trying to explain we have not chosen to be gay, that gay is not a lifestyle, a phase, a mental illness, an abberation, a character flaw... it is what we are, it is who we are and how we were born. This means absolutely nothing to these people who hate us. We say, in the ugly face of their loathing and desire that we just drop dead, "why on earth would I choose this?" But in fact...what we would not choose is the derision, the attacks, the denial of the same human rights they have. But would I CHOOSE, if I could, to be "wired" this way? Oh baby, would I ever. And of course, the more entries by straight men on blogs, the better I feel. At times, honestly, when they are ranting about sex I wonder, "oh lord, does this man even have pants on? Is he sitting in a dank room in front of a confederate flag, starkers, drinking and chain smoking?" This is what they just do not get - they are so busy obsessing on what other men are doing with each other, it is all that they see. I don't understand this, I am really asking, what do these people do in their spare time, why are they obsessing on male to male sex? Meanwhile, they seem just as obsessed - but if they rent a porn flick, which one do they look for? One with two women in it. Grow up! Get over us! Please!

Personally, having done my share the past few years of trying to connect, explain, discuss with hate-filled Bible-spouting homophobes, why I would like to have not THEIR rights, but MY damned rights, mine...I find it exhausting and ultimately futile. You cannot reason with people so completely filled with hate. You just can't. There's no one to talk to in there. It's a black hole.

And so I say to those pathetic individuals...we are not going away. We are not giving up, we are pissed off like you cannot even begin to fathom, we are just sick to death of your bigotry and desire to keep us down, and we will win. We will. I think you know it, too. The fact that you know it...that is a joy and a comfort to me.

Homosexual marriage denies young children mothers or fathers.

Homosexual relationships can not reflect the union of the sexes. It can not unify the masculine and feminine

Homosexual relationships cannot bring new life into the world.

Tolerance is a relative value.

FROM ABOVE, EARLIER:

Posted on March 1, 2007 14:11

Brambleton:
Norrie,

I also see certain animals, namely lions, who eat their young. Are you suggesting that humans be allowed to follow suit? Just because we choose to do something doesn't make it right. And I'm still waiting for the conclusive scientific evidence that states the homosexual lifestyle is not a choice. And if it's not a choice, how do you explain people flipping back and forth?

Brambleton:

I cited the recent story about the multiparticipant sex romps of lesbian koalas in Australia as an example of homosexuality-in-nature since you seemed to doubt that it existed.

As for "...how do you explain people flipping back and forth?":

EXPLANATION: Anybody who "flips back and forth", unless it's just experimentation, is bisexual, not solidly straight or gay. No truly gay person who has ever tried to change his orientation has succeeded. And no truly straight person has ever tried to become gay.

FROM ABOVE, EARLIER:

Canyon,

What is the rightful eternal punishment for a person who gratuitously threatens innocents with hellfire, arising from the threatener's misunderstanding of the universe?

Posted March 1, 2007 12:03 PM

Canyon Shearer:

Norrie, that's a good question. Do you think you're innocent?

Posted March 1, 2007 12:06 PM

CANYON, IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS IMMEDIATE DISCUSSION, YES.

Another wild stab in the dark, here, but I don't seem to remember any quotes of the Nazarene Dude demanding footnotes in order not to be a *@*&#^ to someone.

Canyon Shearer,

As Sage said, your citation isn't worth much. I'll post some citations on the prevalence and explanations for homosexuality in other animals and humans. It mostly has to do with hormonal changes and the prevalence is far more common than previously believed.

"I applaude Jack Spong. Wish there were more bishops like him. But, when it's all said and done, it really comes down to the fact that religion per se has done a real number on humanity, especially on the issue of sex. Perhaps the only way out of this mess is to jettison religion altogether, probably not a bad idea. Why Spong hangs on is a good question."

I dunno, Reverend. Could it be that too many people have been taught that not-oppressing-queers might perch them on the edge of a yawning abyss of uncertainty?

Perhaps the 'only way out of this mess' is to *not* make people think the world is meaningless unless they do and allow horrible things.

That's just off the top of my head, there, Reverend.

Brambleton,

"I also see certain animals, namely lions, who eat their young. Are you suggesting that humans be allowed to follow suit?"

What you are referring to is infanticide, which is common in the natural world (Campagna et al. 1988, Cameron et al. 2003, Gilchrist 2006). With lions, the pride is composed mostly of related females. Usually two or three males (sometimes brothers) establish pride ownership and father all the offspring. A pride with only one male is rare, because it is hard to hold a pride. There are always unattached groups of males looking to take over a pride. When this happens, the new males kill the cubs. You think this is barbaric, but from an evolutionary perspective it makes sense. The cubs are not the new pride males' offspring. In addition, the females are brought back into estrus. Those that were already pregnant usually abort and are brought back into heat also (Packer and Pusey 1983, Natoli 1990).

Infanticide in other species is very common and well-documented. What is most interesting is that there seems to be the same pattern with humans and step-children. There is a much higher mortality of step-children than children living with their biological parents. This is apparently not just from neglect. The incidence of infanticide by step-fathers on step children is much higher than with their own offspring (Daly 1988, Daly and Wilson 1988, Daly and Wilson 1994).

Before you go off half-cocked, thinking I’m advocating such behavior; stop! If I advocated anything in particular found in nature I would be committing the naturalist fallacy (i.e. if it is natural it is good). I am not doing that. I am simply showing you that many behaviors ascribe to other animals also happen in humans. Many plants have poisonous fruit (the apple might be spiritually toxic); even though the fruit is “natural”, don’t eat it cause you'll die. Other examples include a biological rationale favoring higher aggressiveness (and therefore murder rates) in males, but we don’t condone homicide. Similarly, the ruse of scriptural literalism is the same sort of fallacy for fundamentalist religious types; i.e. don’t go looking to the bible or any other sacred text to justify your behavior as well. Instead of the naturalist fallacy, you are succumbing to the same kind of logical disconnect (i.e. fallacy), though in this case it involves unreasonable beliefs. Aside from the biblical pronouncement that men are superior to women, or that homosexuality is a sin, the good book justifies all sorts of other extraordinary behavior: raping and killing wanton, adulteress women; slavery; killing apostates, heretics, and blasphemers; justifying incest (blaming Lot’s daughters); stoning to death a whole host of those practicing strange offenses like planting the wrong crops together in the same field.

Cameron, E. Z., W. L. Linklater, K. J. Stafford, and E. O. Minot. 2003. Social grouping and maternal behaviour in feral horses (Equus caballus): the influence of males on maternal protectiveness. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 53:92-101.

Campagna, C., B. J. Leboeuf, and H. L. Cappozzo. 1988. Pup Abduction and Infanticide in Southern Sea Lions. Pages 44-60 in.

Daly, M. 1988. Parent-Offspring Conflict and Homicide in Evolutionary Perspective. Aggressive Behavior 14:123-123.

Daly, M., and M. Wilson. 1988. Evolutionary Social-Psychology and Family Homicide. Science 242:519-524.

Daly, M., and M. I. Wilson. 1994. Some Differential Attributes of Lethal Assaults on Small Children by Stepfathers Versus Genetic Fathers. Ethology and Sociobiology 15:207-217.

Gilchrist, J. S. 2006. Female eviction, abortion, and infanticide in banded mongooses (Mungos mungo): implications for social control of reproduction and synchronized parturition. Behavioral Ecology 17:664-669.

Natoli, E. 1990. Mating Strategies in Cats - a Comparison of the Role and Importance of Infanticide in Domestic Cats, Felis-Catus L and Lions, Panthera-Leo L. Animal Behaviour 40:183-186.

Packer, C., and A. E. Pusey. 1983. Adaptations of Female Lions to Infanticide by Incoming Males. American Naturalist 121:716-728.

In response to Canyon,

The "statistics" that you cite seem to come from a biased article that uses at least one biased citation itself, from "Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality." I would suggest using more neutral facts to help bolster your argument.

While I think that it is certainly true that many GLBTQ people are promiscuous, it is ALSO true that many straight people are promiscuous. All one needs to do is spend time on a large university campus to understand the "hookup" culture that is prevalent today.

I do not believe that we can tell someone they must accept homosexuality. The beauty of free will is that every person can "disagree with" or condemn another's life, whether that decision is borne of faith, religion, hatred, or ignorance. But you cannot take away that individual's (or that group's) BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS based on who they are. We do not allow persecution based on race, gender, religion, or ethnicity. Why are we still condoning persecution based on sexuality? Why are there hate crimes laws for racial violence but not when a gay man or women is murdered in the street?

The gay/straight issue will no more find a common ground in faith than it will in science. We are simply too polarized a nation. But we can no longer deny human rights to gay members of our population who are not committing crimes against anyone (unless you want to say God, in which case, let Him judge, not you). Human rights for everyone.

http://www.hrc.org/

Brambleton,
Try this for a zip code: Leviticus 20:13. Not only do gays not have rights, they must be killed. Are you at least capable of admitting that many statements of the Bible are moronic, evil, or just plain wrong? Or must we kill Ted Haggard to please God? Face it, the fundamentalist christian message is one of ignorance, hypocrisy or hate. I'm hopeful that those who preach a literal inerrant Bible simply haven't read it. The alternatives are frightening.

I read the things some, but not all thankfully, Christians say on these threads and just stare for a bit.

Because of some words in a book you believe that it is your duty to denigrate and discriminate against fellow human beings that you then claim to love. You try to justify this by claiming that these people are "unnatural," ( as if they were put together from spare manequin parts), that their private acts "disgust you," although, in truth, they do not at all harm you. That the hateful treatment they receive at your loving hands is a result of some "choice" that they made, and their inability to have their relationships sanctioned by the law is their just desserts for engaging in this wickedness, and after all, their marriages would in some way be an affront to yours anyway. (of course, a marriage where one partner beats the stuffing out of the other regularly is somehow NOT an affront to yours, is it? As long as the abused is not the gender of the abuser)

Just know this: Morality evolves. What was once the right to own slaves is now this nation's deepest shame. What was once the just and Biblical restriction of the natural tendency to left-handedness is now a ridiculous superstition. What was once the rightful punishment of heretics and witches is now simply torture and murder. What was once the male's natural right to hold dominion over the female is now recognized as knuckle-dragging stupidity.

Your condemnation of homosexuality, and your discrimination against homosexuals themselves, your denial of their "naturalness" and right to marry like anyone else; your argument that their doing so would in some fashion "harm" you. Your eventual progeny, maybe even your own children, will see this for what it is. Your beliefs and the "loving" behavior that flowed from them, will be seen for what it is. It will cause shame, just as slavery does today. It is inevitable, because morality evolves and religious fundametalist ideas do not. Ask the next dinosaur you meet how that turns out.

John,

Your response post to me is absurd. Could you let me know where I stated that gays have no rights? Also, where in this thread has it been proven that choosing a homosexual lifestyle is "natural"? Third, where exactly did I mention that I would like to control the lives of others?

If you're going to rip me for something, at least get within the same zip code of what I'm saying.

Janus:

The point of that part of the post was twofold:

First, what comes natural to a person is a matter of opinion and feeling. I know that being gay is my nature, not something I chose. The point of the "nearly spits up" comment was to say that I have never been attracted to a woman in my entire life and I believe my reaction to pondering heterosexual sex is probably very similar to a heterosexual man's reaction to pondering homosexual sex.

Second, I don't even think we should be thinking about such things in the first place. If I met you face-to-face, I can assure that the first things that popped into my head would have absolutely nothing to do with "heterosexual proceation(sic)". In fact, the last things that popped into my head would also have nothing to do with that. The point is that we should not be thinking about those things when we meet people. We should be following the Biblical injunction to love God and then love our neighbors, not sit there and think about what they do in bed.

And just to clarify, there are many of us who are gay and monogamous. I have never slept around on my partner in over 21 years and I trust he can say the same. These are claims that cannot be echoed by many of the heterosexual people I know who have told me about doing things that make even my liberal self blush and would probably singe your hair if not take it off your head completely.

The biology connection to homosexuality cannot be overlooked with respect to how religion judges homosexuality.

See Medline for an update. http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/gw/Cmd

I often read comments from so-called heterosexuals that they know many gay men in long-term, monogamous relationships. How do they know what their friends and neighbors are doing in the privacy of their homes? I don't ask any of my friends if they are faithful to their spouses so I have to wonder if gays announce this fact to their friends.

Also, a study was done amongst gay men and it was revealed that 'monogamy' has a different connotation to many of them. These men considered themselves 'monogamous' even though they frequently engaged in threesomes and picked up tricks. But, 'emotionally', they were monogamous.

To the poster that stated 'he nearly spits up' at the thought of kissing a woman, I'm sure his parents must feel good about that comment. How does he think he got here? I know for sure it wasn't from two men doing what comes unnatural to them.

If something as natural as heterosexual proceation literally makes the poster ill, then he can only IMAGINE how heterosexuals feel when they think about what gay men do.

Well, gee, what we have here is the usual smattering of fundamentalist commentators who just love to hit every "religious" blog they can to show how much they love Jesus, God, or whatever. Thanks, guys, but Bishop Spong has heard it all before, too many times, I suppose, as have I. When will this primordial thinking end? Who knows in this wacky country, wracked by centuries of Puritanical Protestant and Catholic thinking. Even the Episcopal Church has its fundys.

I applaude Jack Spong. Wish there were more bishops like him. But, when it's all said and done, it really comes down to the fact that religion per se has done a real number on humanity, especially on the issue of sex. Perhaps the only way out of this mess is to jettison religion altogether, probably not a bad idea. Why Spong hangs on is a good question.
But I give him kudos for trying. While middle and older aged persons in this country parse phrases and split hairs, the under 30 group has left Christianity and religion behind in a cloud of dust, largely. What's that tell you?

"If you do reach the same population as Jews, I doubt you'll grow another 1675%, because that would be 100 million people.

Posted February 28, 2007 7:10 PM "

Yeah, the thing is, we ain't keeping score that way. People that are sure do seem to like to lowball the estimates of how many of us there are, though. Apparently about fifty thousand more Pagans than are supposed to exist nationally by some accounts showed up for a particular demonstration in DC some years back.

Frankly, as long as we're not being dismissed as 'A couple hundred kooks,' we got nothing to prove that way.

One thing about Paganism is we don't believe faith is a zero-sum game.

As for this:

""What I am saying is that the mere fact that someone is wired for certain behaviors does not justify the behavior."

What it *does* do is negate the idea that 'certain behaviors' are willful defiance of a particular God.

When people say 'I Hate YOUR SIN!' (but not *you,* really. You could not be a 'homo' with a secret agenda to undermine America, abort babies, molest children without an ordination, and steal our money, any time, really, we 'love' you...) '

Well... They never bother to ask if you had sex lately, do they? It's 'You people!'

It's not about 'behaviour.' It's about what they imagine some guy does and what they imagine is so awful about it, and then they apply it to anyone they don't approve of the inborn sexuality thereof.

First, thank you Bishop Spong for your post.

With regard to procreation and the growth of the faith, I am an Episcopalian in a 21 year committed relationship. I know of at least eight other gay couples in our parish with an average weekly attendance of about 150. Those couples range in longevity from about 7 years to 57 years. They also have among them eight children ranging from children who were born to one or the other woman, to the two children who were adopted by the gay man because his supposedly loving, heterosexually married brother and his wife were too drug and drink-adled (sp?) to care for them and gave them up willingly.

With regard to choosing, IT IS NOT A CHOICE. How many times do we have to tell people that? This is nothing personal against women, but I nearly spit up when I think about the possibility of kissing a woman. I'm sure that heterosexual men feel the same way when they think about the possibility of kissing another man. Homosexuality is also found in many other species. So is anyone saying that animals choose homosexuality? Let's get real.

With regard to the Bible, there are many things written in the Bible that we choose to ignore. Slavery is condoned, shellfish should not be eaten, cotton/poly blends are forbidden, we should stone our children to death when they disobey, etc. If we ignore these things why is it so bad to grow in our understanding of what God wants? Jesus said very clearly in one of the Gospels (Mark, I think) that he was teaching people the things they could understand at the time and the Holy Spirit would come and reveal other things to them as they were able to comprehend. This suggests to me that the Christian faith is a living, growing faith that will evolve over time.

Finally, as an Episcopalian, we choose to understand God by using Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. As I've gotten older, I've come to understand that there are many things in life which can become false idols. That includes worshipping the Bible. The Bible is humankind's attempt at understanding God and writing down that understanding. It is not God. God is that being whose spirit moves among us and reveals new truths as we are able to understand.

Billy: I have problems with many things you said, but I'm not going to change you mind on them. However, one thing I must point out is that Paul said (I'm paraphrasing) the women should shut their mouths and submit to their husband's authority and they shouldn't be involved in leadership in the church. This clearly shows the Bible's denigration of women. It is laughable that you would suggest that the Bible does not endorse such views simply because women were the first to hear of Christ's resurrection.

"Historically my faith has taught that sex was evil, that celibacy was the higher path of virtue, that marriage was a compromise with sin, that slavery was a legitimate human institution and that women were created to be second class citizens."

Right out of the box, +Spong sets up these assumptions from which he bases his thesis: I am a life-long Episcopalian and I've never been taught that my faith (or religion) considers sex evil. Yes, celibacy outside the bounds of marriage (a sacrament of my and +Spong's church by the way) was considered wrong (and still is, as far as I know, institutionally). I've never heard of marriage (again, a sacrament- an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace) being a compromise with sin (I think +Spong made that up to suit his needs). My faith and church acknowledged the existence of slavery but never said it was legitimate (sort of like the Episcopal Church now has not legitimated same sex blessings, but acknowledges that they are occurring within the common bounds of our community life). And if women were created to be second class citizens, then how come the first two persons to be given the good news of Christ's resurrection (and I know +Spong doesn't believe in the physical resurrection) were women? And to use the segregation issues in his next paragraph (the old “separate but equal” argument, as he calls it) is equally absurd. No one can help their skin color (well, except Michael Jackson, apparently). But participating in certain sexual activity is a choice (regardless of orientation). That's mixing apples and oranges. But I've noticed that +Spong likes to set up strawmen (usually fairly easy strawmen) to knock down. He seems so "intellectual" when he does that. And Jon Mecham, you as a Sewanee graduate, should be ashamed of putting +Spong on this site, as if he speaks for the Episcopal Church or for any person of faith. You know better and allowing this on your site is nothing but sensationalism.

"Recruiting five gays today and watching one married couple with two children leave may grow your church today; but next generation you need to recruit five new gays while the two children produce the next generation of some other denomination's congregants.

Posted February 28, 2007 11:54 AM"

But... I thought I heard something about stones shouting and deny thy father and mother and all that?

It's about birth rate, now?

Oh.

Constantine.

Carry on.

Amen Marco Polo.

Where do I begin?

Rob: Good point. It shouldn't matter whether it is a choice or not. It doesn't hurt anyone. Religion is certainly a choice, but religious freedom is protected. The religious seem to forget about this when they say gays rights shouldn't be protected because homosexuality is a choice.

Brambleton: You are going in circles my friend. You make an argument that gays don't have rights because homosexuality is unnatural, then when you are shown to clearly be wrong, you say that just because it's natural doesn't mean it's right. Which is it? And, as I stated above, I don't care whether it is a choice or not. If it is a choice, it's one that hurts no one. Worry about your own life and stop trying to control the lives of others.

Veritas: I guess there's just no arguing with fundamentalism, since it's based on unsubstantiated and irrebuttable assumptions. I can only hope you grow up one day.

Brambleton my man,

You have go tolet go. Nothing wrong with premarital sex. Why should sex only be confined for marriage? Cause the Bible said so? Cause God said so? doubtful.

God is a part of people because people choose for Him to be there. He is not really there. People make laws and judgements based no what God tells them to do, yet, God says nothing. People say everything. As for the Bible........nothing more than a fictional book put together to bring rome under one religion.

Religion seems more like a false sense of security than anything, due to its total lack of respect for other religions and the followers of said religions. People need to start believing in themselves and stop relying on something that is made up. personal growth and happiness comes from inside you, not from a book telling you how to do it.

Face it, the Bible seems to be the fisrt self help book, and it isn't working, because it seems to casue more harm than good.

"What I am saying is that the mere fact that someone is wired for certain behaviors does not justify the behavior."

I don't see why homosexuality (or heterosexuality) would have to be justified in the first place, since it doesn't harm other people. As I see it, we are accountable to others for our behavior only if that behavior affects others. For behavior that doesn't affect others, then others should just butt out.

Homosexuality is un-natural and sinful. When a culture embraces it God's judgment on that culture will follow. I pray that God will have mercy on our nation because it is ripe for judgment. Jesus is merciful and will forgive and change anyone who repents of this decadant behavior.

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error" (Romans 1:26-27).

Norrie,

I also see certain animals, namely lions, who eat their young. Are you suggesting that humans be allowed to follow suit? Just because we choose to do something doesn't make it right. And I'm still waiting for the conclusive scientific evidence that states the homosexual lifestyle is not a choice. And if it's not a choice, how do you explain people flipping back and forth?

Annie,

What's sad is labeling yourself "Christian" and then dispensing language that is clearly not. Where in the world does the Bible state that all actions are acceptable if they don't harm society? I suppose you are then endorsing pornography as long as it is in the confines of your own home? And I guess premarital sex is fine as long as both parties consent? Puh-leeze.

Are some people "born homosexual"? There is certainly more scientific evidence stating that people are born with a disposition to alcoholism. Unfortunately, for those people (like my dad) that is their thorn in the flesh that they need to resist. I work in a mental health facility and it is universally held that there is no changing a pedophile's ways. Pedophilia is irreversibly in their nature, and they must never be in the presence of children alone. No, I am not equating pedophilia with homosexuality. What I am saying is that the mere fact that someone is wired for certain behaviors does not justify the behavior. I am sooo tired of that specious argument.

You may have arguments that do indeed justify acceptance of homosexuality, but let us forever banish this poor argument.

Canyon,

Why should they have to prove it? You might argue that it's possible gays just can't stay together and allowing them to marry would just lead to great transaction costs as they marry and divorce over and over, but heterosexual divorce is through the roof anyway as it is. Why not allow gays to marry and see if it helps them maintain their relationships?

On a side note, I've read about MANY gay couples who have been together for years, and regardless of whether the average gay couple, or even a majority of gays couples, stay together long-term, why should the ones who want to commit suffer because of the average? We don't prevent straight people from marrying because of Britney Spears.

Canyon:

Bro, all you have to do is talk to a homosexual couple. Most of the ones I meet and know are more loving and caring and more deeply committed than most heterosexual couples I know.

Maybe you should trade that Bible of yours for some good ol' fashioned experience.

John,

That certainly is a different way of looking at it. Perhaps if homosexual couples could prove to us that they can stay together as a monogomous couple, we'd be more open to entertaining the marriage idea?

Canyon Shearer: Perhaps if homosexuals were allowed to marry and their monogamous relationships were treated with respect, those numbers would go down. Your statistics (though I'm not conceding they are correct as I don't know much about them) seem to me to tend to make an argument FOR gay marriage instead of against it. If straight people were not allowed to marry, and were in fact DISCOURAGED from marrying, how many straight guys do you think would stay with one partner? I would imagine the average number of partners would skyrocket.

Doug, You are assuming that every offspring of religious bigots will conform to their views. As someone who comes from a very conservative religious home, with a mother who condemns homosexuality, I am an example of how their birth rate is not necessarily helping them. Both I and my brother have liberal views toward homosexuality. Certainly, this could work in the other direction as well, but it seems intuitive to me that it is much more likely for children of religious families to break with their ideology than for children of tolerant families to become intolerant.

The unwhitewashed homosexuality:
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/media-wise/MW2W0304.pdf

While this report doesn't cite my number, it is actually a better article than the admittedly Christian article I was citing.

Norrie, that's a good question. Do you think you're innocent?

CORRECTED SPELLING VERSION

Canyon,

What is the rightful eternal punishment for a person who gratuitously threatens innocents with hellfire, arising from the threatener's misunderstanding of the universe?

"But homosexuality, in the latest polls, is the lifelong pursuit of one-night stands; finding that the average homosexual man will have 2100 partners in his life. If you dispute that, watch ONE episode of 'Will and Grace'":

Could you please back up this statistic with something other than the request to watch re-runs of a fictional television show? If that is the authority on which you base your beliefs that most homosexuals pursue one-night stands their entire lives, I think you need to figure out a better way to educate yourself.

I am a heterosexual Christian, I attend church, and have very good friends who are in monogomous homosexual relationships. And while your posting first made me angry, I now feel sad that you are so insecure in your own life that you feel the need to critize others for leading theirs in a way that does not affect you, hurt others, or in any way damage our society.

Spong long ago stopped being a Bible believing Christian. A perusal of any of his ramblings clearly demonstrates he is apostate. He has rejected the long establishged creeds, questioned the divinity of Christ, and more. He may still have the title of Bishop, but that title as applied to him is absolutely meaningless, the same as this piece of tripe.

Canyon,

What is the rightful eternal punishment for a person who gratutously threatens innocents with hellfire, arising from the threatener's misunderstanding of the universe?

Thank you, Bishop Spong!

Canyon Shearer - Ted Haggart is calling to remind you to meet him at Fred Phelps' place to watch Will & Grace reruns this week. You can't go to Colorado Springs because Ted got kicked out. That whole forgiveness thing, well...it's doled out pretty sparingly by you "radical evangelical christians," as you call yourself.

The fact is that people with your views are irrelevant to the debate. Tedious, aggressively unintelligent, and ultimately oh so very irrelevant.

I am gay and have never watched Will & Grace - I find it so interesting when I learn that people like you DO. You probably have the L Word on DVD, too.

Brambleton,

"...I do understand that the course of nature includes the reproduction of a species. And the biggest and best example of acting in a manner "contrary to the course of nature", is choosing a homosexual lifestyle.''

Didn't you see the news stories a couple of days ago about the multi-participant lesbian sex romps of female koalas in Australia? And before that there were virtually innumerable scientific reports of gay behavior in nature.

Face it, my friend, homosexual behavior is commonplace in nature.

Also, homosexuality is not a "lifestyle." It's a core part of a human being's life.

Being a Baptist, however, probably does constitute a lifestyle, and so can hopefully be changed, unlike homosexuality.

This is silly:

Any reasonable reading of the bible shows

1) a condemnation of gay sex in 2 places, both the old and new testaments.

2) Multiple and continous validation of the union of man and woman as accurately reflecting the image and likeness of God.

3) Christ's presence at the wedding feast of Cana.

4) and on and on

This superficial view of sexual morality as espoused by the author is not worthy of a serious debate. The facts are clear. While it is un Christian to hate, it is more un Christian to support or validate sinful behavior.

I have long known that Bishop Spong was not a Christian, but only recently have I had the epiphany that he may not believe in God either.

Psalm 5 says, "For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee."

God hates evil, wickedness, transgression. He hates the evils we call little, like lies, hurtful words, idle thoughts, petty larceny, lust; he hates the ones we call big, like murder, rape, grand-theft. Anything that is not holiness is against God.

That includes sleeping around, with women or men. If you're heterosexual and you sleep with multiple partners of the opposite sex, you're just as guilty as a homosexual who sleeps around with multiple partners of the same sex. Are there homosexuals who are monogomous? I'd be making a huge assumption to say there are not; there must be at least one couple of homosexuals who don't actively pursue their sin with multiple partners.

This has nothing to do with ancient prejudices as our confused episcopalian friend purports. This is common sense, spreading disease and having multiple partners is a bad idea today as forever.

The wrong(left) media has whitewashed homosexuality to say it is similar to the sanctified covenant of marriage between a man and a woman. If it were this, you would find far fewer opponents. But homosexuality, in the latest polls, is the lifelong pursuit of one-night stands; finding that the average homosexual man will have 2100 partners in his life. If you dispute that, watch ONE episode of "Will and Grace".

Speaking of Grace, the best definition of Grace takes into consideration two other words; justice and mercy.

Justice is when you get what you deserve.
Mercy is when you don't get what you don't deserve.
Grace is when you get what you don't deserve.

In any courtroom in the world, a good judge will dole out justice; he will punish lawbreakers, otherwise he will be accused of being unjust. Sometimes a judge will face a criminal who has "thrown himself on the mercy of the court." Even the most lenient judge still needs to assign a punishment, or risk facing that unjust title.

Grace is offered just as freely to a homosexual as grace is offered to heterosexual fornicator. Grace is seen in the courtroom when the judge sentences the repentant criminal to a punishment, because punishment is due. When the criminal can't pay the fine, he faces sentencing. The judge has the option of paying the criminals fine, not because the criminal can do anything for the judge, but in an effort to show his love, the judge offers the gift freely. All that is necessary for the criminal to go free after he has acknowldeged his crime and promised not to repeat it, is to receive the payment for his fine. That is the definition of Grace.

As you know, the ultimate punishment for fornication, either homosexual or heterosexual, is eternal suffering in Hell. The Just Judge of all the Universe can't just let a law-breaker go, punishment is due. God opened the gates of Heaven to the repentant sinner by paying the fine Himself by living a sinless life and dying on the cross for the fine of all mankind.

If you, a Homosexual or Heterosexual, will repent of your lifestyle and receive that payment, you will be adopted into the family of God, and you will be allowed into Heaven.

If you'll blaspheme this offer, and say you don't want it and/or you won't cease your lawbreaking, you will rightly serve your punishment in Hell.

You won't serve your punishment because you don't have Jesus, you will serve that punishishment for transgression. Jesus is the atonement to reprieve you from Hell, He has no bearing on why you're going.

Terra,

Webster's dictionary defines the term "unnatural" as "contrary to the laws or course of nature." Now, I'm obviously not the nature buff you purport to be, but I do understand that the course of nature includes the reproduction of a species. And the biggest and best example of acting in a manner "contrary to the course of nature", is choosing a homosexual lifestyle.

And I don't recall any sermons at my Baptist church speaking about "hating" anyone. I'd appreciate it if you kept your stereotypes and generalizations to yourself.

Thank you for saying this Mr. Spong.

"Paganism is growing; from 1990 to 2001 1675%....if that holds, in a couple years we will be the same population rate as Jews, more then 6,000,000+."

Well, yeah, it's a lot easier to grow your first 1675% than your second, third, and fourth.

If you do reach the same population as Jews, I doubt you'll grow another 1675%, because that would be 100 million people.

Doug,

Paganism is growing; from 1990 to 2001 1675%....if that holds, in a couple years we will be the same population rate as Jews, more then 6,000,000+. Oh and that is just Wiccans, in 1990 the only Pagan catogory was Wicca, and there are many other Pagan religions that are growing also.

Pagans have kids..and the spread of org's like Spiral Scouts (a boys and girls club like boys scouts and girl scouts) and home schooling and the opening of Pagan schools are a forwarning that Pagans are becoming a bigger population.

This will mean that we will have more say...like on equal rights and enviromental rights. Those who call homosexuality unnatural has never been in nature or on a farm. Nature is filled with gayness. All things in nature that slides, crawls, flies, scurries,hops, runs, or jumps have within it the queer ones. It is natural and normal. In many native american traditions the homosexual was seen as closer to the Great Spirit...many were the healers and councilers of the tribe; the Shamans.

My best friend is a gay, black man...he could no more change his sexual orientation then his color...He is the most level headed and kind man I know. I can not figure out why it matters to anyone who he loves, just so he does. But then this is what my religion teaches.

As a Witch I have been told I was going to hell and I was damned because I was not Christian, or because I did not believe Jesus died for my sins...not alone that I do not believe in any devil. It seems not to matter what kind of person you are...that you are honerable and help others..it is if you hate who you are supposed to because they are different. Hypocrites.

My religion also teaches me that we all are on this planet together, made of the same starstuff...we either respect each other's talents and differences or we will live on in hate and a deminishing amount of peace. We do have free will...we also as a nation need to grow up.

"Minds, even religious minds, will change. The alternative is that these minds will die and the minds of the next generation will change. Either way, however, religious homophobia is doomed."

I wish you were right, Bishop, but the fact that churches survive principally through the reproductive rate of their members suggests otherwise.

The average American Mormon woman has three children in her life. The average Episcopalian has 1.5. This means the LDS naturally doubles every two generations while the Episcopal church cuts in half, if it weren't for your steady supply of ex-Catholic converts.

Recruiting five gays today and watching one married couple with two children leave may grow your church today; but next generation you need to recruit five new gays while the two children produce the next generation of some other denomination's congregants.