I Have Changed My Mind

I hate all you religious madmen.

You've sent this world screaming backwards, covered in blood, through the centuries!
When 2000 arrived the last thing I expected was to see religion of ALL KINDS (though Islam is the king sturd on the sh1t pile) push this world towards the edge of the abyss!

I hate you all.
I have a 2 year old Daughter and thanks to SCUM like you she will grow up in a world that is nothing more than a festering battlefield between the evil, hateful Islam and the ignorant, bigotted Jews, Catholics and Christian off-shoots.

Laughable, fantasy religions (populated by bigots, madmen, the corrupt, the stupid, the psychos) that should have died out centuries ago are instead going to be THE defining aspect of this world for countless years now...

Stinking Muslims with their Jihad and terrorist acts in the name of their piss-God Allah and lousy Christians/Jews/Catholics and their need to 'spread the word' of their mythical God have plunged this world into a darkness not seem for centuries...Only now they have the weapons and technology of the modern world to use to blast us ALL back into the dark-ages.

Damn you all for what you have done to my country, my society, my family's future, the future of all of us and damn you all for what you have done to the world.

ROT in your perspective Hells!

Andrew: "Romans 1:26-27"

That's Paul speaking personally, and I really don't care what he thought. Actually, I don't really care what any of them thought. :)

Paul also says other things, like women who pray with their heads uncovered should have their hair cut off, that long hair on a man is a disgrace, and that women should not teach or have authority over men.

Do you agree with everything he wrote?

I am in agreement with Phaedrus (posted Mar 2), who observed that it was the bishop's personal positive experience which permitted his change of mind/heart. Good that it did, but we should all work to speak from reason and openness rather than from pre-judice -- and at ALL times, not only after we have received "acceptable" (in our eyes) proof.

Franco: Your information is so proposterous. Please provide a link and/or specific reference as to where you find this information. I have a sneaking suption that you will either not reply and provide UNcredible references.

I dare you......lets see it

You are an angry man. Difficult to spar with you. Take care

What crud.
AIDS is a bodily fluid virus.
It can be caught from a dirty needle, a blood transfusion (yes, even a transfusion into the vile veins of you 'holy folk'), male and female oral sex, vaginal penetration and anal penetration.

It just so happens that it is easier to catch it via the anus...hence it targets homosexuals more.

And unless I missed something, Africa (AIDS funfair of the World thanks to fanatic Catholics) is not a boiling cauldron of homosexual activity!!!!
So in fact almost all of the cases of AIDS in the worlds most AIDS ravaged place are hetrosexual cases.

GOD (irony!) I despise bigots like you lot.
Holy bigots who think it's okay to be bigots because they say a fantasy 'being' said it was okay for them to be bigots!
You're a sad joke...go blow one!

Anonymus: Don't know about teenagers making the Claim, but CDC in Atlanta has massive data that shows AIDS to be pricipally an homosexual disease.

For some time now I have heard teenagers make that claim; I suppose that they suppose that heterosexual sex acts like a sort of condom, protecting those who use it? I suppose that, because a higher percentage of they that have died from AIDS were homosexual when viewed against the size of their respective backgrounds, that means that homosexuals deserve death more then heterosexuals? Am I to believe that lambs are never led astray, but always they CHOOSE to stray? Never does a pig get murdered without first breaking a law? Surely because things are this way that means things are just and beautiful in how they are? Is that the revelation I've been yearning for all my life? No...I would rather see clearly and act swiftly then pretend I am helpless and things are perfect. If all of you, or even one of you, followed me then there'd be one more voice for homosexuals, for women, for ANYONE downtrodden who was willing, but unable, to stare down the man alone.

anonymus: you are quite angry; why not argue your case by being civil. Fact: AIDS is an homosexual disease. Look at the dta

A large part of the reason that the current prevailing faith is so powerful is that, at our core, it excites positive action. The man, the homophobia, the justice, the injustice AT AND ONLY AT the hands of the king...the explaining of his work after-the-fact...it's all very exciting, enjoyable and compatible with our minds...combined with a certain mechanism for love and our early days as innocent children (not to mention a tendency to blame things, and not just people) and we get religion. Oops, this was an argument for why Christianity prevails...and then we have Christians outnumbering all other worshipers.

Let him who is without sin cast the first vote for the proposed anti-American, freedom-squashing Amendment that effectively prohibits homosexual marriage.
This 71-year-old Christian American heterosexual bit of flatulence (2d dictionary definition, of course) puts the Gospels first, then the Epistles, then Revelation, and then the Old Testament. Teaching "mechanics" of homosexuality in schools is anathema, but certainly there should be neither promotion nor deprecation of it. There should be teaching in schools of heterosexual "mechanics" to those age 13 and above. But there should be a ban on even consensual sexual activity between a minor less than 16 and any adult and between a 16-year-old or above and an adult more than 6 years older than the minor. Jesus Christ said, "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones...it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:6 KJV). And, surely any hetero- or homosexual orgy is an abomination.

As to same-sex marriages, imagery of their sexual act is repugnant to many of us who consider ourselves to be heterosexual. But public policy toward such marriages must be approached as coolly as possible.

Homosexual relations between two consenting single human adults is a far cry from polygamy (virtual adultery) or sex by a human with a lower animal (bestiality); sex should be between human and human, dog and dog, cat and cat, etc..

In homosexual relations between childless never-married singles there is no "victim," while it could be alleged that in abortion there is a "victim," the fetus, which apparently can feel pain 5 months into gestation and thereafter. And, while Jesus spoke of God's making people "male and female," that a man should leave father and mother and "cleave to his wife", and "her" as a wife (Matthew 19:4-5, 7, 9), Christ was speaking from the perspective of 2,000 years ago when "traditional family values" related to a "wife" who was subservient to the "husband" and usually remained home to raise children while the "husband" would often leave home (sometimes for extended periods) to make the livelihood for the family. (Indeed, in Christ's time women were considered so secondary to the men that it is reputed that in one non-Biblical "Gospel," that has been discovered, it is said that Jesus was going to convert Mary Magdalen into a man so that [s]he could be admitted into heaven.)

Nowadays "traditional family values" are such that it is unlikely that the Woman is subservient to the Man and sometimes "traditional" roles are reversed where the Man stays home and raises the children and keeps house while the Woman makes the livelihood because she is better prepared to do so. Accordingly, while heterosexual marriage seems preferable because of procreation, nevertheless, homosexual marriage is virtually not that different before society than a heterosexual marriage where the couple takes steps not to have children or even is unintentionally childless.

The American psychological and psychiatric communities largely agree that homosexuality cannot be defined as a mental disorder. And although homosexuals are not "heroes" -- an idea that some "red-herring" commentators claim that gays promote -- they are, of course, our equals.

Actually it would seem that in sexual "orientation" everyone--male or female--is on a continuum of percentage of homo- to hetero-sexual (perhaps 0.5% homo- to 99.5% hetero- and maybe, unhappily, vice versa for some -- with percentages varying all along the line in different people).

A woman I overheard once spoke of another as "What a bod she has!"; and more recently a male, in discussing a church meeting he had with several different-gender people, referred three times--maybe without realizing it--to a mutual friend as "...a very handsome man." Now neither of these two would ever have engaged in homosexual activity, but what kind of "orientation," if any, did that possibly display?
Citing John's Gospel about "the disciple Jesus loved," some say that Christ was homosexual. THAT SEEMS LIKE BALONEY IF NOT BLASPHEMY. Many theologians state that (1) in John's Gospel the word "love" in the phrase was translated "agape," not "erotica"; (2) the phrase was intended to embrace all DiscipleS; and (3) no one is clearly identified as the one Disciple Jesus loved.

That begs the question. Apparently in all the Gospels "love" was translated as "agape" and never "erotica"; so (1) proves nothing. As to (2), could not St. John, or the arguably later authors and translators of this text, simply have added "s" to make the "discipleS whom Jesus loved" if that were what was meant? And clearly as to (3), St John himself was meant when the phrase was written (See John 21:24; and verses 20-23; also John 13:23 and 19:26).

Maybe one might say St. John was simply claiming Jesus loved him more than the other disciples when Jesus did not. But it is eerie, eh?? --- (1) particularly when most might think St. Peter would be "the Apostle Jesus loved" because he built His church upon that "rock" (Matthew 16:18-19) and (2) especially since some historians say St. John was the only disciple to die a natural, rather than violent, death, much time after Nero (1) ordered him into a kettle of boiling oil, which action failed (miraculously?), and (2) ordered St John to sip poisoned wine, which also failed (intervention of Providence?).

If Jesus was fully human as well as fully Divine, then He may have had some sexual "orientation." But there seems nothing in the Gospels even to hint that Jesus Christ. in fact, had any sexual relationship. And there apparently is not a scintilla of historical evidence that Jesus actually engaged in any sexual activity whatsoever.

Fundamentalist friends might argue that: (1)all of the Bible is the Word of God; (2)"sin is sin" and cannot be relative; and (3) one is to correct one's brethren who sin (such as in as in Matthew 21:12-13 and Mark 11:15-17). One must reply that: (1) much of the Old Testament passages, such as Exodus 21:1-7 and Leviticus 25:44-46, seem most unlikely to be the true Word of God and are not pertinent now, (2) there ARE degrees of sin (1 John 5:16-17); and (3) one CERTAINLY canNOT "correct" anyone PHYSICALLY, that he or she (perhaps sinfully himself, St. Matthew 7:1) "judges" to be sinful, in the manner God reputedly said to Moses in Leviticus 20:9-16 (such as against an abortion clinic) because Jesus Christ directed "Let him who is without sin [presumably any degree of sin] among you be the first to throw a stone at her," regarding the woman taken in adultery (John 8:3-11).

But note that in verse 11 of John 8 Christ told the woman not to sin again, which could equally apply to a situation described in Leviticus 18:22. Therefore, while Jesus Christ is not quoted as saying anything explicit about homosexuality, this is understandable because, without describing any physical punishment therefor, God said in Leviticus 18:22 that a man "...shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination", and Christ said that He did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, and that not an iota would pass from the law until all is accomplished. (Matthew: 5:17-20).

At the same time, however, Christ uttered aplenty condemnation of divorce (apparently including "annulment" of a consummated marriage) and remarriage as "adultery." (Mark 10:11-12; Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9; Luke 16:1). Indeed, Saint Thomas More was decapitated because he opposed King Henry VIII's divorce and remarriage as against Christ's teachings, and King Edward
in the 1930s was forced to abdicate because he was going to marry a divorced woman.

Mercifully, we have progressed beyond this perspective about divorce and remarriage being adultery; otherwise many very fine ordained ministers would have to be defrocked. More practically, it would seem that, if there is domestic violence certainly or "just" emotional abuse, divorce might be best for both partners, and remarriage might make a more loving, stable relationship not only for the new couple but for children of the prior marriage. And isn't it ironic that Massachusetts has allowed gay marriages and is also the State where there are the least divorces, while Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, and Oklahoma of the "Bible Belt" [which seems quite eager to prohibit gay marriages] are four of the top five States for divorce rate, often after the couples have been "saved." See the "Religious Tolerance" web site on "Divorce"?)

Jesus Christ is quoted in Mark 7:21(KJV, RSV, and Oxford Study Bible) and Matthew 15:19 (KJV, RSV, & OSB) as damning among other evils both "fornication" and "adultery" (they are somewhat different sins, else one of these words would be superfluous). Yet only "adultery" is prohibited in Exodus 20:14 (KJV, RSV, OSB, and GoodNews Bible) and Deuteronomy 5:18 (KJV, RSV, OSB, & GNB).

Apparently "adultery" must be defined as sexual relations between a married person outside marriage or between a divorced person and someone else he or she re-marries while a former spouse of the earlier marriage is still living [See Christ's teachings cited above]; and "fornication" must mean sexual relations between two life-long single, or married but widowed-by-death, people. While many would allow blessings of gay unions, this still implies that they continue "living in sin" (at least "fornication") and, thus, are not allowed full participation in God's love that complete vows of marriage provide.

Thus, it is saddening (if not hypocritical) that in America, "the land of the free," where "the weak [read minorities] are protected from the tyranny of the strong" that a majority of voters would apparently deprive homosexuals of their right to marry in God's sight whom they choose. And, spurning the "Golden Rule" (Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31), the majority would despotically yoke their brothers and sisters with a virtually excremental, profane Amendment to our almost sacred United States Constitution. How would we like it if gays were the majority and prohibited heterosexual marriages?

To American chagrin, law prohibited interracial marriages in all but few States until 1967. Yet
both interracial marriage and gay marriage are civil rights. And to deny either types of marriage is to deny human beings their humanity.

Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not refer only to race, any ban against same-sex marriage would run deeply contrary to the "due process" and "equal protection of the laws" as provided for in the Amendment. See also Loving vs.. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) where the Supreme Court of the United States said in Part II: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

If divorce and remarriage when one of the former spouses is still alive is, in the sight of God, "adultery," then a fortiori that would seem to be more of an abomination in the sight of God than is a homosexual union between two consenting, life-long, single adults which, though sinful, would be "only" "fornication." (And, thus, isn't it a calamitous inconsistency for Nigerian Archbishop Peter J. Akinola to advocate jailing gays, who may be committing "only" "fornication", for at least some period of time but apparently NOT advocating the jailing of heterosexual "adulterers," perforce including the divorced and re-married when a former spouse of the divorced marriage is still living?)

On balance, if divorce and re-marriage of heterosexuals is not only accepted and perhaps even properly encouraged, should same-sex marriages be allowed especially of those who believe in God and likely Exodus 20:14 and Deuteronomy 5:18?? And can re-married divorced people honorably oppose gay marriages in view of Christ's teachings? If those single-digit percentage of gays who want such marriages had them, they could not at law be "judged" as "living in sin [even 'fornication']," as the proposed amendment to the Constitution would dictate. Most importantly to all, such marriages might reduce promiscuity that can lead to HIV/AIDS.

I am sure in my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as my Savior that He would condone most, if not all, heterosexual divorce and remarriage if He returned today. And, if He did so, I am certain that he would also approve gay marriage.

Of course, if no valid civil law prohibits gay marriages, this would NOT mean that Catholics, and all denominations of the Protestant churches, and Jewish and all other organized faiths could not prohibit such marriages under their church law . It would, however, seem most equitable to permit individual churches within each denomination to perform such marriages and not force any one individual church within such denomination to bow to such preventive denominational law; but, still, the hierarchy of each denomination should legally be able to deny such marriages in its churches if it chooses.

It would only be unconstitutional to prohibit any such marriages from being performed within civil law. That would allow marriages within civil law before judges and before any ordained ministers (including rabbis, of course) who chose to perform them as long as their religious denominational law does not prohibit it.

Wow, I didn't know this was a place to release all one's inner turmoil and hatred upon others. Ummm, good luck trying to persuade or discuss in a civil and loving manner. Don't forget we're all sinners and EVERYONE here needs God's grace, good night and God Bless you all, for you know not what you do.

"That's why God's forgivness is so amazing and necessary for salvation."

AND WITHOUT GOD'S FORGIVENESS, YOU GO STRAIGHT TO HELL!!

(especially Christians, sheesh!)

"I really can't believe I was reading an article by an alleged Christian."

Yeah. But he's not a TRUE Christian!

Christians, you really don't need that rascally bad guy Satan to turn people away from your god. You do a perfectly fine job of it yourselves. Keep this up for a few more years and you'll have done more damage to your own cause than every rational thinker that has ever lived.I applaud you all. Keep up the good work.

---That's why God's forgivness is so amazing and necessary for salvation---

PROVE you stinking God!
Go on!

Didn't think so.

Bunch of fvcking cvnts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---homosexual life styles causes AIDS leading to death.

Average life expectancy of an homosexual is 34 years! ---

LMAO!!

Where did you get THAT statistic from???
What garbage!

And guess what moron...AIDS can be caught just as eaily by unprotected Hetrosexual sex.
In fact the continent most ravaged by AIDS (THANKS TO CATHOLICISM) is Africa, and almost all of that is though Hetrosexual sex!!

You're a scummy creature. Go away.

Sharon!! You need to get laid! You need some love, sex and passion.
You need to put down your fantasy Bible and your cave dwelling superstitions AND GO OUT AND GET SOME LOVING!
The chances are your local Priest will be up for it. He may get a nun to join in too!!

Lucky you!!

"Once my eyes were opened to this possibility, I began to see it in many others."

The above statement by Rev. Mark Sean Sisk is what is so alarming to me. The Bible is clear on the issue of homosexuality. It's a sin. Same as cursing the Lord's name, same as murder.

I really can't believe I was reading an article by an alleged Christian.

I understand that ALL people sin...unfortunately its our fallen human nature. HOWEVER, as humans we can't decide on what we consider sin or not. Sorry.

That's why God's forgivness is so amazing and necessary for salvation. A Biblical and soul search will reveal to any competent person that homosexuality is not acceptable for humans, (and esspecially Christians, sheesh!) to engage in.

To all those who say Leviticus no longer applies to us today, I'm sure you also believe that prohibitions against incest and sex with animals mentioned alongside male homosexual acts don't apply to the modern world as well. A bit of advice for you. Read the Bible. Leviticus contains laws on ritual cleanliness which were abolished w/ Christ's coming ex: rules against the eating of certain foods, and God's moral laws which are everlasting ex: bestiality, incest, and male homosexual acts. Notice I didn't mention lesbianism as one of the forbidden acts. Maybe all you "Bible thumpers" out there shoud try reading your Bible as well.

Sharon says:"I pray that you will be set free from the bondage of sin and death,and walk into His (Jesus) wonderful light - into a peace and joy that surpasses all understanding. Anonymous, God knows you, He loves you, and He wants you to know Him."

Sharon,
Thanks for your heartfelt, if naive and laughable, response. I walked into peace and joy some 20 years ago when I cast off the shackles of your goofy fairy tale. Instead of pretending to pray for me to a god that you know deep down isn't there, why don't you stand up straight and join me in the 21st century.

Sharon, nobody hurt me. But people who believe as you do, and seek to bind the rest of the world with the codes of conduct that flow from these medievel mindsets, are a menace. Do not try this "reverse-appeal to symathy" tack, because it insults the intelligence of your readers.

I am perfectly fine, have a great life in fact. But, I have to keep an eye out for the threats attendant to the bronze-age value systems of folks like you.

Cacorn and his ilk remind me of another group of Christians from U.S. history.

The Southern Baptist KKKonvention, today the largest (and one of the most hatefully anti-gay) Protestant denominations in the nation, was spawned in the 1840s by Baptists who wanted to continue sending slave owners as "missionaries" (WINK!) overseas (to Africa, for example).

Like Cacorn and his fellow travelers in anti-gay bigotry, those Baptists had scripture to twist, pervert and manipulatively use in ill-advised attempts to legitimize their hate and drive for discrimination.

I do wonder why Akinola and his fellow travelers such as Bp. Herb Thompson (who, thank God, is dead now) don't revisit the Mark of Ham and the demands in Leviticus and Paul's epistles to continue slavery. Methinks it has much more to do with their personal convenience than it does any sort of godly motivations in reading scripture.

Just like Akinola and his ilk translate their warped interpretation of scripture into support for legalized discrimination (and much, much worse in Akinola's Nigeria), the Southern Baptists were quite active in the 1950s opposing racial integration and civil rights.

Of course, the fact that Akinola is a hypocrite and worse is blatantly obvious to anyone who knows of his failure to teach Anglicanism's moral stance on polygamy to the Muzzies in his home country. Scum. The man is simply scum.

+ Eric Cardinal Richelieu
Generous and Giving Head of the Sacred Order of the Fondling Fathers

Anonymous,

I don't know who hurt you, but they did a masterful job of it.

Sharon writes: "I pray that you will be set free from the bondage of sin and death, and walk into His (Jesus) wonderful light -"

Sure, a light that will illuminate your path towrards bigotry, intolerance, and discrimination of those who are not like you. Sounds great.

Tell you what Sharon, I sincerely hope that you will be set free from the bondage of ancient mythology, and that you will learn to let reason and its fruits be your personal guide, rather than fraud, superstition, and ignorance.

Anonymous,

I pray that you will be set free from the bondage of sin and death, and walk into His (Jesus) wonderful light - into a peace and joy that surpasses all understanding. Anonymous, God knows you, He loves you, and He wants you to know Him.

CACorn,

You see homosexuality as a disease that can maybe be 'remedied' by genetic manipulation.

I see adherence to religion as a disease that can maybe be 'remedied' by genetic manipulation.

Get it?

Franco,
Are you suggesting that the hundreds of species other than homo sapien sapien that have been observed to engage in homosexual behavior are choosing to do so? Are you saying that, despite the fact that you likely believe that animals are subservient to man and don't possess 'souls', dolphins have the power to choose to engage in homosexual acts? Flamingos and penquins have free will now? Do you suppose that your loving god will send fruit bats to hell for engaging in homosexual acts?

Becky,
Homosexual lifestyles do not cause AIDS. Promiscuous and unprotected sex of any kind can certainly lead to one contracting AIDS though.

Jonathan,
Let's not ban anything, especially religion. Instead, let's teach people to think critically and rationally. Let's teach people that they are good, not that they are bad.

"The same could be said for those predisposed to religious belief. Do you suppose that such research would be met with resistance from the religious?

Do you have a point?"

Well, admittedly, I have no idea what the first part means, but my larger point is that the development of genetic and hormonal treatment for homosexuality WILL cast an entirely new perspective on this whole debate. As Tyler Gray wrote, as faithfully cited by Dr. Mohler:

"Conservatives opposed to both abortion and homosexuality will have to ask themselves whether the public shame of having a gay child outweighs the private sin of terminating a pregnancy (assuming the stigma on homosexuality survives the scientific refutation of the Right's treasured belief that it is a "lifestyle choice.") Pro-choice activists won't be spared either. Will liberal moms who love their hairdressers be as tolerant when faced with the prospect of raising a little stylist of their own? And exactly how pro-choice will liberal abortion-rights activists be when thousands of potential parents are choosing to filter homosexuality right out of the gene pool?"

Besides, homosexuals can still find employment, buy food and clothes, exercise, join labor unions, conduct telephone calls without government interference, have speedy and impartial trials by jury, and, above all else, VOTE. Despite all these ORIGINAL constitutional rights, homosexuals still want to radically redefine marriage to effectively mean nothing. If this keeps up, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Osama bin Laden will deliver the United States of America a radioactively cold slap of reality to exploit our weakness soon enough. Several prominent Americans have cited state-by-state solutions to resolve marriage. It is, after all, an institution at least five millennia old. Yet, even after all of these arguments that I have uncovered, I still hear the exact same incessant chorus of "homophobic, hateful, intolerant bigotry." I'm actually getting a little bored with this excessive use of ad hominem attacks in the name of postmodern, touchy-feely "equality." Perhaps Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, Michael Medved, and Jihad Watchers were all separately correct in revealing for us the left's diametric defiance of the Almighty Creator through moral relativism and resulting unholy alliance with Islamic fascism, which would make prominent adherents of Christian fundamentalism look like members of the American Civil Liberties Union. Of course, all this assumes that James Dobson and Fred Phelps actually qualify to be Christian fundamenatalists... when perhaps the Amish up in Pennsylvania are much better suited to be such people. Just look at their extraordinary spirit of forgiveness toward the family of Charles Carl Roberts IV in the wake of that West Nickel Mines massacre, and then contrast that with Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Robert Mugabe's depravity against basic freedom and humanity.

Religion is like a drug, a powerful addiction for many people. These people have no self confidence or are lonely.
Many people put religion before their own families, i.e. time away from home, tithe, etc.

Most religions are against dancing, alcohol, premarital sex, etc.

So, why would they not want to ban everything but prayer!

I say ban religion!

duhhh...homosexual life styles causes AIDS leading to death. Average life expectancy of an homosexual is 34 years! Deal with it

who can show any reliable and scientific study that proves that gay behaviour is inborn?

Oh sweet mercy. Now Allah is gonna get us too. You people and your fear based "religions" are a danger to civil society.

Sharon:

I sleep with a woman.
I sleep with a man.
I sleep with both.

So what?
What 'sin' is that?
Why should who I sleep with have the 'wage' of death?
Why am I more likely to die (or DESERVE death) because i have sex with another man (or another woman if I was female) and not with a woman?

You're a cave dwelling turd.
Crawl away!

OR try a bit of pussy...It seems like you need to relieve those Holy frustrations!

God (Allah) has commanded us to stay away from this heinous act of homosexuality. Allah has destroyed a nation for this immoral and disgusting way of life. Remember the Prophet Lot (Peace be upon him). His people were destroyed because they were practicing homosexuality openly and without shame. The desire towards a person of the same sex is a lower, animal desire which is a test for the individual who feels it. Those who suppress this desire and live their life as heterosexuals according to the commands of Allah will be rewarded and those who fail the test and succumb to this lower desire will face a severe punishment in the hellfire.

Expidito,
Didn't your parents discipline you for your good? Laws and rules are not for harm, but for good. God does not tolerate sin, because the wages of sin is death. He wrote the Law, He is the Law, the Creator, the Boss, and He says that homosexuality is not in divine order. All who transgress the Law,(and Christ came to fulfill the Law, not destroy it), will perish by the Law, unless they have accepted His Son as their attonement. God made the rules, not us. He is intolerant of those rules being broken and not repented of.

Let's face it - the more hateful and intolerant a particular religion is, the more members (and more money) it attracts. Which are the religions that are growing the most? Well, they're various brands of intolerant fundamentalism, such as Shiite Islam, Evangelical Protestant, etc. We see mainline Protestant denominations dwindling simply because they are too thoughtful and quasi-rational, and they are just no longer hateful and intolerant enough to attract new members.

The alignment of various Episcopal parishes and diocese with regressive and repressive third-world churches may help the membership drain somewhat. But I fear it is not enough. As hateful as the non-Western Anglicans may be (and I believe the Nigerian Anglicans prescribe death for homosexuality), they do not reach the depths of hatred and intolerance that many other religions can boast.

CACorn,

The same could be said for those predisposed to religious belief. Do you suppose that such research would be met with resistance from the religious?

Do you have a point?

"Besides, you better get used to seeing gay people playing a more visible role in society because that is the direction things are heading."

Oh, really? As it turns out, scientists searching for a genetic cause of homosexuality have encountered resistance from homosexual activists who "recognize that the discovery of a biological marker or cause for homosexual orientation could lead to efforts to eliminate the trait, or change the orientation through genetic or hormonal treatments" -- namely, a hormone patch during pregnancy designed to transform homosexual orientation into heterosexual orientation OR VICE-VERSA. In addition, some parents may choose to abort unborn babies unfortunate enough to be diagnosed as having a gene for homosexuality, thus using abortion to filter homosexuality right out of the human gene pool. Dr. Mohler called this a "perfect storm" for two sectors of the American political left, namely feminists and homosexual activists. He may very well be right.:

http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2007-03-02

I Corinthians 6:9-11:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicaters, nor idolitors, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkerds, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
King James Version of the Holy Bible

Praise be to God for His Son Jesus Christ, who died for our sins, rose again and prepared the way; (through repentance and belief); so that we can be forgiven, born again, not in the desires of our old sinful nature, but in a new nature: cleansed, and set free from the power of sin and death.

Andrew, what you fail to consider is this: if God really has such a big issue with homosexuality-which, incidentally, didn't even exist in its modern form when the Bible was written- why isn't it one of the Ten Commandments? You'd think that something that important would be mentioned along with murder and theft. Leviticus condemns everything, from eating shellfish to wearing clothing made of blended fibers. Why do you gay-bashers insist on taking things out of context?
I am a Christian lesbian, and I feel that evangelical damning of homosexuality turns away those who need God's help the most. When everyone else has turned their back on you, and you cannot see love and acceptance anywhere, you should be able to find that love in the arms of God.
God does not hate. People like you hate. Keep it to yourself, please, and stop blaming it on God.

Bishop Sisk,

I congratulate you on your partially finished climb out of bigotry. I hope you continue standing up straight and casting off the shackles of barbaric and divisive doctrine.

Here is something for you to consider. If, as you say, all good comes from your god, then whence came your traditional Bible-based teaching that is supposedly the word of your god?

I wish you luck and speed in resolving your cognitive dissonance.

REV. MOODEY tells us: On the other hand, our church has no formal membership system...Being congregational in its government, matters of morality and ethics are decided by the community rather than the denomination...This places a higher theological standard on the pastor than following denominational dogma...

Hello, Rev. Moodey.

Could you tell us a bit more about what Congregationalists think about the relationship between believers and the State should be as regards deciding laws? Given that much of our American political foundations have come from Congregationalists I'd like to know more about how you view the working relationship between believers and the State

I guess I'm really trying to get at principles of moral/legal decision making where there are big differences among the deciders.

Ann O.

Duck:

Romans 1:26-27

-Andrew

So do you eat at Red Lobster? Another rule out of Leviticus.

-Paganplace

Well said. I have noticed that the folks who moan about Christians being oppressed usually do so after being told they can't shove their religion down someone else's throat.

As for the whole Gay clergy and gay marriage thing... I don't think that there is any Christian prohibition against being imperfect and serving as a clergy member. I mean isn't the whole basis of the religion the assumption that humanity IS imperfect and 'sinners' (the whole original sin thing right)? That being said, it is therefore impossible to have a priest who is NOT imperfect and a 'sinner'...so what is the issue? Unless of course one follows the logic used by Andrew above... If one takes that ONE passage from the Old Testament, and assumes that the revision of a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation (Aramaic to Greek, Greek to Latin, Latin to English revised from there) is indeed accurate then the ONE and ONLY unforgiveable sin is homosexuality. In that case then all us 'uppity homosexuals' are damned anyway, so enjoy boys...

As for marriage rights... One ought to remember that in the eyes of the SECULAR government one is not married until you get a MARRIAGE LICENSE from City Hall, no requirements for a church, in fact, one can be 'married' in a church and not be 'married' in the eyes of the law because you don't have the piece of paper from city hall. So how does that make one's wedding 'sanctified?' Personnaly given most christian churches reactions to lgbt folks in general, I don't want to have anything to do with a "church" wedding.

HOWEVER, I will give up the right to the SECULAR benefits sometime after I am shown the biblical passages regarding joint income tax filing, hospital visitation rights, automatic parental custody, automatic co-ownership (of your house and other jointly purchased property), rights of medical decision making, etc. You know, the 1000 or so SECULAR benefits, rights AND responsibilities associated with going to the justice of the peace and getting 'married'.

Craig:

Romans 1:26-27

CACorn:

You are missing the forest for the trees.

I see no point in going after the "gay community" (whatever that really is. . . there is no "straight" community, only straight people who form communities out of their own will) because of the actions of a few people you disagree with. You are talking about a political movement and this discussion is about the lives of individuals who want to live as they see fit.

Focusing on one aspect of the movement for increased rights and protections for gay people and judging the character of all gay people makes no sense. Besides, you better get used to seeing gay people playing a more visible role in society because that is the direction things are heading. Homophobia is falling in this country.

Andrew: "Leviticus 18:22"

Yeah, well, Leviticus 11:10. Hope you're not eating shellfish.

Or Leviticus 20:27. What haven't you stoned John Edward to death?

Leviticus is full of stuff like this, and everyone ignores it except for 18:22. Why is that?

Leviticus 18:22

Mr. Moody: (historic name there, in Christian circles)

."My contention has been that if I preach the Gospel, it is convicting enough without zeroing in on this sin or that sin; this lifestyle or that..."

I am not certain what this actually means, and the "convicting," is that supposed to be "convincing?" Please clarify what you are saying, because it seems that you are claiming that the Bishop has changed his views on homosexuality because of personal experience, which is at odds with what you think he should be relying on. Then you seem to be saying that you do not find it necessary to focus on individual sins, though sins they remain.

So, are you saying that homosexuality is a sin, and on what are you basing this position?

Do you think that forbidding homosexual marriage based on religious opposition constitutes a violation of the barrier between church and state?

I mean, hey, you've only had control over the world for some fifteen hundred *years* ...Pardon me if I look around at this mess and say, 'All right.'

Impress me.

Oh, right.

That was rhetorical.

Still. Make your play. It's what you'll be remembered by.

My question is, ...churches have told people not to vote for anyone who fails to oppress gays or condemn mothers they won't support...

One can hardly speak here without some Christian saying, 'You're so immmoral.'

Heck with the Bible quotes.

Christians like to whine how 'oppressed' they are, but. Have you ever really lived in *fear?* They're whining, 'Oh, they don't force the minimum wage Wal-Mart-employees to say 'Christ' at me while I blame the Pagans for how materialist I'm being. I'm a martyr! A F'n *saint!* Really!

Get *over* it, Christians.

You feel oppressed, you never had to go out of your way to keep your kid cause some clerk in a government office decided it was 'oppression' not to refer your kid to social services' cause *they* believed that Paganism was 'Satanism,' and decided their 'faith' overruled anyone else's *reality.*

And if you say,

"Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him,"

NO.

Someone already told me that.

I said,

Do your worst.

I'm still here, you're still being unjust, and if you think yer Jesus backs you on this, well, that's nothing new, but I won't exactly call it brilliant, how bout.

Mr. Sisk,

Regarding the scripture in Matthew 7 about the false prophets recognized by their fruitage, at Deuteronomy 13:4, 5 God says:
"Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee."

How vital that we stay clear of anyone who suppresses the truth of God's Word or spreads false teachings!

"We shall...keep his commandments." For this is what the love of God means. -1 John 5:3
Thus, some first century followers of Christ in ancient Corinth made very difficult changes in lifestyle in order to 'bear good fruit,' in God's eyes. True Christians hold God's viewpoint over any other. -1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Sadly, some deny God's Word and rather go with the flow of public opinion, perhaps hoping to continue fleecing the flock every Sunday. They thus 'deny the Lord that bought them' and "by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of."

At 2 Peter 2:1-3, God warn against these false ministers,
"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not."

I am a pastor/theologian and recently retired from the Maine State Legislature...I have consistently supported rights for homosexuals and same-sex couples...But there is where the divide between church and state becomes clear...

Unlike the Bishop, I would be skeptical of evaluating fruits of the Spirit on the basis of what I see...The standards of the Kingdom of God seem to be at opposite poles from humanism, making me wonder at my judgment on issues of Christian charity...

On the other hand, our church has no formal membership system...Being congregational in its government, matters of morality and ethics are decided by the community rather than the denomination...This places a higher theological standard on the pastor than following denominational dogma...

Once you move from rights and civil unions to church polity, the parameters are very different...My contention has been that if I preach the Gospel, it is convicting enough without zeroing in on this sin or that sin; this lifestyle or that...

If I should make lifestyles a focus, mine should be the first resignation...

Stan Moody. Christian Policy Institute, author of "Crisis in Evangelical Scholarship" and "McChurched: 300 Million Served and Still Hungry."

----Now however, the issues of gay clergy and gay marriage have been used to divide communities all over the United States---

Well that's YOUR moronic choice isn't it? You sad little bigot.

"However, homosexuals' incessant, narcissistic insistence on preferential treatment for their own kind, even judicially trampling on natural marriage in the process..."

Those damned uppity homosexuals ... how dare they speak up for themselves? They should just silently put up with the treatment they receive, and be glad that they are allowed to live in this society at all. In the good old days, we'd have just rounded them up, tagged them with pink triangles, and shipped them off in train cars to the communal baths for cleansing.

WHO IS THE "FALSE PROPHET" TO WHOM BISHOP SISK REFERS? ST. PAUL IN ROMANS?

I'll put it this way: Judeo-Christianity has been the spiritual glue holding the temporal society of the United States of America together ever since its inception, if only in terms of the general civil society rather than a single offical, government-sanctioned religion. Since the 1960s, a spiritual vacuum -- from which homosexual rights, abortion rights, and racial Balkanization have branched outward -- has ballooned, utilizing political correctness disguised as advanced diversity and tolerance. Just look at good old secular, enlightened Europe, which would sooner reject the promise of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 in the name of a wishy-washy, feel-good postmodern Eutopia:

http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Islam%20Could%20Become%20Europes.html

To be sure, I doubt sincere homosexual activists and other genuine elements of the larger international left anticipated this consequence, BUT by marginalizing Christianity in Europe, they have opened up such a spiritual vacuum that radical Muslims, if not necessarily Islamic terrorists, will only be too happy and eager to fill. Just ask Mark Steyn and Dinesh D'Souza -- however fallacious the latter's whitewash of Muhammad's early exploits of jihad supremacism may ultimately and most likely be as per the fruits of Robert Spencer's search for 'The Truth About Muhammad.'

Cacorn, are you suggesting that if we're not firm about being anti-gay, the terrorists win?

Very well, I stand corrected. That said, I doubt changing "George Washington's church" to "Truro Church" would change anything about my original point regarding moral relativism and its inherent intellectual bankruptcy. Can we really afford to be wishy-washy about any moral issue in the news when Islamic terrorists are still chanting "Death to America! Death to Israel! Jihad and martyrdom for the sake of Allah!" on a normal, regular basis?

G. washington's regular church was Christ Church, Alexandria - about 10 miles away from Mt Vernon and much closer than Falls Church.

Even so, he and Martha often came in on Saturday night and stayed at Gatsby's tavern to avoid the buggy trip on Sunday morning.

The Washington family pew is still marked as such. I've seen it. I haven't been to Truro, but I bet the Washington family doesn't have a pew there.

Cacorn - I believe Clio is more right. I would not rely on Truro's website to give a true picture of how the area was divided up in the 18th century -through parishes - much as Louisiana is still today -instead of counties. Being on the vestry of a parish was much like being a member of a county government. Where George Washington actually attended church was quite a different matter. C.B.

Actually, Clio, according to Truro Church's website, George Washington was a vestryman there starting in 1762. As for the part about affiliation with Archbishop Akinola, the Convocation of Anglicans in North America does operate under the sponsorship of the Church of Nigeria.:

http://www.trurochurch.org/content.asp?contentid=507
http://www.canaconvocation.org/about/

Cacorn, There's so much misinformation in your post. Let's start with one small point: George Washington's Church has not lined up with Akinola. George Washington was not a member of either Truro Church or Falls Church. The two Virginia churches that he rented pews in and attended regularly today go by the names of Pohick Church (Lorton) and Christ Church (Alexandria). The two Nigerian congregations try to link themselves to the colonial parish called Truro Parish (the similarity of name causes confusion), but in fact, neither of the two congregations that left the Episcopal Church has any institutional existence before 1836. By the time the oldest of these parishes was founded G.W. had been dead for 37 years.

Mark,
Simply beautiful! Personal, honest, and healing.
Thank you.

Episcopal Church Bishop Sisk continues to speak of gay people as somewhat other than real, normal, strait Episcopalians who just happen to be somewhere else on the sexuality scale than he is. He frequently refers to them as "children of God," the Indian euphemism for "outcaste," but cannot quite bring himself to see them as fellow adults who can be bad as well as good, as in need of God's grace as he is, and entitled to all the sacraments and sacramentals of the church.

To Sisk, gay people are children to be cared for pastorally, not colleagues on the way who deserve the same justice he would demand for himself if banned from marriage and the fullness of the life of the church. It's all very paternalistic and condescending.

His is a confused conscience that hides behind institutional discrimination and self preservation rather than being a prophetic voice like Manning, Donegan and Moore who called and worked for God's justice for those who are marginalized and cast out.

I am so proud that you are my bishop! The members of the Diocese of New York are blessed by your leadership.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.

Bishop Sisk:

I was all set to post a congratulations to you for allowing your reason to overcome your prejudice. But then I read your post again and saw that it was not actually "reason" but personal experiences that caused your change of mind. In other words, if the gays and lesbians you had come to know had been anything less than exemplary in the spheres of existence that are most important to you, you would not have changed your mind. You would have continued to view them, and the practice of their unchosen sexual identities as things to despise and discriminate against, based on the unfounded dogma of your youth.

So, I guess the people who deserve real credit here are the homosexuals you met who fueled your movement from bigotry to partial enlightenment. Of course, it is also to your credit that you made this course-change, when so many of your fellow Christians will not.

You know, there are some people out there who believe that people should not be discrimnated against because of unchosen aspects of their identities, that victimize no one, based on "principle." That principle is arrived at reasonably and logically, not by chance observation of a few people, or ancient books. These are the people by whom moral evolution, and the promise it offers, will be advanced. The religious fundamentalism of our age is destined for the same dustbin as the witch-burners and heretic-torturors of prior ages.

Perhaps if you think on this a little more, you might find some other aspects of your "faith" that require adjusting.

Cacorn -- hate, Hate HATE, HATE HATE HATE.

Time for a new song -- They will know we're Christians by our HATE

In addition, if homosexuals have a compelling case to make before America and the world, then by irrationally screaming "HOMOPHOBIA!!!" at simple facts such as their inability to procreate and reproduce, rejecting genuine outreach in love that Christ Jesus Himself would have been proud of, and intimidating the courts into siding with them to force secular-progressivism down America's collective throat with absolute contempt toward Judeo-Christians and Judeo-Christianity itself, they have effectively rendered rendered their own case intellectually bankrupt -- before my judgment, at least -- and helped push this country toward anarchy. Don't believe me? Ask preeminent neoconservative David Horowitz, a self-declared "believer that the gay Americans should have the rights of all Americans, including the right to have legally recognized unions.":

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12348

Finally, out of curiosity, is everything homophobia to Gene Robinson, Andrew Sullivan, Rosie O'Donnell, Ellen DeGeneres, and other famous gays and lesbians out there?

I first posted this response to the homosexuality issue on the American Anglican Council's weblog last December, and now that Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn have raised this issue, I feel the timing of this response appropriate to consider yet again, with a few modifications:

If the Episcopalian Civil War is starting up, then by breaking away and affiliating with Archbishop Peter Akinola, George Washington's church fired the first shot into Fort Sumter. Homosexual activists could have held their patience and allowed us traditionalists breathing room to reach out to them in genuine love and compassion. Andrew Sullivan and "Bishop" Gene Robinson could have been true heroes within the homosexual community for deciding to wait for homosexual justice and allow the Anglican -- and other Christian -- traditionalist elites all across the United States to rally around the Bush administration against President Armageddon and his messianic mentor, Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, thus ensuring the Episcopal Church of America a definitive chance to show gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered the Way, the Truth, and the Life and teach them to overcome their systematic perversion of the laws of nature with all the godly empathy that Reverend Canon David Anderson and other orthodox American Christian leaders could muster... all once America had destroyed the ayatollahs, liberated the people of Iran, and thus scored a major victory for the true forces of liberty in World War III. However, homosexuals' incessant, narcissistic insistence on preferential treatment for their own kind, even judicially trampling on natural marriage in the process, has split (the Episcopal Church of) the United States of America DURING A TIME OF WAR APPROACHING A COMPREHENSIVELY APOCALYPTIC SHOWDOWN WITH THE SHIITE REINCARNATIONS OF ADOLF HITLER AND BENITO MUSSOLINI. (I don't even want to hear the usual platitudes about Christian and Islamic advocacy of stoning for homosexuals, and I dare not be deceived by Iran and Syria's sudden willingness to talk directly to us.) In short, which do homosexuals consider more important: their lifestyle or their lives? At least when the AIDS crisis broke out in the 1980s, then-President Ronald Reagan -- my favorite 20th century Republican President of the United States -- was dealing with evil mass-murdering tyrants WITHOUT a messianic death wish. Unfortunately, now-President George W. Bush IS dealing with an evil (aspiring) mass-murdering tyrant WITH a messianic death wish. Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Let us forever remember that history lesson. Perhaps good places to start would be Pastor Stephen Bennett, Exodus International, and the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.

I've changed through the years too, but in the opposite direction from the Bishop.

Years ago I was tolerant of homosexuals and lesbians in congregations and even in relilgious orders. Hate and intolerance just didn't seem appropriate. Now however, the issues of gay clergy and gay marriage have been used to divide communities all over the United States, with remarkably painful results.

So I really no longer have a community of faith. Some communities preach that homosexuality and lesbianism are okay and other communities preach that they are not okay. No place I know of has said it is not important.

Bishop Sisk

"It is this witness, the fruit of their lives, and the fundamental convictions that all good comes from God, that has led me to my belief in the potential blessedness of the lives of gay and lesbian people, as they assume their rightful place within the community of faith, which it is my privilege to serve."

If you get to read this, could you please explain what you mean by "the community of faith." Is it the congregation you serve or a broader group?

Does it include people who have other religious beliefs?

What about those who don't believe in an organized religion?

It would be interesting to read how one reconciles all the issues involving one's religion in its interface with the world at large, not just with respect to gays who share the same faith.

Thanks.

Calling all Episcopal Bishops:

Here are your choices:

Relying on ancient scriptures and tradition or using reason to react to the world around you;

Returning to the dark ages or entering the renaissance.

Congrats to Bishop Sisk and other who have chosen the modern world.

But Beware -- the barbarians are at the door. Please push yourselves a little further to assure a new renaissance.

Notice that the good bishop says that he does not claim a unilateral right to reform the church. At the diocesan convention in November 2006 he killed a a resolution calling on the diocese of New York to reject the General Convention's B033 (a nonbinding resolution passed at the last minute and which says that bishops whose "manner of life" pose a challenge to the larger Anglican Communion should not be approved. It was taken to mean bishops living in same-sex relationships). As bishop he saw to it that no official rites for blessing same-sex couples are developed. Blessings happen but he doesn't want to know about them. Don't ask, don't tell is his position.

He has been a very weak leader. Walking the talk is very difficult for him. We are not even near to developing full religious for all couples regardless of legal sex.

Just think, this could have been so easy for you -- except for a religious indoctrination based on medieval interpretations of ancient texts of dubious provenance (which were themselves derived from bad translations of even older texts of equally unknown provenance).

But I salute you for coming to a viewpoint that is civilized and humane.

Bravo Bishop Sisk, for the ability to adapt your views based on the evidence before you.

I hope someday gays and other misunderstood people can be accepted for their obvious human goodness without it having to have come from Jesus, God or any supernatural being.