Thursday, September 2, 2010

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Want to advertise on Stand Firm? Click here for rates and info

Position on gays shatters union of 2 Methodist churches

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 • 9:58 am


As has been consistently pointed out, the issue of sexual expression between same genders is inherently and inevitably church-dividing because the gospels that serve as the foundation for the two differing moral views are antithetical, while at the same time the sexual issue is of primary importance to both sides. Neither side will say that the issues are of secondary importance, because it is a matter of primary importance to both gospels.

From the Providence Journal:

Karen Jones, a member of Open Table who had been asked to help the congregation extend its outreach to people of all orientations, said in a recent interview that there was so much enthusiasm among so many of the 150 black, white and Hispanic congregants attending the Mother’s Day service, she didn’t notice there were some who did not go to Communion.

“So many people came up to me afterwards to say it was a wonderful service,” she said in a later interview. “A very elderly traditional Methodist woman said it was the most beautiful service she had been to.”

It was only after Jones got home that afternoon and saw some of the e-mails on her computer that she realized not everyone was happy. At least three very large families, Haitian and Liberian, including one headed by one of the church’s lay leaders, wrote that they did not think the service was appropriate.

Nehemy Theodore and his wife, Rosemith, who have lived in the United States since moving from Haiti in 1992, told Jones and the pastor that they and their four children would no longer be attending the church, even though Nehemy had been one of the three top lay leaders.

Rosemith Theodore said in a recent interview that she was shocked that an openly gay man had been allowed to speak from the pulpit, especially since she had always been taught to believe that the Bible condemns the practice of homosexuality as a sin.

To suggest that God would accept the practice is disturbing, she said. “We don’t want our kids listening to that. Who knows what they will pick up?

“We don’t want those ideas to get into their heads.”

Mrs. Theodore estimated that “25 to 30” people left the church after the incident, including the family of her sister, Medith Bergiste, who used to travel to services from Woonsocket with her husband, Raymond, and their four children. Since the incident, the Theodores have been attending First Haitian Baptist Church, which has weekly services just over the Cranston line.

It didn’t take much time, either, for members of Abundant Life to react. By June, the primarily Hispanic congregation moved back to its old building and sent a letter to the superintendent of the United Methodist Church for the Rhode Island-Southeastern District. It complained that in allowing a gay man to the pulpit, the Open Table of Christ had violated the denomination’s Book of Discipline.

Comments:

Sad very sad. But both sides cannot be right. One is wrong and I for one would align with the side that is the Truth which is contained in scripture. I believe that the Theodore’s have it right.

[1] Posted by TLDillon on 11-11-2009 at 10:26 AM • top

Boy, they’ve got the playbook and they’re running it by the numbers, down to the phony, “we were shocked at the reaction” of turning over the pulpit and Eucharist to unrepentant sodomite.

Here’s a tip-off:  Avoid any parish with the words “open,” “inclusive” or “People’s” in the name.  You’re sure to be boarding a bullet train to heresy and perdition.

[2] Posted by Jeffersonian on 11-11-2009 at 10:38 AM • top

An interesting article, with the Hispanic angle adding some spice.  I agree with Jeffersonian (#2), but what makes this story so poignant is that both UMC congregations thought of themselves as socially progressive (especially about immigration issues, it seems).  But as Sarah rightly noted in her introduction, that concern for social justice was built upon radically different theological foundations and mutually exclusive worldviews.

This report may be quite incomplete about the response of the local Methodist DS (i.e, District Superintendent) to the complaint lodged against the leaders of the Open Table church, but if this very brief description made here in passing is reliable, it seems that the DS swept it under the rug and refused to take action.  Given that we’re dealing with liberal New England here, that unfortunately wouldn’t surprise me.

David Handy+

[3] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 11-11-2009 at 03:13 PM • top

Those parochial Methodists!  They crack me up!  You would think they have no ability to listen to their African brethren that ECUSA/TEC.

The ignorance claimed here by the promoters of normalization of sodomy is wilful.  Especially since they cannot be ignorant of the international congress of Methodist results on THE issue.  And, look, surprise, surprise, it rips a congregation apart AGAIN.  By their fruits ye shall know them.

[4] Posted by dwstroudmd on 11-11-2009 at 03:15 PM • top

Yet another corrupt example of corrupt clergy born of corrupt seminaries trying to pull a fast one on the unsuspecting laity.  If all the clergy truly believe this sort of stuff I wish they’d get with the program and just become Unitarian or Metropolitan Community Church.  What’s discussed here has no place in ANY Scripturally-based, Christian denomination. 

Wake up, Pew Potatoes, before it’s too late…

[5] Posted by Passing By on 11-11-2009 at 03:37 PM • top

I agree with the comments that wherever the subject is promoted, there is division.  However, keep in mind that those of us who uphold Scriptural truth are dismissed as being the ones who would have resisted Jesus.  That is, any resistance we offer to their interpretation can be safely ignored because Jesus faced the very same resistance & thus they are on the side of the angels.  It is truly perverse.

[6] Posted by conley220 on 11-11-2009 at 03:38 PM • top

I believe many (not all) who choose to participate in a homosexual lifestyle are DECEIVED. 

That doesn’t make it right, but it does explain why you can take Holy Scripture and point to the 15-20 places in scripture where this behavior is condemned and they still don’t “get it”.

There are others who know the truth and have chosen the homosexual lifestyle anyway.  They are frankly the more dangerous, because they will move heaven and earth to “rationalize” their behavior.

[7] Posted by B. Hunter on 11-11-2009 at 03:48 PM • top

I adore your posts, Sarah, but you left out the most important part of the article in your quote:

“The Rev. Santos Escobar, the pastor of Abundant Life, says his church members knew about the January vote, but became concerned only after Open Table members held a Mother’s Day service in the spring at which they invited a gay Episcopalian to speak from the pulpit about his experiences as a Christian gay man.

“The speaker — Patrick Campbell, music director at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Pawtucket — did more than speak. He was also invited to join Open Table’s pastor, the Rev. Duane Clinker, at the altar and distribute Communion.”

Thanks again, TEC!

[8] Posted by Romkey on 11-11-2009 at 04:43 PM • top

Romkey, as you note, being in communion with ECUSA/TEC has its consequences.  Obviously this “pastor” has learned nothing from the ECUSA/TEC experience except how to divide his parish and his dnomination.  This is a direct corollary of the NEW THANG GOZPELL (c)and has produced the same result whoever has followed it.

It was bad enough that Methodists were de-based Anglicans, thanks to the English bishops failure to provide bishops for the colonies and Wesley’s provision of oversee-ers, but now they intend to be as debased as the Episcopalians whose bishops distort the faith once delivered.

[9] Posted by dwstroudmd on 11-11-2009 at 05:48 PM • top

He said he became more convinced of this after seeing the anger on the faces of some of those opposed to his church’s stance, an anger that he says reminded him of the anger against blacks during the civil rights era.

They were ANGRY. Their faces were ANGRY, that’s why they split. They are ANGRY Bigots who would have been against African Americans in the civil rights era, even the Theodores. That’s why they came from Hate-ee.

I sure hope Obama’s HateSpeech bill includes hateful facial expressions as a form of HateSpeech. It would be a shame if the departing congregation were allowed to use a loophole like that in order to spread hate without getting fined, or whatever the penalty is.

[10] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 11-11-2009 at 06:18 PM • top

He said he became more convinced of this after seeing the anger on the faces of some of those opposed to his church’s stance, an anger that he says reminded him of the anger against blacks during the civil rights era.

This statement is so revealing.  In a single phrase, the speaker delegitimizes his opponents as bigots, and convicts them by guilt through allusion.  There isn’t even logic involved in this statement.  It’s more like wish fulfillment.  The speaker sees what he expects to see, and hears what he expects to hear.  Would any angry reaction draw such a condemnation?  No.  One can imagine the descriptions of righteous anger if the speaker had been David Duke instead of a gay Episcopalian.  Instead, we have a speaker reading his own understanding onto the reactions of his opponents, and drawing the inevitable conclusions that must proceed.  But then we read ...

Jones ... said she believes her volunteer work helping the church in its efforts to become a “reconciling” church has been one of the most important things she’s done.

Reconciling whom?  One party has just been cast out the door by the “reconcilers” as hopeless bigots.  There is no reconciliation possible on this issue.  There is not even a possibility of reasoned exchange.  The liberal position can only be opposed, and eradicated.  It’s best to admit this openly.  At least then we will be spared the temptation of using Orwellien-speak like “reconciling church.”

carl

[11] Posted by carl on 11-11-2009 at 07:12 PM • top

B. Hunter @ 7
That doesn’t make it right, but it does explain why you can take Holy Scripture and point to the 15-20 places in scripture where this behavior is condemned and they still don’t “get it”.

WOW! I am amazed how that number continues to grow. Could you be so kind as to list those scriptural references?

Thanks

[12] Posted by David |däˈvēd| on 11-12-2009 at 01:37 AM • top

Oh, RIGHT.  Because Leviticus and Romans aren’t enough.

I get it.  It’s the number of times the sin is condemned that matters.  I forgot God is a numerologist.

[13] Posted by heart on 11-12-2009 at 06:46 AM • top

try porneia on a search engine for Scripture ...

[14] Posted by dwstroudmd on 11-12-2009 at 07:22 AM • top

David |däˈvēd |
It doesn’t matter how many references we point out.  Even though the Bible consistently presents sexual acts as morally significant and the ONLY sexual acts that are blessed or good are heterosexual, and homosexual acts are ALWAYS shown as bad.  From Adam and Eve to Jesus’ talk on marriage and EVERY other time it is discussed.  You don’t believe what the Bible is clear about.  How do you decide what is right and wrong?

[15] Posted by JustOneVoice on 11-12-2009 at 08:27 AM • top

How many times does murder have to be condemned?  By my count it is far less than than the number condemning homosexual behavior.

[16] Posted by Fidela on 11-12-2009 at 08:42 AM • top

Sorry guys, I have been reading the Bible going on 35+ years and was unfamiliar with there being 15 - 20 places in scripture where this behavior is condemned, either in Spanish, my first language, or in English. So I am asking the maker of said claim to list them for me, for my personal enlightenment. Because he would not make the statement if it were not true. Would he? No, I did not think so. So I would like to have the list and be read up on them for the next time I encounter such a sinner.

[17] Posted by David |däˈvēd| on 11-12-2009 at 10:11 AM • top

David, but isn’t it true you don’t care what the verses say anyway?  Aren’t you going to continue doing what you want to do, no matter what Scripture says on the subject, whether there are 2 references or 30?  So what would be the point of providing them to you?  You’ve already decided self-gratification has priority.

[18] Posted by Phil on 11-12-2009 at 10:34 AM • top

I claim no special knowledge of this beyond Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:18-33 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, and the numerous other references and inferences about moral and amoral sex and general prohibitions about being slaves of sensuality instead of Christ. (Not that we don’t all have our lapsed moments.)

But if you take dwstroudmd up on his suggestion and go someplace like http://www.biblestudytools.com and look up “porneia,” you will, as I did, discover a definition and some general citations (illicit sexual intercourse adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18 sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11) and an additional list of 25 citations in KJV. There’s also a reference to 26 instances of “fornication” in the NT.

[19] Posted by Romkey on 11-12-2009 at 10:35 AM • top

And then there are these: Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24; 1 Kings 15:12; 1 Kings 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7

Search engines are amazing!

It is interesting to me that so many people (and I hope I’m not judging them) work so hard to pretend something that’s written in the Bible—both in specific language and the general sense of its message—isn’t really there.

I wish someone could call a good, old-fashioned ecumenical council, examine various parties—KJS comes to mind—on their theology, and then decide whether we have discovered a new creed, or whether some of these folks are in fact heretics and anathema.

[20] Posted by Romkey on 11-12-2009 at 10:46 AM • top

But guys, B. Hunter has already done the work. B. Hunter (sorry I know not their gender, so I cannot use pronouns) knows these 15 - 20 references surely to have mentioned them. I should not have to ferret out the information myself. It is readily available here, right? Help me with this. Give me the list and I shall start studying.

[21] Posted by David |däˈvēd| on 11-12-2009 at 10:53 AM • top

Romkey, the topic is homosexuality. The statement about the 15 - 20 references that condemn this behavior applies to the topic; homosexuality. I need those specific references. Please do not cloud the issue by changing the subject to other sexual sin. Please stay on topic; homosexuality and the 15 - 20 references that condemn it.

[22] Posted by David |däˈvēd| on 11-12-2009 at 10:56 AM • top

But why, David?  You’ve already decided your pleasure comes first.  What would be the point of you “studying?”

[23] Posted by Phil on 11-12-2009 at 11:05 AM • top

But why, David?  You’ve already decided your pleasure comes first.  What would be the point of you “studying?”

Sorry, have we met? Do I know you? Do you know me? Are you making giant assumptions about me?

I encountered information of which I was unaware. I am sincerely interested in knowing the 15 - 20 Bible references that condemn homosexual behavior. I was not aware that there were so many and so am honestly and sincerely asking for the list, no more, no less. I have no hidden agenda.

[24] Posted by David |däˈvēd| on 11-12-2009 at 11:11 AM • top

David, you post frequently on other websites where you make your approach to the subject very well known.  Knock off the games - you’re smarter than that.

[25] Posted by Phil on 11-12-2009 at 11:15 AM • top

David |däˈvēd| Just out of curiosity, at what number of verified verses would you start to believe them?  Do you have a threshold in mind?

[26] Posted by Paul B on 11-12-2009 at 11:16 AM • top

Paul B., I am familiar with the few that are referred to as the clobber passages. I had never seen such an inflated claim as 15 - 20. So I am sincerely curious to know what references have been added to the traditional list. Again, there was no hidden agenda, just curiosity.

[27] Posted by David |däˈvēd| on 11-12-2009 at 11:31 AM • top

David, you’ve studiously ignored dwstroudmd’s comment at #14. Do you really think the word porneia (= sexual immorality) has no content? That it is just an empty label? Or do you think it refers to something? Maybe you just haven’t been reading your bible carefully these 35 years. You do honestly want to know what the bible teaches on the subject, otherwise you wouldn’t be asking these questions, correct?

[28] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 11-12-2009 at 11:33 AM • top

Too many open ended questions SJ SP. I am not interested in a new discussion of sexual immorality, which is too broad. I was interested in the expansion of the list of references condemning homosexuality. Which I now believe to have been an over exaggeration. So I shall cease to ask for the list.

Nothing more to see here. Please move along.

[29] Posted by David |däˈvēd| on 11-12-2009 at 11:45 AM • top

Search engines are just to tough, apparently, aren’t they, David?  Yet you seem computer literate.  Give it a whirl.
Anyone so slothful as failing to evaluate the data on their own when they can verify it by finding it themselves at the cost of a few keystrokes is not really interested.  You may take your time, of course, or may continue to refuse to acknowledge the data.

By the by, you could look up “justice” for a quick comparison of importance if numbers of times a word appears precisely as you would like as a matter of relative value.

Happy keyboarding or slothfulness as you choose!

[30] Posted by dwstroudmd on 11-12-2009 at 11:47 AM • top

I hate it when I get suckered in to a faux discussion.

[31] Posted by Romkey on 11-12-2009 at 12:07 PM • top

David

We all know how this will play out. 

We can quote many passages that condemn homosexuality.  You will disregard them because you think they don’t apply to homosexuality or at least your new improved understanding of homosexuality.  What’s the point.  We both know the Bible never says homosexual acts are good, they are always presented as bad, and the only sex that is considered good is a subset of heterosexual acts.

Although I know you will discount them, here are some I found with a quick (not exhaustive) search.

Mt 15:19     For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Mr 7:21     For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

Rom. 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

Ro 1:29     Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

1Co 5:1     It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.

1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

1Co 6:13     Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.

1Co 6:18     Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

1Co 7:2     Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

2Co 12:21     And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.

Ga 5:19     Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

Eph 5:3     But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

Col 3:5     Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

1Th 4:3     For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:

Re 9:21     Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

Re 14:8     And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

Re 17:2     With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

Re 17:4     And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

Re 18:3     For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

Re 19:2     For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.

Lev. 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.“1

Leviticus 20:13 - “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

[32] Posted by JustOneVoice on 11-12-2009 at 12:13 PM • top

Romkey, in its origin it was not intended to be a faux discussion. Thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately, my curiosity was peaked by an over broad representation. And now because there is no actual list, it is my slothfulness that is a point of contention.

Dr. Stroud, I am aware of the “conservative” position. I think that you are aware of the “progressive” position. I have not been persuaded by your (pl.) beliefs, and I find that usually you (pl.) are not persuaded by mine. It is a tedious conversation to cover more than once, and I used to argue it for years. I am weary of batting my head against that wall and respect that you are as well. It was the idea of perhaps a new approached that originally peaked my interest in this post. But now we are all aware that there is no new ground here after all.

God bless you all. Enjoy your day.

[33] Posted by David |däˈvēd| on 11-12-2009 at 12:18 PM • top

Just so, David.  So we’re back to what I said way up thread: you’re going to continue doing what you want to do, no matter what Scripture says on the subject, whether there are 2 references or 30.  There was no point in providing any references to you, and so, it was a faux discussion, after all.

[34] Posted by Phil on 11-12-2009 at 12:31 PM • top

you’re going to continue doing what you want to do, no matter what Scripture says on the subject

Or the inverse!

[35] Posted by David |däˈvēd| on 11-12-2009 at 12:45 PM • top

Or the inverse!

Of course, I do that in many ways: I am a sinner.  One thing I won’t do is demand of the Church and/or try to deconstruct it in a way that it conform itself to my sinfulness, as you and others have raised to an art form in ECUSA.

[36] Posted by Phil on 11-12-2009 at 01:07 PM • top

Got your list, David.  So, what do you say?  Even got someone else to do the research.  Way to go!!!  You could be big on Wall Street.

Ciao!

[37] Posted by dwstroudmd on 11-12-2009 at 01:12 PM • top

It was the idea of perhaps a new approached that originally peaked my interest in this post.

David, how many “new approaches” are there to understanding statements like ‘X is immoral’ or ‘X is sinful’?

I find that usually you (pl.) are not persuaded by mine.

Actually, what are your beliefs?
a) Jesus contradicts Paul.
b) The Bible is a flawed human book, a product of its time, so I can ignore whatever passages I want.
c) The Bible teaches that sexual ethics is a matter of ceremonial law, therefore those passages no longer apply.
d) Passages about 2 men are actually about pederasty. Terms not in the original text such as temple prostitution can be gratuitously inserted to alter the meaning.

But now we are all aware that there is no new ground here after all.

Please consider that perhaps you haven’t understood the old ground, or that you are unreasonably resisting it (ie. it is not a matter of your not being convinced).

[38] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 11-12-2009 at 01:23 PM • top

Phil, my church is the Anglican Church of Mexico. It has been over 14 years since we were a part of TEC and had even the remotest influence upon it.

Dr. Stroud, you are really big on trying to turn the tables here. I have no obligation to research anything. I naively expected one of two things to happen;
1. I was given an actual list
Bk Chap:vs
Bk Chap:vs
Bk Chap:vs
or
2. Sorry David, I was over broad, and there are actually the same 6 or 7 references that we have all historically disagreed upon.

[39] Posted by David |däˈvēd| on 11-12-2009 at 01:24 PM • top

same 6 or 7 references that we have all historically disagreed upon.
LOL Who ‘disagreed’ with them before, say, 40-50 years ago?

[40] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 11-12-2009 at 01:26 PM • top

This was a bit disappointing I have to say.

#7 makes a factual claim - that people are ignoring 15-20 places where Scripture condemns homosexual behaviour (context before and after the sentence in question makes it very clear it is homosexual behaviour and not immorality in general that is on view in his claim).

David then asks the fairly reasonable question:

WOW! I am amazed how that number continues to grow. Could you be so kind as to list those scriptural references?

Thanks

It’s a bit snarky, and the ‘be so kind’ and ‘thanks’ could well be ironic.  But whether David’s genuinely interested (as he later claims) or is playing ‘gotcha’ the question is valid.  I mean, seriously?  Does anyone think that the anti-blessing homosexual case wouldn’t be strengthened if there were 15-20 unambiguous references?  (Not whether our opponents would be persuaded, but whether the case would be strengthened. Personally, I’d love that many references.  Exegetical fancy footwork looks just plain implausible when it has to deconstruct that many references.)

It is a simple question to either back up a claim or implicitly withdraw it.  It’s easy to do: 

“Sorry, typed that a bit hastily, I meant x, not 15-20” or,
“No, you’re right it’s not 15-20, but I’d still say that it’s more than enough.”

It doesn’t need people accusing him of being lazy and telling him to use a search engine, or telling him to look up ‘justice’, or claiming that they don’t need to give an answer because he won’t submit to Scripture anyway.  That just comes over as uncivil and churlish, not as a godly expression of ‘tough love’ to a sinner.

It also doesn’t need people offering poor answers, such as offering a bunch of texts that condemn male shrine prostitutes.  By itself, that condemns homosexual behaviour about as much as texts condmening female shrine prostitutes condemns heterosexual behaviour - unless you accept that marriage must involve one party from each gender, which is also<i> not common ground. 

Similarly references to ‘porneia’ are no more <i>specific references to homosexual behaviour than references to ‘sin’ are.  Those are broad categories, so you can’t invoke them to prove that homosexuality is included within the category.  It’d be like a reformed person arguing that every reference of ‘charis’ (grace) is a reference to predestination because ‘charis’ has content to it.  It is classic begging the question.

For every person who comments on a thread, remember that there are a lot more who read and who never ‘appear’ by speaking up.  Most of them are still more or less not solidly on the team but many of them could be won over.  But few will be won over if standing up for these issues appears to also involve being a jerk.  So when you respond to someone like David, keep in mind the big audience of uncommitteds and that treating someone shabbily will, for most people, outweigh the strength of a good argument.  You win the point but lose the person.

If those who accuse David of playing games are right, then he has well and truly won this round by asking a valid question, and persisting with it courteously while multiple commentators played the man rather the ball. He ‘wins’ to onlookers not already committed to one side or the other even if you think you had the best argument.

David, since no one else has said it yet.  The news of 15-20 references clearly and explicitly condemning homosexual behaviour is news to me too.  I wouldn’t bother looking up thesaruses on porneia or using search engines unless #7 offers something more.  I think he or she probably just mistyped or misremembered the figure, but I honestly don’t know.

Thanks for being so civil in the face of provocation, whatever your motivation was.  And if, as it seems, you are on the wrong side on this question, I pray that God grants you a better grasp of his will to go with the gift of civility that you have demonstrated here.

[41] Posted by Levor on 11-12-2009 at 01:53 PM • top

You’re right, Levor.

David: I stand by the content of what I wrote, but I apologize for my snarky tone.

[42] Posted by Phil on 11-12-2009 at 02:07 PM • top

Sexual immorality is sexual immorality is sexual immorality.  Porneia is porneia is porneia.  Unfortunately for David, homosexuality is porneia is sexual immorality.  All the statements of the Scripture on the matter of porneia subsume homosexuality as a matter of sexual immorality.  If you wish to claim the teaching of Scripture on any aspect of sexual immorality you get the whole.  To attempt to subdivide it by the tactic David et alia routinely use denies the whole. 

Find a single reference by the exact word that says smoking tobacco is bad, that carbon-offsets are required, or even that any government has to provide health care to its subjects.  Just one.  If I choose to so argue as outlined by those wanting to eschew the whole cloth, I submit that I could argue you may do any drug you like to any degree because it is not verbotten in the precise word I employ.  There is no mention of carbon offsets in scripture so why should I worry about the planet to that degree.  And no government is told by Scripture to provide health care.  If you wish to argue that those are some how moral imperatives you will have to do it from some basis other than precise wording in Scripture. 

This line of argumentation should be met with an appeal to the whole tenor of Scripture, should it not?  “Am I my brother’s keeper?” certainly has some relevance to both carbon offsets and health care issues.  IN PRECISELY THE SAME FASHION all of Scripture’s teachings on sexuality have immediate application to the issue of homosexuality.  To limit scripture to David’s allegedly disputed passages is merely gilding for a non-argument.  Much like limiting justice to only those Scriptural references where the exact word is used cannot be very useful in establishing a government’s responsibility for, say, regulation of the pharmaceutical industry, or even more broadly, the profit motive.

Why it is an imposition for David to learn a little from a search engine is beyond me.  It seems he could benefit from a broader knowledge than his data base currently contains.  Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.

[43] Posted by dwstroudmd on 11-12-2009 at 03:37 PM • top

#43 I basically agree with your broad points here.  Even with that agreement I still question that pointing to texts that condemn ‘immorality’ is a valid response to a claim asking for the texts that specifically condemn homosexuality.  I could run your argument by taking out the word ‘sexual immorality’ and replacing it with ‘sin’ and so point to every text that condemns sin and hold it up as a condemnation of homosexual behaviour.  That’d be both profoundly true and almost entirely useless as an answer to the question.

And responding to a request for a list of passages by suggesting someone learns how to use a search engine?  That has at least the appearance of churlishness, even if not the intent.  The onus on someone making a claim is to back it up when asked, not for the person wanting evidence for the claim to be told to do it themselves.  That’s just basic to civil discourse, ‘even the pagans’ do that.

[44] Posted by Levor on 11-12-2009 at 03:50 PM • top

hi Levor, I’d agree with #43

Similarly references to ‘porneia’ are no more <i>specific references to homosexual behaviour than references to ‘sin’ are.
... It’d be like a reformed person arguing that every reference of ‘charis’ (grace) is a reference to predestination because ‘charis’ has content to it.  It is classic begging the question.

With respect this misses the point. It’s true a statement that puts the set for a member of the set can’t be said to refer to a particular member (I saw a vehicle go by <> it must have been a motorcycle or it must have been a car). But a statement that is about the set as a whole *does* refer to all the members of it, otherwise it is meaningless (‘Vehicles must travel 55mph or under’ applies to cars, motorcycles, trucks, etc. Same with ‘Flee fornication’).

Those are broad categories, so you can’t invoke them to prove that homosexuality is included within the category.

But that’s not what anyone was doing. David never raised the issue of ‘proving’ what categories include homosexuality, he wanted a list of verses that condemn it, which the verses in #32 do. AFAIK, no one, not even the revisionists deny that homosexuality is condemned as a sin. When they argue like David, they typically claim there is only a small number of verses that *condemn* it. But if they *condemn* it, it’s because it is considered a sin.

[45] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 11-12-2009 at 04:13 PM • top

#45 SpongJohn SquarePantheist: you’re quite right I missed that aspect of the argument.  I have to say I really like it.

It’s a new thought for me, so I’m ‘thinking aloud’ at this point, I’m not sure that I agree with you at this point:

AFAIK, no one, not even the revisionists deny that homosexuality is condemned as a sin.

If you are right at this point, then you are right, it’s a darn good argument: you agree that the Bible condemns homosexuality is a sexual sin, so everytime the Bible condemns sexual immorality or even sin in general it is condemning homosexual behaviour at that point.

But my impression is that revisionism is a multi-headed hydra (or a bowl of formless jelly, take your pick).  They agree on the outcome (it is ok for us to accept homosexual behaviour as morally valid) but offer a range of arguments that contradict each other as to the reason for that.  Some argue that the Spirit is doing something new, some argue that modern homosexuality isn’t the same as biblical homosexuality, and some argue that some parts of the Bible are reflections of cultural norms and so are ‘in the Bible’ but are not authorative.  I’m sure you can add your own favorite example of special pleading.

Some (it seems to me) argue that there is no clear text that condemns homosexuality, and argue that other strands of Scripture either implicitly, or by necessary consequence, approve of some kinds of homosexuality.  At #39 David seems to indicate that he does not consider the six or seven passages to actually condemn homosexuality, and elsewhere he indicates that he rejects the kind of argument from the whole tenor of Scripture that dwstroudmd and I both think the case rests on.

I don’t think he is alone among revisionists in those views.  David does not think that the Bible does consider homosexual behaviour to be sin in and of itself.  So I think, as much as I like it, the argument doesn’t work (even though I think it is true).

[46] Posted by Levor on 11-12-2009 at 04:36 PM • top

From http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html#17
“...Approving same-sex relationships is detrimental to employers, employees and society in general.

In fact the following verses should be kept in mind when dealing with non-believers.
•“Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person,” (Col. 4:5-6).
• “But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith,” (1 Tim. 1:5).
You do not win people to the Lord by condemning them and calling them names.  This is why God says to speak with wisdom, grace, and love.  Let the love of Christ flow through you so that the non-believers can see true love and turn to Christ instead of away from Him.”

[47] Posted by Captn Mike on 11-12-2009 at 05:38 PM • top

“Open hearts, open minds, open doors.”

Jump aboard, otherwise you’re hardhearted, closed-minded, and exclusive!

[48] Posted by RevRL on 11-14-2009 at 09:57 AM • top

Levor at #46,

I think you may be reading too much into David’s position. His only argument seems to be that scripture forbids homosexual sex on 6-7 occasions, rather than 15-20. I would be happy to concede that: 6-7 times seems sufficient.

[49] Posted by MichaelA on 11-17-2009 at 01:38 AM • top

MichaelA, at #39 David gave an indication of his view of those passages:

...and there are actually the same 6 or 7 references that we have all historically disagreed upon.

For most of the thread David ignored most attempts to engage him in debate.  At #33 he explained why:

Dr. Stroud, I am aware of the “conservative” position. I think that you are aware of the “progressive” position. I have not been persuaded by your (pl.) beliefs, and I find that usually you (pl.) are not persuaded by mine. It is a tedious conversation to cover more than once, and I used to argue it for years. I am weary of batting my head against that wall and respect that you are as well.

He wasn’t interested in having the debate again.  So he ignored, as best he could, what people were saying - which meant he gave little in the way of statements about his position because that would invite further debate.  That wasn’t him accepting that those 6-7 passages really do authoratively condemn homosexual behaviour, it was him holding that only those 6-7 passages appear to discuss the issue at all - that they are (in his mind) the crux passages. He was interested (whether really or as a rhetorical stance for his ‘gotcha’) in whether those 6 or 7 could be expanded to 15-20.  But that wasn’t conceding that the original 6 or 7 really do condemn all kinds of homosexual behaviour today.

When you say:

I would be happy to concede that: 6-7 times seems sufficient.

I firmly agree.  In fact, along with Luther in his debate with Erasmus, I would even say that one time is sufficient.  I’d even go further and say that even if there were no passages the point could still be firmly established from the whole tenor of Scripture. 

Ultimately my confidence in the divinity of the Son does not rest on a handful of verses that appear to call him ‘God’.  It rests on the kind of arguments that Athanasius, Hilary of Potiers, and the Cappadocians made back in the fourth century from the whole tenor of Scripture.

Sexual expression ultimately rests on a similar integrated reading far more than deconstructing seven verses to create space for an ethic straight out the sexual revolution.  As dwstroudmd complained back in #43, revisionist arguments insist on a super-literal reading (where does Jesus explicitly condemn it?) to create space for a super-abstract ethicising (are these relationships characterised by ‘integrity’ ‘faithfulness’ ‘love’? - well those are the only marks of a valid relationship).

It’s not that I think a knock-down argument can’t be made.  Just that this wasn’t the thread to run it, or at least, not in response to David’s question.

[50] Posted by Levor on 11-17-2009 at 06:04 AM • top

To DavidSH at #39, all I can say to you is “Hear the Word of the LORD.”

This is what Jesus said in John 14:15, John 14:21 and to the pharisees in John 5:38-47

Hear the Word of the Lord of the Church to the Churches in I Corinthians 6:9-20 and in Romans 1:18-32.

There are many more than 6-7 verses here. 

IN FACT, DavidSH, the whole of Scripture stands as ONE against your position.  NO PLACE in Scripture EVER approves of sexual immorality. 

Moreover, sexual morality is a core and primary doctrine of Christianity.  Human sexuality is a priority for God, one that God addresses repeatedly and continually in Scripture.  Our sexual conduct is vital and essential to our whole well-being and thus to God.  In fact, sexual incontinence is a symptom of spiritual, emotional and relational wounds and brokenness.  (that God is able to repair Hebrews 7:25)
See Matt+Kennedy’s sermon here:  http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/24999

In Genesis, the consequence of the Fall was evidently sexual or Adam and Eve would not have covered just their genitalia; they have covered the hands that touched the fruit, the mouths that ate, the heads and hearts that disobeyed or their whole beings.  Later in Genesis, Abrahamic covenant was circumcision…symbolic of a voluntary return of human sexual practice, desire and identity as well as progeny to God’s control and dominion.  Throughout Scripture, the message is the same…Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, the Prophets, Gospels, Epistles, from Revelation 2:14-23 to Revelation 19:2
Nowhere does Scripture exempt or exclude anyone from God’s proscriptions on the basis of desires or perceived identities.  God gives us all new desires, new identities.  He makes us one new nation or people by the new birth and the Blood, Cross, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

There is simply no credible case that will defend and condone sexual immorality and sexual irresponsibility which has resulted in divorce, and the shedding of innocent blood (51 million abortions in the US alone) which are another of God’s most hated human actions. 

Finally, DavidSH,  Think about Romans 1:32 very carefully.  And Leviticus 26.  Read the whole Bible and let it speak as a whole… Do not try to squeeze a teaching out of it that suits your own opinions and wishes.  Let the Bible read you.  Scripture has authority over us, not vice versa.

[51] Posted by Floridian on 11-17-2009 at 06:44 AM • top

Levor,

Thanks. Next time I will hear what he has to say for himself.

[52] Posted by MichaelA on 11-17-2009 at 05:41 PM • top

Levor, thank you for understanding perfectly what I felt no one else understood. Although we certainly stand on opposite sides of this subject you at least appear to listen and respond to what someone else has said, instead of plowing ahead with your preconceived agenda, as have others.

I would throw out but one observation. Your current beliefs about acceptable human sexual behavior regarding gays & lesbians is colored by the very existence of the 6-7 passages in question. As a psychologist I do not believe that had those verses never existed that your current beliefs would still be the same. And for you to say one way or the other would be disingenuous, you cannot possibly know, because you cannot honestly remove the influence of these passages on your current thinking on the matter.

As far as the 6-7 passages in question, as you know and state, in the words of my friend the Rev. Tobias Haller, “I disagree with [the] assertion that the Bible itself condemns homosexuality. It does no such thing, except in flawed and culturally biased translations.”

[53] Posted by David |däˈvēd| on 11-17-2009 at 06:28 PM • top

Ah, David |däˈvēd|

Even without Scripture and Judeo Christian tradition, clinical medicine, science research, police, CDC, social and health agency statistics all predict higher rates of negative outcomes such as physical injury, violence, multiple diseases, suicide, depression, emotional disorders, crime, drugs, emotional and relational instability, general unhappiness and early death for persons who engage in homosexual behaviors. 

Why would a loving wise holy Father God approve of that for anyone?

[54] Posted by Floridian on 11-17-2009 at 07:04 PM • top

Moreover, the more accepting and affirming of homosexuality a community is, the greater statistical incidence of negative outcomes.

[55] Posted by Floridian on 11-17-2009 at 07:07 PM • top

Tobias Haller has either been doing some seriously powerful substance or has a mind set to ignore theological and factual evidence.  Or both.

[56] Posted by Floridian on 11-17-2009 at 07:13 PM • top

David,

Levor, thank you for understanding perfectly what I felt no one else understood.

You are very welcome. 

I would throw out but one observation. Your current beliefs about acceptable human sexual behavior regarding gays & lesbians is colored by the very existence of the 6-7 passages in question. As a psychologist I do not believe that had those verses never existed that your current beliefs would still be the same. And for you to say one way or the other would be disingenuous, you cannot possibly know, because you cannot honestly remove the influence of these passages on your current thinking on the matter.

That’s an interesting angle.  I pretty well can’t do anything other than agree that I don’t truly know why I hold the beliefs I do on this or any other subject.  I don’t know my own heart, partly because I think human beings are a mystery to themselves even without sin, and certainly now that sin is here our hearts deceive us constantly. 

I also, as you say, can’t say for sure what would be the case if things were different, if say those 6-7 passages weren’t there.  The technical term for knowing what might have been is middle knowledge, Jesus displays it in Luke 10:

13"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you.

But I think it is safe to say that he does so as one of his divine perogatives. Human beings do not, and cannot, have middle knowledge. We are bound to the world that is, and cannot have knowledge of the worlds that might have been.

However, if I cannot know such things regarding myself, I find it difficult to accept that you could know me that well.  Even if I’m a much better writer than I think I am and have thoroughly revealed myself in my intermittent comments on Stand Firm, and you are a prince among psychologists in your insight into human nature, I think you overplay your hand when you say:

I do not believe that had those verses never existed that your current beliefs would still be the same.

I can’t but agree with your earlier statement:

Your current beliefs about acceptable human sexual behavior regarding gays & lesbians is colored by the very existence of the 6-7 passages in question.

I’m pretty sure that is right.  The existence of the passages does colour my beliefs.  But to say categorically, or even with any probability, that I wouldn’t have this belief if they didn’t exist?  I don’t think you know my heart or what might be in such a hypothetical world any better than I do.

For the record, I have strong views about the following matters, none of which are grounded in clear verses, but all of which I think are biblical:
1. Necrophilia is sin.
2. Gambling is sin.
3. Human rights is not a good way to construct a biblical ethic.  But if you are going to go that way, the American Constitution is incorrect in defining rights only negatively (assuming the recent ‘Hobbes’ thread here is correct in its assertion to that effect).  Biblically, ‘rights’ seem to be connected to positive obligations, not just negative ones.
4. Governments don’t steal when they implement taxes.  Even if those taxes are intended to redistribute wealth.

The fact that I do have strong beliefs that I think have biblical warrant even without 6-7 verses to point to, at least raises the possibility that my views on homosexual behaviour might not be substantially different even if those 6-7 verses were not there.  I think my self-perception that my view on the matter does not depend on those verses has some solid ground to it.

As far as the 6-7 passages in question, as you know and state, in the words of my friend the Rev. Tobias Haller, “I disagree with [the] assertion that the Bible itself condemns homosexuality. It does no such thing, except in flawed and culturally biased translations.”

I don’t know your friend.  I’m sure that if he is a friend of yours he is probably someone worth knowing.  And I will assume that he has good reasons for his stand that you’ve quoted.  I firmly disagree with him. 

I think that, not only does the Bible explicitly condemn homosexuality in a number of locations (let’s say….6 or 7 places smile  ), the entire teaching it gives about the nature of sexual relationships, marriage, the relationship between God and Israel and Christ and the Church, do more than just condemn homosexual sexual relationships, they completely exclude it from serious consideration. 

Thanks for your thoughts - as you say, we definitely are on opposite sides of the question.  If you’d like to take things further, I’m happy to discuss things more.

[57] Posted by Levor on 11-17-2009 at 07:34 PM • top

As a psychologist I do not believe that had those verses never existed that your current beliefs would still be the same. And for you to say one way or the other would be disingenuous, you cannot possibly know, because you cannot honestly remove the influence of these passages on your current thinking on the matter.

But David, aren’t you being disingenuous by saying one way or the other? There are all sorts of interesting meta-questions here that you would probably not be willing to look into. If you assume the verses are completely arbitrary and that if only they were never written things would be different, you are assuming the moral intuition was created ex-nihilo (by the whim of Moses?). But is this our common experience of moral intuitions? Do you really think humans would never come to recognize moral truths even if they were never explicitly taught them? All I’m asking is think it over. Your side often preaches about being open minded. I’m saying don’t be too close minded yourself to think about these questions.

[58] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 11-17-2009 at 07:57 PM • top

Although we certainly stand on opposite sides of this subject you at least appear to listen and respond to what someone else has said, instead of plowing ahead with your preconceived agenda, as have others.

David, respectfully, the same could be said of you! I am not being combative in saying that, just pointing out that differences of opinion do not per se mean that only one side has a preconceived agenda.

As far as the 6-7 passages in question, as you know and state, in the words of my friend the Rev. Tobias Haller, “I disagree with [the] assertion that the Bible itself condemns homosexuality. It does no such thing, except in flawed and culturally biased translations.”

You are entitled to that opinion, no doubt about it. Please excuse those of us who don’t find it defensible!

[59] Posted by MichaelA on 11-17-2009 at 08:01 PM • top

SJ SP, I am not sure that what I wanted to say in English came out as what I know that I was thinking in Spanish.

I was not trying to claim some psychological insight into Levor from our brief encounter here in this thread. I was trying to state that as a psychologist, having studied human behavior in both psychological and sociological viewpoints, that it is impossible for us to try to claim that we would know or believe a certain thing when other things which very definitely shaped our having arrived at what we know or believe is removed from our experience.

Michael, I was trying not to shift into my preconceived agenda and failing at getting others not to as well. It seems that Levor was the only one who backed up far enough from the page to get the overall view which allowed him to see that.

My friend, the Revd. Tobias Stanislaus Haller, BSG, is the vicor of St James Fordham, Bronx, NYC, NY and the Convener of the National Association of Episcopal Christian Communities. He recently authored Reasonable & Holy; Engaging Same Sexuality. He has a blog regarding his book Reasonable & Holy; The Blog

[60] Posted by David |däˈvēd| on 11-17-2009 at 11:39 PM • top

Dear David, 
As much as I would like to agree with you, I cannot, nor can I agree with your friend, Tobias Haller, for the sake of my conscience and for the sake of truth. 
Why? 
Because - I have seen in people very close to me and in my own life the destructiveness and pain that sin creates.  I come from a family that has had generations of losses and traumas that lead to identity confusion and disorientation, addictive and compulsive behaviors. 
By bringing people into my life who knew, spoke and lived in the truth of God’s word, my life was turned around.

Sin means a behavior or thought or attitude that does not conform to God’s Word.  We often just think of sin something fun and pleasurable that makes Daddy mad and the Commandments as a multitude of impossible and unreasonable rules that we always messs up trying to follow, so we just won’t try.  It is helpful to think of the Commandments as Danger!!! signs from a loving Father.  Sin can always be translated ‘harm’.
We all know in our hearts that sin brings shame.  Sin comes from harm we have received and brings harm, shame, guilt, increasingly until it takes over our lives and changes us negatively.  Sin of any kind, done by us, to us, even witnessed, always creates harm, trauma, results in a negative and painful outcome that must be dealt with by the redeeming power of the love of God through His Word and in His Christian Body. 

It is really scary for a pastor, like Tobias Haller and other Episcopal bishops and priests, to decide to defend, rationalize and bless sin/harm.  Scripture teaches that a pastor or teacher are more responsible, but any Christian is responsible, culpable for not warning the person or for misleading another person into sin/harm.  We become guilty partakers of the same sin/harm if we do not tell the truth (God’s truth). 

When we condone sin/harm in ourselves and others, we depart from the foundational truth of God and lose our orientation and stability.  It is as though our inner gyroscope has lost its callibration and our inner transmitters are tuned to the wrong frequency instead of to God. 

Only repentance, God’s blessed gift, and returning to the arms of The Father and learning to follow God’s word with restored instruments (with a renewed heart and mind. Romans 12:1-2) will lead us in the way of Love, Truth, Life and freedom, peace, joy.  Confession is coming into agreement with God about sin, its entangling disorienting destructive consequences, about sin’s grievousness to God because he loves us and hates what harms us and deciding to surrender, entrust, commit all of ourselves to Him and realigning with God’s good redeeming plans and purposes. 

That is the long version definition of sin, true confession and repentance.

Trying to do life our way just doesn’t work.  John 15:5
That’s all we have been trying to convey to you.  If there is any anger, it’s anger at the enemy of God who is trying to keep you from life and freedom.

Believe me, not one other person on this thread wants to see you fail, fall, give up, live in sin/harm.  We are pleading and praying for you and want only GOD’s best, His eternal joy, freedom and peace for you.

[61] Posted by Floridian on 11-18-2009 at 06:22 AM • top

David,  One more thing.  I apologize for my anger with Pastor Haller.  As you know, as a psychologist, underneath anger is fear. 

My anger comes from the fear and horror that people will be eternally harmed and led to perdition by the deception that Pastor Haller believes and is preaching and publishing.  Just because something is published or believed, does not make it true.

II am angry and fearful because I have seen and experienced the harm that comes when pastors do not teach, preach and lead people in real truth and true love and do not guard the sanctity of life.

[62] Posted by Floridian on 11-18-2009 at 06:28 AM • top

Hi David,

I understand that those trained in psychology are prone to reductionism. That tendency is apparent in your assertion above regarding the irrelevancy of scriptural texts to shape an individual’s belief.

I am sure that you have already formed your opinion on this matter and found the relevant research to support your opinion so there is really no use arguing the point.

But, just to make a counter assertion—I am not trying to persuade—there are many many many things that scripture clearly teaches that I would rather not believe. I really do not want to believe that God commanded Joshua to destroy entire people groups in the promised land. I do not want to pray for the Bishop of Central New York or his attorneys. I do not like to go out of my way for other people. Why? I’m selfish and self-centered and basically, I often, most of the time, love my sin more than I love Jesus. And yet, thanks be to God, who has redeemed me and saved me, I know that the words of scripture are true and that I am bound by them whether I like them or not. There are numerous things I do and believe about God despite—not because of—my personal desires and opinions.

I think scripture is truly God’s word. And for that reason I recognize that my desire to believe and do things contrary to what the bible teaches cannot and should not be allowed to shape my faith or my behavior.

So, anyway, your reductionist assertion…“well you would believe this even if it weren’t for the particular verses that you think say it” is simply false.

[63] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-18-2009 at 06:52 AM • top

Read my posts again friend Matt. I write the exact opposite to what you just now claim that I wrote.

“well you would believe this even if it weren’t for the particular verses that you think say it”

I hope this is a case of bad paraphrasing caused by your apparent misunderstanding of my position and not a deliverate misrepresentation of fact, because this is not a quote of anything that I wrote above.

Dr Stroud and Levor posited that even were the 6-7 passages that they believe condemn homosexuality were not in the Bible, that they would still arrive at the same consideration opposing same sex sexuality because they assert that the whole tenor of scripture points them to that conclusion.

My point is that that consideration is at best naive and at worst disingenuous because they do not/cannot have the slightest inkling about what they would believe if something that contributes to their beliefs had not been present to color and shape their beliefs, because of the level at which it is present and colors and forms what they believe presently.

[64] Posted by David |däˈvēd| on 11-18-2009 at 07:31 AM • top

Hey Matt
Your comment to David:

So, anyway, your reductionist assertion…“well you would believe this even if it weren’t for the particular verses that you think say it” is simply false.

Is a little bit surreal for me.  I think David is arguing that I wouldn’t believe the Bible condemns all homosexual sexual behaviour if there weren’t six or seven passages that are generally taken to explicitly condemn it:

I do not believe that had those verses never existed that your current beliefs would still be the same. And for you to say one way or the other would be disingenuous, you cannot possibly know, because you cannot honestly remove the influence of these passages on your current thinking on the matter.

It’s a double negative, but I think the basic thrust can still be ascertained.

I am arguing that you could cull all six/seven from my Bible and my views would be substantially unchanged - not because I’m homophobic or whatever, but that I think those six/seven passages simply make explicit one implication of a very deep theological and ethical structure that places sex exclusively within a husband-wife relationship. 

So I think you’re defending me from the position I want to own, and that David wants to deny.  I think this issue rests on more fundamental ground than six or seven verses that can be the subject of attempts to deconstruct.

[65] Posted by Levor on 11-18-2009 at 07:33 AM • top

David, with your comment at #64:

My point is that that consideration is at best naive and at worst disingenuous because they do not/cannot have the slightest inkling about what they would believe if something that contributes to their beliefs had not been present to color and shape their beliefs, because of the level at which it is present and colors and forms what they believe presently.

I think you are claiming something that I neither claim nor deny.  Neither you or I know what I might do in a world where the Bible never had the six or seven references that it has.  I am not saying that my views would be the same, nor that they would be different.  I think your argument at this point is a blind alley.  I am saying that I think you cannot say that they definitely would be different.  We just don’t know.

My point is not to do with ‘what might be’ but ‘what is now’.  I think that I can make my case on this issue without any reference to the six or seven passages in question.  My view, and Dr Stroud’s, is not to do with how we got here, but is a self-reflection upon how our belief holds together - what is critical, and what merely supporting evidence.  We aren’t making a psychologial claim, but a logical one.

I think in pushing this the way you are, you are at risk of playing the man rather than the ball - something that I think we’ve seen enough of for one thread.  How I came to my views tells you something about me.  But it don’t really address the inherent value and veracity of those beliefs.  I could be a bad person, and the argument still be good. 

That’s why I don’t like playing the man.  The ball is on the field, if you want to give it a good kick, I’m happy to play.  But I don’t think assessments of my cognitive history help us move the ball in question.

[66] Posted by Levor on 11-18-2009 at 07:46 AM • top

David, what does it matter what would be believed if the 6 or 7 verses were missing? They are not missing, they are there.

[67] Posted by oscewicee on 11-18-2009 at 07:54 AM • top

David,

You wrote:

“I would throw out but one observation. Your current beliefs about acceptable human sexual behavior regarding gays & lesbians is colored by the very existence of the 6-7 passages in question. As a psychologist I do not believe that had those verses never existed that your current beliefs would still be the same.”

I wrote:

“Even without Scripture and Judeo Christian tradition, clinical medicine, science research, police, CDC, social and health agency statistics all predict higher rates of negative outcomes such as physical injury, violence, multiple diseases, suicide, depression, emotional disorders, crime, drugs, emotional and relational instability, general unhappiness and early death for persons who engage in homosexual behaviors.”
and, “Moreover, the more accepting and affirming of homosexuality a community is, the greater statistical incidence of negative outcomes.” 
“Why would a loving wise holy Father God approve of that for anyone?”

We have answered you all three ways. 
1. With the 6-7 Bible verses.
2. With the whole counsel of Scripture
3. Without Scripture, with the fact that honest research and statistics that reveal the reality of homosex lifestyle is a negative outcome.

You refuse to acknowledge either the facts in evidence or the Scriptures.

One can only assume that you do not value either Scripture or Reality.  In truth, Scripture and Reality are the same.  God’s Word reveals Reality.  God’s Law/Commandments are statements of Reality. 

No human idealogy or law can repeal, change or replace Reality.
No human mind can deny reality for long without harming itself.

We who value Scripture cherish it as the greatest treasure of our lives.  We regard it as God’s Holy Good True Word, His love message to us, a map and a lantern, as food to guide and sustain us out of this harsh sin-filled Reality of sin and death, to live eternal.   

May the Lord be with you, make His face to shine upon you, lift up His countenance, reveal Himself by His Holy Word impart Himself into your spirit and give you life and peace.  Amen.  Romans 10:17

[68] Posted by Floridian on 11-18-2009 at 08:07 AM • top

My final hopes for you, David,

That you will get a Bible and a Concordance or use an online Concordance or both, and pray to God to send the Holy Spirit to help you and lead you and help you know and love your True Father and His Son. 

That you will find a believing Church that teaches the Gospel of Truth, Love and Life and enter into real fellowship and priesthood of believers. 
Every blessing and peace.  Numbers 6:24-27

[69] Posted by Floridian on 11-18-2009 at 08:13 AM • top

ah, I see, I misread David. I stand corrected.

In fact, I may be agreeing with him somewhat. If it were not for those 6 or 7 verses (If scripture is God’s Word, then one verse is quite enough by the way) I would believe:

1. That homosexual behavior is strange, perhaps physically dangerous, but not necessarily morally wrong if the correct precautions are taken.

2. That marriage is not necessarily an heterosexual institution: Sure the first marriage model in Gen 1 and 2 is between a man and a woman, but without the accompanying proscriptions found in the OT and NT, there is no reason to limit sexual expression within hetero confines. 

3. There is no reason not to grant marriage rights to homosexual couples.

So, my opinion, would most likely be dramatically different were it not for scripture.

[70] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-18-2009 at 08:21 AM • top

Levor, I do not grasp this concept that you use of “playing the man.” Can you assist me in understanding what you mean by this.

Floridian, let us leave your posts where they are. I ignore them because I believe that they are made in sincerity and so rather than insult you and get bogged down in a tit for tat exchange please except that I believe your truth claims in number three above to be false and unsubstantiated. Period, no more commentary from me on that subject.

[71] Posted by David |däˈvēd| on 11-18-2009 at 08:27 AM • top

Matt, yep, I think you and David do agree a bit based on what you just said.  Let me try and bring you to a better mind smile

1. Genesis 1 & 2 is not merely descriptive, but also prescriptive.  It sets out, in narrative form, the nature and purpose of marriage.  I agree that not all details in the story should be pressed as part of the picture of the nature of marriage, but I would say that details need to be weighed before they are considered either essential or non-essential features of the story.

When Jesus addresses the issue of divorce in Mark 10:1-12, he appeals to Gen 1-2, even though it does not explicitly address divorce, and does so to place restrictions beyond the freedom the Law gave which did explicitly address the issue of divorce.  I’d suggest that our Lord was not simply asserting a moral position from his own authority, with the reference to Gen 1-2 as a bit of colour.  He was making a point based on what Gen 1-2 teaches about the inherent nature of marriage.  And that means that Gen 1-2 says something constructive and substantial about marriage that does have negative implications at points - such as divorce, and homosexuality.  And it has those implications irrespective of whether or not that implication is ever spelled out explicitly.

2. In Genesis, the institute of marriage is linked to male-female polarity within the human race.  Gen 2:24:

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Hebrew allows sufficient linguistic freedom that that verse could have been said in a less gender-entailed way, one that would open up more of a “For this reason someone will leave their two parents and be united to their partner and they will become one flesh.”

This verse is not narrative, but authoritative reflection upon the narrative - something very very rare in OT narrative, and so something that needs to be taken very seriously.  The gender specific language here is not just reflecting the narrative, but making that part of the narrative a norm.  A man will leave his father and a mother and cleave to his wife.  That’s not just what happened in this story (indeed it can’t be that - Adam didn’t have parents to leave).  It is a statement of what is marriage in light of the story.

3. More importantly, and possibly more controversially among Stand Firm aficionados, a marriage that is not exclusively husband-wife makes nonsense of the language of Yahweh and Israel being like a husband and a wife and that Christ and his church being a husband-wife relationship.

If marriage can involve two people of the same sex, then there are no inherent roles in the marriage linked to gender.  “Husband” and “wife” have no content except for “married bloke” and “married sheila”.  The roles are interchangeable - otherwise you could not have two people of the same gender married.

However, in both OT and NT the relationship between God and his people is patterned off that of a marriage, and God’s role and his people’s role are spoken of in ways that seem fixed, non-interchangeable, and very much based on husband/wife job descriptions. 

Christ leads, lays down his life, and sanctifies his church as a husband does with his wife.  The church submits, as a wife does with her husband. If no such roles are built into the nature of marriage then God’s relationship with his people is either one of mutual submission between him and us - where he leads, saves and sanctifies us and we do the same to him in return.  Or it is nothing like a marriage at all, and the Church is not the married fully equal and interchangeable partner of Christ.

The possibility of homosexual marriage depends upon an strongly egalitarian understanding of marriage.  And such an understanding of marriage distorts the nature of God’s relationship with his people (because it draws upon marriage at key points) to such a degree that only the most radical Open Theist could consider the results as anything other than heretical in direction.

4. If the six or seven passages were not there, then we still would not have any commands or instructions addressing how to regulate a homosexual sexual union so as to ensure that it was godly.  Given how much of sexual behaviour is regulated, and that at points a union of two people of the same gender is going to have key differences with two people of both genders, such a silence is itself a sign that such a union cuts against the grain of the nature of godly sexual behaviour.

That’ll do for starters.

[72] Posted by Levor on 11-18-2009 at 09:03 AM • top

David #71

“Play the man” means something like: not addressing the argument and showing where it is invalid but rather attributing the position to personal factors that are extrinsic to any rational argument.

A couple of examples to make it concrete.

1. A number of people have accused you of just not wanting to submit to Scripture, instead of going and reading Rev Haller’s book and addressing the arguments therein or even asking you to state which ones lead you to reject the six or seven verses in question as germane to the issue.  By implying that your view arises out of a spiritual condition and not from a considered position, it moves the question out of the purview of reason (and, in my view, Scripture) - for how can someone show that they have a believing or unbelieving heart? 

It may be true or false, and that will say something about you.  In and of itself it says nothing about the view you hold.

2. People sometimes say that President Obama does certain things because he wants to destroy America (The Greatest Country on Earth - and I’d do a ‘TM’ at this point if I knew the coding for it).  As a consequence there is little place for discussing the relative merits or lack thereoff of his policies.  They do not spring from a consideration of what is the right forward, they spring entirely from non-rational sources.  So rational debate is somewhat pointless.

3. It is often claimed that people are opposed to homosexual behaviour, and homosexual behaviour because of homophobia, hate, ignorance, or fear.  When such an answer is considered to be a sufficient response to such opposition it moves the entire debate outside the realm of…well debate.  Opponents of homosexual behaviour could be the worst human beings who ever lived and still be right.  The arguments have to be addressed, not just the people analysed.
4 .  C.S. Lewis once captured the problem well by saying in Pilgrim’s Regress “You only say that 1+1=2 because you are a mathematician”.  Mathematicians do care about maths, and do think that mathematics ‘works’.  But to say that one can explain a mathematician’s belief that 1+1=2 is because he or she is a mathematician bypasses the reasons he or she has for believing that.

Hope that helps.

[73] Posted by Levor on 11-18-2009 at 09:25 AM • top

SFIF leaders might want to put a double-gold popcorn alert on this thread.  grin  This is getting good.

Peace to ALL,
-ms

[74] Posted by miserable sinner on 11-18-2009 at 09:28 AM • top

Levor, thanks for your 72 and 73.

[76] Posted by oscewicee on 11-18-2009 at 09:54 AM • top

David re #63,#64,#70, please keep in mind that the important point in considering whether ‘people would have believed otherwise’ is the question of objective morality. If there is objective morality, then certain behavior is wrong, regardless of what people were exposed to or what they believe. If the Hitler youth were raised without ever having been exposed to the biblical command to love one’s enemies, it would still be wrong for them to kill Jews, even if they did it with a clean conscience.

If you say that Biblical injunctions do not represent objective morality, I’m at a loss as to why you’d want to belong to a Christian church.

The area where we disagree is that I think more laws are ‘written on the human heart’ (Rom 2) than you do, even surfacing again and again in various (non-Christian) religions and cultures, but this is secondary.

The primary issue is, if there are objective morals, what difference would it make if people are raised in an environment where certain moral propositions are omitted and therefore people grow up not believing them? Wrong would still be wrong. Are you a moral realist?

[77] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 11-18-2009 at 12:02 PM • top

Heh, I get to stir the pot - always fun.

SpongJohn SquarePantheist #77, I think you have addressed that entire entry to the wrong participant in the debate.  I think David’s position is that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, and that the objective moral order does not make it morally wrong either.  So he’s a moral realist.

But cast your eyes over Matt Kennedy’s entry at #70.  He seems to be saying that the only reason he thinks homosexual sexual behaviour is immoral is because of six or seven verses in the Bible.  Take those away and there’s no persuasive reason to reject it as a valid moral action.  If that’s not a disconnect between biblical imperative and the universal moral order I’m not sure what is.

I think you’ve got the wrong man in your sights.  Feel free to adjust your aim and fire at will.  smile

[78] Posted by Levor on 11-18-2009 at 12:55 PM • top

In defence of Matt, I took most of what he wrote @70 as tongue in cheek. Read it again. The wording has an obvious underlying tone that is subtly mocking my position.

[79] Posted by David |däˈvēd| on 11-18-2009 at 01:31 PM • top

#78 perhaps right about David, but then I don’t understand the point about if the verses were absent then we would think differently on the matter, which seems to suggest that even David acknowledges the verses at least seem to condemn it as a sin.

As for Matt, he’s a Calvinist. To use some bombastic terms (that nevertheless draw useful distinctions) Matt is talking about moral epistemology, not moral ontology. Due to the noetic effects of sin, Matt in the unregenerate state would believe the list he gives in #70, although Matt as he is now would think that hypothetical Matt would be in error, apart from special revelation and regeneration. I think Matt believes that it is impossible for scripture (or God’s moral imperatives) to be other than what they are, hence when he says ‘if it were not for ...’, that means if he were not exposed to special revelation, not that scripture could possibly teach something else.

[80] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 11-18-2009 at 01:36 PM • top

Theodora, where to begin. A quick reply because as I explained to Floridian I am unwilling to get into a tit for tat response. I fortunately am a partner with my sister and cousin in our human resources consulting practice, so I am my own boss, but I still have to work on occasion!

I checked a number of the links that you provided and skimmed the pages. What I see is a preponderance of conservative sources. I would not personally rely upon such sources for truth. They have an agenda, part of that agenda is to further their agenda and not undermine it. It is my experience that when we follow conservative representations of “research” back to their sources, their researchers, the original work has much more neutral conclusions and the researchers are appalled and immediately distance themselves from the twisting of their data and the false conclusions made by the conservatives to support their agenda.

Conservatives often make questionable cause and effect claims that are only apparent to themselves and not to more neutral interpreters of data. There is not a gay/lesbian/bisexual researcher who would not agree with statistics that point out physical and mental health issues in GLBT populations. But to take the leap that it is caused by their sexuality flies in the face of the evidence of the environment in which they have and continue to live. Gracias a Dios that we quickly moved beyond Freudian psychology. Freud’s theories and practice was based upon his work among the sickest human populations, folks in insane asylums. Modern psychotherapy is founded on the study of a range of human populations, including very healthy folks. When societies have had time to settle down and treat their GLBT children equally to everyone else instead of stigmatizing them, those results may well normalize.

[81] Posted by David |däˈvēd| on 11-18-2009 at 01:57 PM • top

“Dr Stroud and Levor posited that even were the 6-7 passages that they believe condemn homosexuality were not in the Bible, that they would still arrive at the same consideration opposing same sex sexuality because they assert that the whole tenor of scripture points them to that conclusion.

My point is that that consideration is at best naive and at worst disingenuous because they do not/cannot have the slightest inkling about what they would believe if something that contributes to their beliefs had not been present to color and shape their beliefs, because of the level at which it is present and colors and forms what they believe presently.”

Right back at ya’, Dude.  You already have staked your territory and response so nothing else matters.  Just out of curiosity, though, did you ever learn to use a search engine to expand your data base beyond its narrow confines?  Happy reading, if so.  Get busy, if not!

[82] Posted by dwstroudmd on 11-18-2009 at 02:00 PM • top

My head hurts.  I think that this thread is going to make me a postmodernist.  I no longer have any confidence that any words have any fixed meaning, the interpretive possibilities seem completely without bound, anything could mean anything….

ahem.  OK, with that out of my system.

David at #79, I am going to need Matt to confirm your reading of his words before I’ll agree that he is being ironic there.  I can’t see any signals that indicate irony.  If you are right, and managed to pick that up working in a non-native language, I’m going to go off in a corner and have a good sulk.

oscewicee at #76.  You are welcome.  Glad you found it helpful. 

SpongJohn SquarePantheist at #80.  David recognises that there are six or seven verses that have traditionally been understood to condemn homosexuality.  In line with arguments made by his friend Rev Haller in a recent book, he believes that to have been a multi-millenial misunderstanding (extra points for alliterating ‘m’).  Like Matt Kennedy, he sees no other reason for condemning homosexual sexual behaviour than those verses.

Hence, while his observations about why I hold my view are based on his understanding of psychology and sociology, they were likely also the beginning of a strategy to wean me off my position towards his.  If I agree that those verses are essential to justifying an anti-homosexual position, then it opens the door to showing that they do no such thing.  Consequently, I adopt his position.

His interest in the verses is that, like Matt, he thinks those verses are the achilles heel of our position - hit the poison dart there and our position keels over dead.

As regards Matt’s position, all I can say is ‘party pooper’.  There goes a perfectly good stir of the pot. 

For the record, I am also Reformed, and still don’t think that the position you outline really does justice to the Reformed doctrine of total depravity and its noetic effects.  Calvin is very clear in book 2 of the Institutes that when it comes to civic matters (of which he would include this issue) moral insight is ubiquitous within the human race.  He didn’t have a problem with natural ethics (or even natural theology to some degree) that post-Barth Reformed theology seems to have.

And some Reformed people are sufficiently voluntarist in their views of God that they believe that things are right or wrong only because God says so, and that God could change the moral operating rules tomorrow if he so willed.

Go on, take a shot at Matt for not being able to say how what is right is also intrinsically what is good.  (You know you want to… smile)

[83] Posted by Levor on 11-18-2009 at 02:02 PM • top

A careful reading of Dante’s encounter with the sodomites in INFERNO will show that his mentor and “father” in art was a sodomite.  AND that the great Dante himself says that there are NO reasons for that behaviour being avoided rationally determined EXCEPT that God forbids it.  God did and that makes all the difference, eternally.

[84] Posted by dwstroudmd on 11-18-2009 at 02:24 PM • top

Floridian, let us leave your posts (#69) where they are. I ignore them because I believe that they are made in sincerity and so rather than insult you and get bogged down in a tit for tat exchange please except that I believe your truth claims in number three above to be false and unsubstantiated. Period, no more commentary from me on that subject.

Well, at least we have an admission there is the possible ignoring of truth. Although I think that they should be easily refutable if false.

“I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth.” 1 John 2:21

[85] Posted by Festivus on 11-18-2009 at 02:24 PM • top

That would be Cantos 15-16 of INFERNO, by the by.  See here : http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/circle7.html#violence
Virgil explains to Dante that sins of violence take three forms according to the victim: other people (one’s neighbor), oneself, or God (Inf. 11.28-33). Those who perpetrate violence against other people or their property—murderers and bandits—are punished in the first ring of the seventh circle, a river of blood (Inferno 12). Those who do violence against themselves or their own property—suicides and squanderers (more self-destructive than the prodigal in circle 4)—inhabit the second ring, a horrid forest (Inferno 13). The third ring—inside the first two—is a barren plain of sand ignited by flakes of fire that torment three separate groups of violent offenders against God: those who offend God directly (blasphemers: Inferno 14); those who violate nature, God’s offspring (sodomites: Inferno 15-16);<b> and those who harm industry and the economy, offspring of nature and therefore grandchild of God (usurers: Inferno 17). Identifying the sins of these last two groups with Sodom and Cahors (Inf. 11.49-50), Dante draws on the biblical destruction of Sodom (and Gomorrah) by fire and brimstone (Genesis 19:24-5) and the medieval condemnations of citizens of Cahors (a city in southern France) for usury. Dante’s emotional reactions to the shades in the seventh circle range from neutral observation of the murderers and compassion for a suicide to <b>respect for several Florentine sodomites and revulsion at the sight and behavior of the lewd usurers.
Although writers of classical Rome admired by Dante allowed—and even praised—suicide as a response to political defeat or personal disgrace, his Christian tradition emphatically condemned suicide as a sin without exception. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, warned that suicide violates the natural law of self-preservation, harms the community at large, and usurps God’s disposition of life and death. Dante’s attitude toward Pier della Vigna in Inferno 13 and his placement of famous suicides in other locations (Dido, for example, in circle 2) may suggest a more nuanced view.
Dante’s inclusion of sodomy—understood here as sexual relations between males but not necessarily homosexuality in terms of sexual orientation—is consistent with strong theological and legal declarations in the Middle Ages condemning such activities for being “contrary to nature.” In Dante’s day, male-male relations—often between a mature man and an adolescent—were common in Florence despite these denunciations. Penalties could include confiscation of property and even capital punishment.
Usury was similarly condemned, particularly after it was equated with heresy (and therefore punishable by the Inquisition) at the Council of Vienne in 1311. Based on biblical passages—fallen man must live “by the sweat of his brow” (Genesis 3:19), Jesus’ appeal to his followers to “lend, expecting nothing in return” (Luke 6:35)—medieval theologians considered the lending of money at interest to be sinful. Thomas Aquinas, based on Aristotle, considered usury—like sodomy—to be contrary to nature because “it is in accordance with nature that money should increase from natural goods and not from money itself.” Forese Donati, a Florentine friend of Dante who appears in Purgatory 23-4, insinuated—in an exchange of insulting sonnets with the poet—that Dante’s father was himself a usurer or moneychanger.

[86] Posted by dwstroudmd on 11-18-2009 at 03:00 PM • top

David,
The sources of the articles I cited are Biblical Christian sites but the studies are not conservative studies. 

There is a reason the articles are published at conservative sites - the pro-homosex people do not want them publicized - they have an agenda. In 1973 or thereabouts, these same agenda people stormed into both APA groups, took over demanded that homosexuality be taken off the list of abnormal behaviors.  The activists presented their own studies which have been largely discredited since.  One of the top researchers, Robert Spitzer has since recanted his advocacy for the agendites position that SSA is an inborn unchangeable trait.  To date there has been no substantiation of the LGBT activist claims that there is a genetic or inborn cause for SSA.  Since that time, the APA and now the AMA are under the control of people with an agenda.  (see the article here at SFIF)

Again, the studies I cited are legitimate and unlike those done by pansexual activists, were not sponsored or conducted by the conservative groups that published them.
NARTH did present a paper at the APA this year, but I did not cite that one. 

All forms of sexual activity that God forbids will produce harmful consequences.  Research has supported this fact.  Honest science will always support the Commandments and God’s Moral law throughout Scripture.  Scripture, like our Father Holy God, does not lie.

[87] Posted by Theodora on 11-18-2009 at 03:13 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.