October 8, 2011

Today's ordination of the first gay Presbyterian pastor is "an important event in Heaven and on earth."

According to Margie Phelps, of the Westboro Baptist Church, "And it’s our duty as the church of the Lord, Jesus Christ, to come to the scene and remind people of their duty to God, so that’s why we’re coming,"
WBC wrote on their website “Scott Anderson has no hope of heaven, and you know it. Yet, you refuse to tell him the truth and enable him in his sin. God Hates Fags and Fag-Enablers alike — you are all worthy of death (hell).”
The ordination ceremony and the protest are going on right now. New Media Meade is on the scene, with multiple cameras. Stay tuned.

109 comments:

edutcher said...

I have a feeling this has more to do with being Leftier than thou, rather than holier.

Maguro said...

Is it really a good idea to give WBC any more publicity than they already get?

J said...

One can oppose the hysteria of WBC and...yet oppose the ordination of samesex clergy as well. Except in Ann Nuthouse land

Dr.D said...

For those on the road to hell, progress is nothing to praise.

JAL said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rcocean said...

This should be good for about six Andy Sullivan posts.

Mark O said...

Polygamy next stop.

rcocean said...

BTW, what Bible Verse consigns Gays to Hell? And what is the Catholic position?

Just curious.

JAL said...

As someone pointed out recently -- this group of maybe 70 haters who misrepresent the good news of Jesus Christ get more press than the Khilafah Conference in Chicago this past June. (Brought to America courtesy of Hizbut Tahrir. Another wonderful international humantiarian outreach group. /s)

Folks -- our problem is not Fred Phelps and Westboro.

The Khilafah people wouldn't demonstrate -- they would do the deed to send the gays to their "hell" directly.

(Note: There were more a lot more than 70 people at this conference.)

Fred4Pres said...

Gay people don't engage in drama and hype, do they?

Fred4Pres said...

And yes, Fred Phelps has some gay issues himself.

Meade said...

I'm back. Photos being uploaded, ready in 5 or 10 min. Video soon to follow.

Garage was there. Margie Phelps called the cops on him. Garage, if youre reading this from jail, don't worry - we'll take up a collection for your bail.

Class factotum said...

I highly doubt that this is the very first gay Presbyterian pastor ever.

edutcher said...

rcocean said...

BTW, what Bible Verse consigns Gays to Hell? And what is the Catholic position?

Just curious.


Seem to remember something about The Big Guy nuking Sodom and Gomorrah.

As for the Church - hate the sin, love the sinner.

Meade said...

And if you don't need bail, I'll donate the proceeds to the Tea Party.

Paul said...

So the Bible talks about men laying down with other men and that was an abomination.

So how does this 'gay' Presbyterian pastor jib with that? Is he a PRACTISING GAY (if you know what I mean.)

You see there is a difference between being inclined dot be a homosexual and actually acting on those urges.

I suspect the 'pastor' is and this cannot be reconciled with Christian beliefs. You cannot practice an abomination and still be a leader of the very thing that says it's an abomination.

Curious George said...

"Meade said...

Garage was there. Margie Phelps called the cops on him. Garage, if youre reading this from jail, don't worry - we'll take up a collection for your bail."

Maybe...but I would have to post date the check just on principal.

Meade said...

And if the Tea Party doesn't need the money, I'll use it to start the Keep Prince Fielder In Milwaukee fund

Bender said...

The Westboro Baptist Church is awfully repugnant.

And so is giving them free publicity with blog posts.

It is only because other people publicize them that they are able to spread their hate.

Don't be a tool for hatred.

Delete this post.

Chip Ahoy said...

A few years ago I met a gay Presbyterian clergyman at a party. The party was in his honor. He was here to establish a hospice, as I came to understand it, and to fundraise.

Tall guy, dark suit, tiny Presbyterian pin, walked right up to me and began talking idly. And then the moment we were alone he abruptly changed the subject and asked me if I could get him some pot. Why he imagined I could be useful he didn't say but naturally this forced me to interrogate.

He described a manse with a greenhouse on top where marijuana was grown, but now that he was in town for so long he didn't have access.

So reading this took me back to that and to my assumption at the time that he is an ordained minister. I thought all this was already sorted a long time ago.

rhhardin said...

It may not be an important event in Heaven and on earth, but it will probably make a fashion statement.

G Joubert said...

BTW, what Bible Verse consigns Gays to Hell? And what is the Catholic position?

Considering how contentious of a thing it is nowadays, the Bible really says very little on the topic of homosexuality. Which is interesting all by itself.

traditionalguy said...

This issue for a Church is different from the issue for equal standing before the law that most Christians support for gay persons.

Our Constitution is neutral on religious matters and refuses to enforce doctrines of any free exercised church group.

This is a squabble within the PCUSA as to ordination of men and women practicing unrepentant immorality.

There is "the love them all and honor all" side, and then there is the "set an example in leadership qualifications" side of the argument.

Each church should freely exercise their choice here.

The great dissent has arisen because Denominations are trying to forbid free exercise of that choice within the local Churches by inserting property forfeiture clauses in the by-laws of the Denomination and then claiming all churches that ever became a part of the Denomination are bound by it even though they have a 150 year free title to the local church property and never signed up to lose their property.

Redistribution is the only game in town anymore.

YoungHegelian said...

See, this is why a Church needs clerical celibacy.

If the clergy is supposedly celibate, they're not supposed to be having sex with anybody, straight or gay.

Or, if they are, at least they have a strong incentive to be very discreet about it.

Kirk Parker said...

I'm with Maguro. WBC lives somewhere way out past Excitable Andy Land, the more we ignore them the better off we all are.

Jason (the commenter) said...

edutcher: Seem to remember something about The Big Guy nuking Sodom and Gomorrah.

I remember that story, was it for being gay or for trying to force their personal tastes on others?

J said...

Try Leviticus for one.

And also referred to (condemned) in Paul's epistles.

That said Bender's probably correct. WBC shouldn't be given free publicity (even if one opposes same-sex clergy--the proper biblical perspective--whether catholic or protestant. Right, Bend.?)

Paddy O said...

It's causing a massive rift in the PCUSA, if I'm not mistaken, lots of churches are reforming into a new Pres denomination.

"the Bible really says very little on the topic of homosexuality."

There's could be two reasons for this. One is that it doesn't care. But the passages in the Law show that it has an opinion.

The second reason has to do with how Jesus taught. He confronted those issues he disagreed with. So, a lot of the New Testament tends to be about issues that were contentious in the earliest church.

So, the issue likely wasn't very contentious, and given the assumptions of first century Judaism, probably not contentious on the side of being against homosexual behavior.

Meanwhile we get a whole lot on what it means for a Gentile to be a Christian, which isn't close to an issue nowadays.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Leviticus 19:28

Never hear people protesting that. And it's allowed in the military!

edutcher said...

Jason (the commenter) said...

edutcher: Seem to remember something about The Big Guy nuking Sodom and Gomorrah.

I remember that story, was it for being gay or for trying to force their personal tastes on others?


The men of the town demanded to "abuse" Lot's guests.

Their words.

J said...

Not approving of Leviticus,actually--but ....it's addressed.

Americans probably wouldn't care for WBC or ortho-jews like stoning people after they've eaten shrimp or lobster

(note Paddy--the psychotic sockpuppet you were told about is here.See if you can tell which brainfarts are his (he plays left or right depending on bipolar disorder)

Suburbanbanshee said...

Well, if their founder Knox should come back from the grave to call down fire and brimstone, I hope Meade is filming from a safe distance. :)

garage mahal said...

Meade
Back safe and sound. And I really would have given that filthy cunt an earful. And had you not been there recording her the ENTIRE time she was there, I would have. But she called that cop on me because of the kid with the American Flag around his belt loop, draped on the ground, and stepping on it. So I told him to get it the fuck off the ground a few times. These people picket military funerals, they should not be able to go about in a polite society unnoticed. Pacing behind them making them feel uncomfortable is all I could really do without getting arrested. I wanted to rip that flag off that kid's beltloop so bad I could just taste it though.

Titus said...

I don't know which is worse-the fag or the fag enabler.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Jason (the commenter): I remember that story, was it for being gay or for trying to force their personal tastes on others?

edutcher: The men of the town demanded to "abuse" Lot's guests.

Their words.

Doesn't answer my question!

ndspinelli said...

We met some friends from KC in the Keys recently. They related a heartening story involving motorcycle gangs in the KC/Topeka area. These gangs monitor the Westboro Church and then act as bodyguards for the bereaved families. They protect the area around the residences and stay w/ the body @ all times @ the funeral home/church, making sure these mindless, souless people don't bother the funeral or families. So far it apparently has worked well..unlike Altamont.

Class factotum said...

The men of the town demanded to "abuse" Lot's guests.

So Lot gave them his daughters instead. Nice guy.

Paddy O said...

By the by, of these two, it's the Phelps that are the most liable to hell fire.

I think the ordination is misguided, but I think the Phelps are actually evil, exemplifying what it means to use the Lord's name in vain, and for their own gain.

Titus said...

I think it is important to hate the sinner but love the sin.

Tits.

YoungHegelian said...

@Class

Lot offered his daughters because, in the ancient Near East, the sanctuary of guests within the house of their host was a sacred duty.

That Lot offers his daughters instead proves Lot's righteousness, that he will sacrifice his own family rather than violate hist duty as a host and protector.

Clearly, God thought so, or He wouldn't have spared him from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

J said...

Perhaps Paddy.

But the ordination of s-s clergy has gone sort of viral as they say. So much for..Christianity. Many people left the episcopalians and lutherans when lesbian and g*ys were allowed in the pulpit.

Otto said...

I am well over 70 yrs of age and have been going to a fundamental church all my life. I say this to give background to the church's activism towards homosexuality and abortion.Before abortion was deemed legal it was just another sin, nothing more nothing less.Same with homosexuality. Once these two sins have been accepted, it is the church's role to say- not so.As Christians we do not condone sin albeit it may be law.
Sin has consequences per the Bible if you do not repent, but as the Bible says God is the final judge, not WBC, not me and not you.
For all you atheists remember Pascals wager (paraphrasing): If there is a God, I win and you lose, if there is no God no one wins , so what will it be ?:-).
"As for me and my family we will serve the Lord"

multiuseless said...

1 Cor. 6:9, 10 Leviticus 18:22 Leviticus 20:13 Deuteronomy 23:17 Genesis 1:27, 28; 2:24 www.biblegateway.com/

somefeller said...

God hates shrimp!

gutless said...

Even a blind hog can find the occasional acorn.

YoungHegelian said...

@multiuseless,

What about Romans 24-32? How could you leave out Romans?

It's considered a central New Testament text on the status of homosexuality.

J said...

sockpuppet with his usual brainfarts--how many names do you have here today Bubba Belchami? Looks like 7-8.

The story of Lot--assuming it occurred ((little or no evidence exists which confirms pre-mosaic judaism) is not always read ...sexually. It's about usury and sadism.

Meade said...

"And had you not been there recording her the ENTIRE time she was there, I would have."

Guilty as hell, free as a bird?

So you really are something of a thug (albeit non-union) aren't you, Garage? Well, glad my new media work at least kept you out of jail this time.

YoungHegelian said...

@somefeller,

Don't go there with the stupid equivalencies between the dietary and moral laws from the Torah.

You think both Christians and Jews are too fucking stupid to figure this out in 2000 years?

From the Jewish side, only the Jews are bound by the Law, but Jews and Gentiles are bound by the "Noahide Laws". Homosexuality, under the rubric of fornication, is forbidden under the Noahide Laws to Jew and Gentile.

For the Christians, the moral laws of the Jewish tradition are still in effect. It isn't okay to dishonor your father and mother, or to murder because the Jewish Law is not binding on Christians. The removal of the dietary laws for Christians (Acts 10:10-17) doesn't cover any moral obligations

purplepenquin said...

True Christians...those who follow the teachings of Jesus...don't buy into this "homosexuality is evil" tripe. It is the Saulites (those who follow the teachings of the false apostle who re-named himself "Paul") and Old Testament-thumpers that get all worked up into a frenzy about it.

Freder Frederson said...

So the Bible talks about men laying down with other men and that was an abomination


The Bible also says that eating shellfish is an abomination. I have never seen protesters from WBC outside of Red Lobster.

YoungHegelian said...

@PurplePenquin

Most of us live in a world where there are 1.3 billion Christians, who strangely enough, honor St. Paul as the 13th Apostle, and the founder of spreading the Gospel to the Gentiles (i.e. all of us).

If you would like to make up theological fantasies about what might have been, and have yourself a Church of 1, knock yourself out.

J said...

Young Bagelian ,putting on his bogus christian schtick today and belching away. Just stick to Robert Cook, joto. That's you. You don't know fock about theology just like you don't know fock about Hegel (or computing).

The wise in heart will receive commandments: but a fool who idly chatters shall fall. Proverbs 10:8

YoungHegelian said...

@J,

If there's something I've said that isn't straight line Christian teaching, then say so, J, instead of dropping your bon mots.

You seem to have a brain. Too bad you don't have the discipline to make good use of it.

purplepenquin said...

f you would like to make up theological fantasies

I ain't making it up. Read the Bible for yourself and you'll see that it is Saul, not Jesus, that condemns homosexuals.

Jesus is about love. It is the followers of Saul that hold up signs which say "God Hates"

Paddy O said...

The sexuality and shellfish argument is an interesting one. Because it seems like a good comparison.

The difference is that the New Testament makes a very big deal about changing the dietary law restrictions. But it seems to affirm the teachings on sexuality.

As a conservative Jewish man, for the most part, Jesus followed both, and made a pretty big deal about those things he was pushing against.

YoungHegelian said...

@PurplePenquin,

There is no religion of "the sayings of Jesus". That's not what Christianity is or ever was. Even among the radical Protestant reformers who wanted to get back to the early Church, no one wanted to leave out the Epistles. There would be almost nothing left if they did.

Oh, and by the way, as a matter of biblical scholarship, the Pauline Epistles are the earliest Christian texts we have, and were written before the Gospels. It's your "sayings of Jesus" that are the later additions.

Paddy O said...

of course you're making it up PP. The letters of Paul are earlier than the Gospels, and the earliest church compiled those documents together. Which means we only encounter Jesus through the teachings of the earliest church, of which Paul was seen as a key contributor. And the connection is ever greater if you're using Luke.

And of course Jesus was about love. So was Paul. Both Jesus and Paul also have very distinct moral teachings.

While a reductionistic Jesus might be quite different than a reductionistic Paul, a complete reading of the two together show they're on the same page.

At the same time, you're not entirely making it up as the separation of Jesus and Paul is quite, quite old, but always depends on a misreading of both the Gospels (we don't have an independent writing of Jesus) and the letters of Paul.

ricpic said...

Cafeteria Christians pick and choose,
For Real Christians stick and lose
The love of the people beautiful,
But get to keep their souls dutiful.

J said...

Young Bagelian , why not link to a blog or profile or some writing ,coward?? Maybe because you don't want people seeing your mormon-atheist drivel . Stick to the Book of Moron, hijo de puta

No "bon mots" (btw, im not the frenchman, trash--you are Bella-amie,,french jew)--called reason and logic, little man

YoungHegelian said...

@J

I just read your last post. Uhh wow.

Seriously, as human being to human being, even though I have insulted you in the past, and you may take this as another insult, it's not meant that way.

You really should seek psychiatric help. I can't promise it'll help, because even if I knew you personally, I'm not a psychiatrist. But, at least, it's a start.

This is one of the most truly pluralistic blog spaces on the net, and you have worn out your welcome here. That says something.

Here we are talking about Christian love & Christian hate, and maybe it's just time, I try out some of the Christian charity I've read so much about. Please reach out and get some help.

J said...

@YoungBagelian

Seriously , masonic hick scum, STFU.

Simon said...

rcocean said...
"BTW, what Bible Verse consigns Gays to Hell? And what is the Catholic position?"

The Catechism puts it this way:

"2357 … Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. …

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination … constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
"

(Footnotes and internal quotation marks deleted.)

Trooper York said...

Dude you never want give a flithy cunt an earful.

It's really hard to clean up afterward. Just sayn.

Palladian said...

Christianity, like everything else under heaven and on the earth, is used as a blunt cudgel by barely evolved primates (of both religious and irreligious varieties) to beat each other bloody and senseless.

J said...

You need help, Bubba the sockpuppet-troll. When the Server Admin coughs up your 50 bogus s-names, that will be proven.

Mark O said...

A day without "J" is like a day without smallpox.

Palladian said...

"A day without "J" is like a day without smallpox."

Smallpox was eradicated.

edutcher said...

Jason (the commenter) said...

Jason (the commenter): I remember that story, was it for being gay or for trying to force their personal tastes on others?

edutcher: The men of the town demanded to "abuse" Lot's guests.

Their words..


Doesn't answer my question!


It did, but some people enjoy playing dense, so I will make it as explicit as possible - Yes, for their blatant sexual immorality - in this case, wanting to abuse other men.

Class factotum said...

The men of the town demanded to "abuse" Lot's guests.

So Lot gave them his daughters instead. Nice guy.


It must be "Let's Us Lefties Show How Stupid We Can Be On Althouse Day".

No, he didn't. He offered his daughters to the mob because the laws of hospitality are inviolate (the Muzzzlims the Lefties love so much believe the same thing, BTW), but the mob wasn't interested. They wanted the men.

Simon said...

Paddy O said...
"As a conservative Jewish man, for the most part, Jesus followed both, and made a pretty big deal about those things he was pushing against."

In you want to look exclusively at what he said, in today's terms, Jesus might be thought a paleoconservative: "The Jews have gone desperately astray, and I'm going to give you some teachings that will help you get back on the path." But it's always dangerous trying to place political labels on Jesus, and in any event, the entire argument misses the point: Jesus wasn't just a teacher, but the Christ. What he said matters, but it's what he did that matters even more: The sacrifice of the cross that freely offers us the hope of reconciliation if we will take up the cross and follow him. By getting sucked into an argument over the correct characterization of His teachings, you risk giving away the modernists' real claim, which is that Jesus was just a man, no different to the prophets, who also tried to call the Jews back to the path.



YoungHegelian said...
"Most of us live in a world where there are 1.3 billion Christians, who strangely enough, honor St. Paul as the 13th Apostle, and the founder of spreading the Gospel to the Gentiles (i.e. all of us)."

Fourteenth, if not further back. The first instance of apostolic succession is found almost at the beginning of Acts, before St. Paul's conversion, which makes St. Matthias the thirteenth apostle. We could say that St. Paul was the thirteenth to be called personally by the lord, but then you start getting into the kind of difficulties that over time create splinter groups like "baptists" who can in turn splinter a thousand more times until they spam a "westboro baptist" which can criticize yet another splinter group called "presbysterians." I don't think God hates anyone but he surely isn't thrilled with what Luther, Calvin, and Plantagenet did.

Don't you think there would be a terrific Dan Brown book in which an enterprising and handsome [insert profession] discovers a plot to [insert macguffin here] that's run by a secret society, the episcopal successors of Judas and their acolytes, who have been corrupted since the very beginning à la Slitherin House in Harry Potter?

Simon said...

Palladian said...
"Christianity, like everything else under heaven and on the earth, is used as a blunt cudgel by barely evolved primates (of both religious and irreligious varieties) to beat each other bloody and senseless."

So are golf clubs and baseball bats, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist for a greater purpose. The abuse and misuse of things doesn't vitiate them.

J said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Freder Frederson said...

I don't think God hates anyone but he surely isn't thrilled with what Luther, Calvin, and Plantagenet did.

I'm so glad you know the mind of God and have discovered the one true religion.

My God, you are an arrogant and pretentious asshole.

Palladian said...

"So are golf clubs and baseball bats, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist for a greater purpose."

Golf clubs and baseball bats are real.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Jason (the commenter): Doesn't answer my question!

edutcher: It did, but some people enjoy playing dense...

Were the people of Sodom and Gomorrah punished for being gay or for forcing their personal preferences on others? You gave an example where BOTH were the case. My question is NOT answered.

Simon said...

Freder Frederson said...
"I'm so glad you know the mind of God and have discovered the one true religion."

It isn't a stretch once you understand the history. It's not like I'm a member of a recently-formed Church that claims to have figured out the truth. We're talking about the Catholic Church. It is different. Christ founded his Church on Peter, commissioning him and the apostles (and, by necessary implication, their successors—a point that some protestants have newly rediscovered, NPR noted this week) to shepherd it. And shepherd it they have, in every generation since then, in an unbroken line of succession. Every other church and ecclesial grouping is, as a simple matter of historical fact, either an offshoot from the mother church or an oddity that has picked up the Bible (i.e. the collection of books discerned to be scripture by, you guessed it, the Catholic Church) and innovated a new religion based on their reading of it. And that is the fundamental difference between the Catholic Church and every other: You are free to believe in the claims of Jesus or not, but it is absolutely undeniable, as a matter of historical not theological fact, that within a few years of his death, there was an organization called the Catholic Church whose bishops and lay members were proclaiming Jesus as Christ, an organization that in the ensuing centuries carried that word to the entire world, and which exists today in fundamentally the same structure—particular churches under the leadership of bishops in communion with the bishop of Rome, Peter's successor—preaching the same gospel. This ought to give non-Christians and non-Catholic Christians alike pause.

J said...

I don't think God hates anyone but he surely isn't thrilled with what Luther, Calvin, and Plantagenet did.

That's far too complex for the YoungBagelian mormon Simon. Or the rest of the Tweektards.

That said...the plantagenet Kings were catholic, mostly (perhaps nominally). Wyncliff was...unique was he not.

edutcher said...

Jason (the commenter) said...

Jason (the commenter): Doesn't answer my question!

edutcher: It did, but some people enjoy playing dense...

Were the people of Sodom and Gomorrah punished for being gay or for forcing their personal preferences on others? You gave an example where BOTH were the case. My question is NOT answered.


Yes, it was.

Simon said...

J said...
"That's far too complex for the YoungBagelian mormon Simon. Or the rest of the Tweektards.

It may have been too complex for me to handle safely, too. My recollection had placed Henry VIII in the Plantagenet line but that's not correct, is it? He was the second of the Tudor line.

Palladian said...

I sure hope God is smarter than edutcher...

somefeller said...

I sure hope God is smarter than edutcher...

I think that's a safe hope.

J said...

Yes. Fatboy Henry VIII shut down the monasteries, broke with the Pope, started the Church of England, accepted Calvinism etc.--mainly because the Pope wouldn't let him divorce one of his women. He is still persona non grata to the RCC, is he not.


I thought you were referring to the Lollard controversy..Wycliff translated the bible into English--without Church approval, and nearly started a protestant-like rebellion in 1380 or so.

jamboree said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul said...

Leviticus 20:13: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.


Romans 1:26-28: For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 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 their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.

1 Timothy 8-11: Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Note: Sodomites being homosexuals.

So the bible is not exactly 'silent' on homosexuality.

And even though Jesus said harlots would enter the kingdom before some others THEY HAD TO REPENT THEIR SINS before doing so.

For being a harlot was a grave sin.

Simon said...

@J No, lol, just mangling my history. I think the crown had little reason to express interest in Wycliffe's activities (the kings, presumably, were in a delicate position: Flattered by the authority Wycliffe would give them but aware that publicly enjoying it would risk trouble with Rome).

I don't think Henry VIII has ever or could ever be rehabilitated, but he's still read. His Assertio Septem Sacramentorum—for which, ironically enough, the Pope awarded him the title "Defender of the Faith"—has actually just been retranslated and reissued by a Catholic press within the last year or two.

Christopher said...

Let's be honest the Presbyterian Church is a non-entity in the midst of a massive break up.

A large percentage are going back to Catholicism, a large percentage are splitting from the main Church, and the rest are split between the irreligious and those for whom politics decide their religious beliefs.

Simon said...

Paul said...
"Note: Sodomites being homosexuals."

"Sodomites" being a translation of masculorum concubitoribus—literally "bedfellows of men," in turn translating the Greek ἀρσενοκοίταις. Remember, the Greek is the authoritative text, and the vulgate is the only expressly-approved translation (Council of Trent, 4th Session), so reasoning from the scriptures has to be in the compass of those texts. Translations are a great place to start, but always check the underlying text when doing detailed study.

Simon said...

By the by, some people contend that because the word ἀρσενοκοίταις is a neologism, we can't take its content from the etymology alone ("man-bedder"), and should be less literal. And that's fair, but then you have to take it in context. We meet a word that literally means "man-bedder" in the context of a list of very bad things that men do (murder, fornication, kidnapping, and perjury), so whatever those man-bedders are doing, it obviously isn't something good. Now, what could two men do in bed together that would be bad—something, perhaps, frowned-on elsewhere in scripture? Surely no one is going to contend that it is a sin for two men to simply share a bed in the strictly literal sense. Brothers in large families have surely done so throughout history. It must allude to something they do while in bed. What could that be?

J said...

Simon-- WASPs don't like to be reminded that the Bible was written in Greek (including the Old Testament--septuagint), or of the ancient latin translations/Vulgate. Pagans! They think like George Washington wrote it, or at least Luther in some good white tongue like German.
("God" itself a debatable translation for Deus/Dios)

Palladian said...

"It must allude to something they do while in bed. What could that be?"

From all the tight asses in this thread, it seems none of you could actually posit an answer to that question.

Peter Hoh said...

Somehow, despite the very clear teachings of Jesus on divorce and remarriage, we've come to terms with it.

Quite a few denominations ordain pastors who have been divorced and remarried. No state has a constitutional amendment prohibiting such people from entering into marriage.

Perhaps those who use Biblical injunctions to justify discrimination against homosexuals could explain why divorced and remarried heterosexuals are not held up to the same standards.

J said...

Why, it's something you and your goat boy do, Palla the Ahhtiste.


Heh heh

Palladian said...

The Phelps clan hate Mormons and Jews and fags, and seem to have a poor grasp of proper English. Hmmm...

J said...

Ah you're a Lit. guy? No, Palla, you're just an ordinary hick and don't know TS Eliot from your trannie palsies on yr fave Demo sites.

I wasn't defending WBC either dumbass..opposing samesex ordination does not mean approving of the Phelps,except to dimwits such as yourself (yr bunko artiste site bookmarked as well, joto)

Jason (the commenter) said...

Jason (the commenter): Were the people of Sodom and Gomorrah punished for being gay or for forcing their personal preferences on others? You gave an example where BOTH were the case. My question is NOT answered.

edutcher: Yes, it was.

There are two (at least) possible interpretations of the Sodom and Gomorrah story. I want to know why I should choose edutcher's interpretation over my own. edutcher has not presented evidence which overcomes the ambiguity of the biblical text and his interpretation is therefore suspect.

Paul said...

Simon,

Are you saying all the passages I posted are false? Are you saying the Bible condones homosexuality?

Yes or no.

Greek or Hebrew the Bible still says it's an abomination. So there is no excuse to have a 'gay' pastor other than to turn one's back on Christianity.

Paul said...

Palladian,

Sure have.

Leviticus 20:13: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.

And when it says, 'as with a woman' they ain't thinking pillow talk.

Palladian said...

There's a lot of stupid shit in old books, Paul.

Simon said...

Peter, they are. Your statement isn't correct as far as the Catholic Church is concerned—which is telling, isn't it?

Paul, no I wasn't saying that they were false. How'd you get that out of my comment?!

Peter Hoh said...

Simon, I haven't noticed any Catholic bishops speaking out against the right of divorced persons to marry.

Peter Hoh said...

And to clarify, I'm talking about the right of people to get a marriage certificate from the state -- not the right to a religious service.

Peter Hoh said...

Of course, the Catholic Church has their own bureaucratic way of working around divorce, don't they?

It just costs money.

I wonder if they could provide the same service to gay couples who want a church wedding. Pay a few grand, go to a bunch of hearings, and get a piece of paper that says one of the guys was never really a boy.

Or something.

Simon said...

Peter, actually they do to an extent, and you must realize that divorcees who remarry are in a state of mortal sin and are not eligible for communion. Annulment, to which I assume you allude, isn't the same thing as a divorce—it's a determination that a sacramental marriage didn't happen in the first place.

Personally I agree with you that some pastors and bishops in the postconciliar Church have tended to restrain themselves in teaching things that might give offense, but that's in the pulpit; you're talking about in the public square, and of course there's no reason to speak aggressively about that issue in that context since it presents no pressing issue of public policy—unlike, say, abortion or gay marriage.

Peter Hoh said...

Re.annulments -- if the marriage didn't really happen in the first place, what's to be done about the couple's children? Do they go "poof" in a cloud of logic?

I'm not suggesting that the Catholic Church can't weigh in on the topic of same-sex marriage. They bring a theologically informed policy position to the public square, where it can compete with other policy positions. I still get to point out that the arguments they are using to prohibit same-sex marriage are pretty much the same ones that would be used to prohibit the remarriage of divorced persons.

So far as I can tell, same-sex couples are being held to a higher standard than are divorced persons. I don't see why there should be a distinction.

Peter Hoh said...

I'll put it more bluntly: if Newt Gingrich and his most recent affair partner can get married, I think that my friends Tom and Russ, who've been together 20 years, ought to have the same privilege.

Simon said...

Peter Hoh said...
"I'll put it more bluntly: if Newt Gingrich and his most recent affair partner can get married, I think that my friends Tom and Russ, who've been together 20 years, ought to have the same privilege."

That borders on a category error. It's like saying "the Octomom is a terrible mother! If she can birth, I think my friend Russ ought to be able to give birth." No one would make such a claim because everyone recognizes that it's absurd. And the only reason your suggestion doesn't sound equally absurd—I emphasize sound, because in fact it is—is because the groundwork for the SSM movement was done by transforming "marriage" from a noun to a verb. Marriage is an institution, ordained by God, in which one man and one woman are joined; it has always been thus, and when the state has sought to change it (for instance, by imposing a requirement that the man and woman must be of the same race, or by allowing a man to be joined to more than one woman), the attempt has been aggressively repudiated. Marriage is an institution into which one enters, quite obviously, on the institution's terms. But in recent decades, there has been an extremely succesfull attempt to redefine marriage as a verb: Marriage is something that you do. And once you've achieved that change, you eliminate the strictures of the institution, and you've made it much harder to dispute that people shouldn't be able to "marry" with whomever they please. Whether you phrase it as a right or a privelege, to talk about two people having the prerogative to marry rather than to enter into marriage, you're positing that marriage is just an activity that two (or more!) people may do on their own terms rather than a preexisting thing which they may do on its terms or not at all.

We live in an age where people are anxious to define the world around them instead of accepting the world as they inherited it, to liquidate all institutions and rebuild them with a free hand as this generation see fit. Wasn't it Lasch who wrote The Culture of Narcissism?

This is why it's so bizarre when SSM proponents suggest that they aren't trying to redefine marriage, by the way: It may be a beneficial redefinition to some people, but it's ineluctably a change.

Peter Hoh said...

The ability to give birth is biologically limited to one gender. While you and the Catholic Church may choose not to recognize them as legitimate, several states and countries have determined that same sex marriages are marriages.

To claim that these states and countries have made a category error, and thus close the argument, is the more sophisticated version of sticking one's fingers in one's ears, closing one's eyes, and saying "I can't hear you" over and over.

I don't claim that same-sex marriage isn't a change, but it's a change that is happening because we have already redefined marriage. You've outlined one way of looking at that redefinition. I think I've linked to Fukuyama's take previously, but here it is again.

Let's be clear that the groundwork was laid by straight couples, not gay rights activists. And a key bit of legislation was signed in 1969 by none other than Ronald Reagan.

You wrote: when the state has sought to change it (for instance, by imposing a requirement that the man and woman must be of the same race, or by allowing a man to be joined to more than one woman), the attempt has been aggressively repudiated.

How do you explain the successful imposition of bans on the marriage of first cousins? Currently most U.S. states ban the practice, with some regarding it as a criminal offense, while it remains perfectly legal in 18 states. From what I can tell, the bans on this practice were generally initiated between 1850 and 1930. Texas added its ban in 2005.

If the point of marriage is to create safe, secure, and lasting relationships into which children may be born, then marriages like Newt's ought to be seen as a significant violation of marriage. Not so long ago, some states actually had laws that prohibited such marriages.

Simon said...

Peter Hoh said...
"The ability to give birth is biologically limited to one gender."

Right, and being a man and being a woman are each biologically limited to one gender each. To be sure, only women are physically capable of giving birth; a man is physically capable of placing a ring on another man's finger, but what does that prove? We are physically capable of murder, but that doesn't mean that it's right.

"While you and the Catholic Church may choose not to recognize them as legitimate, several states and countries have determined that same sex marriages are marriages. To claim that these states and countries have made a category error, and thus close the argument, is the more sophisticated version of sticking one's fingers in one's ears, closing one's eyes, and saying 'I can't hear you' over and over."

The South has determined that blacks are property. To claim that these states have made a category error is a more sophisticated version of sticking one's fingers in one's ears, closing one's eyes, and saying 'I can't hear you' over and over.

In both preceding instances, I think you are confusing physical force with moral legitimacy. Fallen humanity does many things that successive generations look back on with bewilderment.

"I don't claim that same-sex marriage isn't a change, but it's a change that is happening because we have already redefined marriage."

Surprisingly, many do!

"Let's be clear that the groundwork was laid by straight couples, not gay rights activists. And a key bit of legislation was signed in 1969 by none other than Ronald Reagan."

What legislation was that? No fault divorce?

"How do you explain the successful imposition of bans on the marriage of first cousins?"

I don't explain it. I know nothing about it and make a policy of not talking about what I don't know. I do know that the Church has long imposed limits on how closely related spouses can be; I infer that such a limitation is within what one might call her zone of managerial authority over the sacraments, and I presume that civil actors have followed those limits.

"If the point of marriage is to create safe, secure, and lasting relationships into which children may be born, then marriages like Newt's ought to be seen as a significant violation of marriage. Not so long ago, some states actually had laws that prohibited such marriages."

That's one purpose of marriage, but I don't know that it's the only one. I'm aware that some people will argue that homosexual relationships are sterile by definition and that marriage includes a procreative component, but to be quite frank I think those arguments are desultory—they're rationalizations, they're ways of avoiding the real issue. The real issue isn't procreation. The real issue is that God created men and women and instituted marriage as a unity in which they might join. Remember: Man needed a companion; if we can be less PC and more literal with the text, a helper, and if we can be more realistic, man was a blithering idiot and needed a woman to whip him into shape. It was for this reason that God created woman—not because man lacked children, but because man lacked a woman.

We get tied up in this procreation business because of the Supreme Court—because laws now need a "rational" basis, which is in reality a secular basis. So if we talk about the real issues, we may lose, and a lot of Christians believe that we are called to prevail. We aren't. I believe that we are called to try. Success is not up to me; nothing that I can do of my own means can make the truth prevail. All I am asked to do is all that I can do. What is up to me (to mangle a description of Rehnquist's philosophy from, I think, Rick Garnett) is to determine what is true and defend it vigorously.

Peter Hoh said...

Simon, you made the claim that laws that restricted marriage to members of the same race were "aggressively repudiated."

On what basis do you make that claim? These laws were in place in some U.S. states for more than two centuries. When Loving was decided, the majority of Americans still disapproved of interracial marriage. If I recall correctly, the majority of Americans polled continued to disapprove of such marriages for another 15 to 20 years.

Yes, Reagan signed the first no-fault divorce law in the U.S.

When mocking my objection to your category error claim, you skipped the "and thus close the argument" part. You are certainly welcome to make your argument that proponents of same-sex marriage have made a category error, but that isn't sufficient to win the political argument.

Regarding the marriage of first cousins, you wrote: I presume that civil actors have followed those limits.

Not exactly, but there's plenty of fuzziness to go around. Here's what someone who describes herself as a licensed canonist has to say:

But as for two first cousins… the Church’s position is that they are forbidden to marry only by ecclesiastical law, not by divine law. For this reason it is canonically possible to receive a dispensation that permits two first-cousins to marry validly in the Catholic Church. (This assumes, of course, that it is legal under civil law in the area where the marriage is to take place—and in the U.S., some states permit it, while others don’t.) Link.

Variety of U.S. state rules here.