Obama Care: Nov 18, 2013

Monday, November 18, 2013

User talk:Markman

(Difference between revisions)The block log is getting ridiculous; anytime someone with blocking rights wants to stick his neck out for a user and unblock him you should generally allow it to happen. Let Brenden be responsible for Rafael.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:02, 1 July 2013 (EDT)The block log is getting ridiculous; anytime someone with blocking rights wants to stick his neck out for a user and unblock him you should generally allow it to happen. Let Brenden be responsible for Rafael.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:02, 1 July 2013 (EDT)== Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion. ==Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion. == Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion. ==== Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion. ==

Welcome!

Hello, --Jpatt 10:00, 19 October 2011 (EDT), and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, --Jpatt 10:00, 19 October 2011 (EDT)!

1 Congratulations2 Conservacelt3 AlanA Block4 Blocks5 SergeiforCROY6 Block comments7 Harold etc8 Blocking9 Irony10 E=mc²11 AmyPond12 Great blocks13 DonnyC14 My Warning15 Blocked?16 Referencing17 Citation Needed tags and AlanE18 Yo bro19 Ryancsh20 Ryancsh Response21 "Smoozing with the enemy"22 North Pole23 Brednen24 Ruth Edits and Subsequent Block25 Just so you know...26 "I hope you're demoralized"27 Block log28 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.29 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.30 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.31 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.32 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.33 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.34 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.35 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.36 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.37 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.38 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.39 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.40 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.41 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.42 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.43 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.44 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.45 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.46 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.47 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.48 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.49 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.50 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.51 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.52 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.53 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.54 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.55 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.56 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.57 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.58 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.59 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.60 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.61 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.62 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.63 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.64 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.65 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.66 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.67 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.68 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.69 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.70 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.71 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.72 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.73 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.74 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.75 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.76 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.77 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.78 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.79 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.80 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.81 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.82 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.83 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.84 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.85 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.86 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.87 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.88 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.89 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.90 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.91 Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

Congratulations, your account has been promoted such that you can now block other accounts!--Andy Schlafly 16:41, 7 November 2011 (EST)

Great block and reverts this morning.--Andy Schlafly 09:33, 8 November 2011 (EST)

I don't think that's a good example of a block, sorry, and changed it to 3 days. They were using the Talk pages. They were providing sources. I think this shows a need for warning, not permanent blocking. They shouldn't have re-added material removed by Aschlafly but I don't think that's cause for a permablock. Some of their edits show they believe in Christianity. --Jzyehoshua 20:04, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

I'd originally changed it to 10 minutes, because I'd just glanced at the Diff and not seen any blatant vandalism. But when I checked the page history, I realized he'd re-added material reverted by the site's founder, pretty serious, so that's why I changed it to 3 days. I've explained it to him at his talk page. I still think it was an honest mistake made by a newbie, not intentional vandalism. Intentional vandals wouldn't go to that much trouble with serious writing and attempted sources. I think he probably spent time writing it, saw it reverted, and thought he could re-add it and discuss it, not realizing who had removed it. I'd like to see him get another chance. --Jzyehoshua 20:33, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

I was wondering what AlanA was blocked for. According to Conservapedia's Guidelines, "Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons. Warnings are appropriate, not for obscenity, vandalism or parody (Which are block-able offenses without warning.), but for silliness and other problems. In rare cases, our approach to repeated ideological conflict is to lock the page, and then allow the Administrator Group to make changes on a manual basis based upon submitted suggestions on the Talk page."

So if AlanA was blocked for an ideological comment, questioning whether Gallup results are critical of religion, then isn't that contrary to guidelines? And if we are allowed to block based on ideological reasons, shouldn't the guidelines be updated so people at least know what to expect? --Jzyehoshua 12:12, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

I just don't know if it sends that good a message to respond to such a comment by banning and preventing conversation. I disagree with his comment, but I think the right approach is to discuss it so long as he remains courteous and honest in the discusssion. --Jzyehoshua 12:14, 24 July 2012 (EDT) The atheistic Britons comment was vandalism I suppose though, so that might be worthy of a block. I hadn't noticed that one as much before. --Jzyehoshua 12:18, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

Okay, what is with some of these blocks? You just blocked some people on the main page who said some stuff about video games in disagreement with you, even when they were remaining courteous. What was with the block of GuitarSniper in particular? You said he was "trolling" for expressing disagreement about video games causing violence? Are we just blocking everybody who dares disagree with every single one of our most esoteric opinions now?[1] Just blocking everybody who dares make a single comment we disagree with? What's the point of Debate pages if people can't disagree reasonably? Why don't you just delete those and put up a "Dictatorship of Markman" flag on the site if you're going to make blocks like that? Man... This isn't compatible with the Guidelines at all. The site claims that "Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons. Warnings are appropriate, not for obscenity, vandalism or parody (Which are block-able offenses without warning.), but for silliness and other problems. In rare cases, our approach to repeated ideological conflict is to lock the page, and then allow the Administrator Group to make changes on a manual basis based upon submitted suggestions on the Talk page."[2] Start treating these people fairly so I don't have to reverse all these silly blocks that are contary to Conservapedia's guidelines. It wastes my time and yours. --Joshua Zambrano 23:40, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

I am not saying it is but, like those of a number of long-serving editors here, this user name can be explained with about 5 seconds of thought. Croy is a surname. I also know at least one town in Britain. Ifor is a Welsh name - quite common, a variation of Ivor. Serge is a particularly common name. It's the anglisisation of Sergei, as in Prokofiev, Rachmaninov etc. I went to school with a Serge. Ban him if you like for username reasons, but I thought your comments were a little gratuitous. Just saying.... AlanE 20:23, 22 February 2013 (EST)

While I do not disagree with your recent blocks, I do feel that the the comments you put for the block reason are a little bit over the top, and do not reflect on Conservapedia's professional policies. It is perfectly fair to block a troll, but you don't need to reciprocate by making some more accusations, that have little to do with the user's actions. Thanks for reading,

brenden 21:10, 22 February 2013 (EST)

Bear in mind I was the one who started the baby-eating thing. I think he found it far more welcoming than the "FNQ Hello" (Dvergne will know what I mean.) There is a lack of basic courtesy on this site that one feels unless they are completely within the ideological circle - which you are of course.

What I said had to be said. It needs to be said every now and then because people come here, they do all the right things to get Andy's favour and are given power. They use it. Some of them abuse it. They know they have the boss's blessing. They don't know my history - usually because they haven't bothered to find out. To them I am just another troll, when really I am just letting off a bit of steam as a grumpy old man who likes taking the mickey occasionally . And I have always been a keen and somewhat amused observer of social interaction. And yes, it is trolling to an extent. So are Cons' constant hardly relevant incursions into talk pages. (And just to stir the possum (an Australianism) .... without the homosexual couple who lived in the next apartment from when I was 11 to 18 years of age I may not have been able to create the articles in Category:Sacred music for they instilled in me a love of church music that has lasted over 50 years. Musical vermin, they were.) Cheers - and sorry I misunderstood. AlanE 03:57, 23 February 2013 (EST)

What is the point of blocking a new user and telling them to recreate their account with a more appropriate username if you block them with autoblock enabled and account creation disabled ??? It seems a bit counter intuitive and unproductive to me. Dvergne 03:47, 24 February 2013 (EST)

Whoops, didn't notice I did that. Thanks, I'll avoid this mistake next time. - Markman 03:48, 24 February 2013 (EST) I suggest you be less vigorous with your blocking otherwise I may need to have a word with Andy, it seems you are starting to drive away genuine users as well as the parodists, spammers and trolls. Dvergne 09:12, 25 February 2013 (EST) Just to be sure here, could you put a diff of the offending edits that DonnyC made? brenden 23:23, 26 February 2013 (EST) I have gone through his contributions for the past week and there is nothing that is deserving of a block. --DamianJohn 01:41, 27 February 2013 (EST)

Blocking the User:GiseleRom because of Silly and/or foul username. Account may be recreated as a first name and last initial sounds quite ironic when the block isn't performed by User:MarkM but by User:Markman :-) --AugustO 14:40, 28 February 2013 (EST)

I haven't seen your input to this article on Talk:E=mc² yet - I'm interested in your thoughts! --AugustO 14:49, 28 February 2013 (EST)

If you don't know what you are doing, just don't do it! --AugustO 15:09, 28 February 2013 (EST) See my recent edit summary. - Markman 15:10, 28 February 2013 (EST) See Talk:E=mc² and my recent edit summary. --AugustO 15:11, 28 February 2013 (EST)

Hmmn - I suppose CP's policy on usernames may justify blocking him/her, but still, there remains the possibility the s/he was merely a fan of DW, and was unaware of our username policy (Usernames shall be a variation of your real name). brenden 14:27, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Great blocks, but the better block reason is "user name policy: please consider recreating ...." Thanks!--Andy Schlafly 08:57, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Given your personal feelings you should not be blocking DonnyC. In any case he was engaging playfully with a sysop who has not taken offence, and who is big enough and ugly enough to deal with it. Our role is to block obvious trolls and vandals, not editors we happen not to like. Leave that sort of blocking to the sysops, which you are not. Please try to get along with others, rather than picking fights all the time. Thanks. --DamianJohn 15:14, 3 March 2013 (EST)

I have seen your warning regarding my excessive talk posts. Note that 13 of the 20 that you mention represent four discussions. I was unaware that a three post dialog, say, resulted in a 30-post article quota, or that correcting a misspelling in a talk post added 10 more to deficit.

Another two of my talk posts were a suggestion to improve an article (which was met with a request from the original editor to make the change), plus a "done" response from me. If that exchange puts me in the hole for 20 more article updates, I can see this is a very potent rule.

I do admit that the "letter of the law" can be interpreted this way. I will be more careful in the future. As long as I'm here, I wonder if you saw my question to you regarding why you prefer "sheep" to "lamb" in Exodus? MelH 17:03, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Can I ask why you blocked me? All I did was follow the procedures to delete obvious spam. JohnQu 09:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)

How nice of you to go around ask for citations for all my contributions. A lot of the information in those articles was written through knowledge I have gained over the years so probably can't point to a specific location for the referencing. It would be much appreciated if you would help me find these references. Dvergne 03:24, 6 March 2013 (EST)

You fool! You're even doing it to items that are cited. Look at USS Sturgeon. But keep going - it's showing people just how useful I was to the "information" part of the "Encyclopedia. There are hundreds yet. (How many article have you created and on what variety of subjects?) AlanE 14:18, 6 March 2013 (EST)

So sorry but I find Markman "uncited" edits correct. You are encouraged to add sources for verifiability or ask for help.--Joaquín Martínez 19:17, 6 March 2013 (EST) Joachin, I hadn't realised how much you disliked me. I had gone out of my way to treat you with respect and to give you some grounding in the music I love. I had no idea you disrespected my knowledge. Thanks for supporting a person who is doing this for no other reason than malice towards me. AlanE 20:53, 6 March 2013 (EST) While Citation Needed tags are good, it really makes no sense that you are simply systematically going through AlanE's edits, and sticking spamming his perfectly fine pages with them. A quick Google search would verify the credence of his edits, and I see no motive behind this beside petty disagreements with AlanE. brenden 21:08, 6 March 2013 (EST)

Ya might wanna check out the edits by MattyD as BryanF was a sock of that particularly annoying user.

There are a lot of animal articles without citations, u might wanna look at them. 10:31, 8 March 2013 (EST)

And I expect those whining about citations had better be prepared to find and add them. "That's not my job" is an excuse I will never accept. Karajou 11:38, 8 March 2013 (EST)

Try this [3] template instead for short or stub articles. Karajou 17:41, 8 March 2013 (EST)

This is good, but the uncited template is still needed for articles lacking in citations. And in regards to your previous remarks, don't worry about it. As I've already said, tomorrow I'm going to start going through articles lacking in citations and work on fixing them. - Markman 17:43, 8 March 2013 (EST)

Leave mine to me and I will use the books I use to check my facts. I will do them category by category. But don't put that tag on any more of my edits. Seeing as I'm being hung out to dry here, give me at least that. Now excuse me for an hour or three - I'm laying bricks today, at least they are going to stay where I put them.AlanE 19:23, 8 March 2013 (EST)

I've drastically reduced his block period, as his edits to mainspace articles have been helpful, and his edits to talkpages have been rather productive, and insightful. brenden 23:31, 4 June 2013 (EDT)

And then you block him for 2 hours, on the grounds of "accusing you of blocking him out of vengeance". Please explain what this really means. Also, Rafael, 2 day block?? For mocking users (I presume User:C, as he is the primary editor at MPR)? User:C has demonstrated that he prefers to engage in such banter, and the rather gentle mocking from rafael (in comparison to user:C's downright belligerent words) was certainly tolerable by any standards. brenden 13:29, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

I have three issues with what you have said: 1. Before today, I have never heard of the internet joke "Ryan Cash." My account was made in June 2010 and I'm not even sure if that joke was around then, considering that you are the first person to ever bring that to my attention. If the name sounds similar, it is purely coincidence, let me explain. Ryan is my first name and cs is the initials of my double-barreled surname. H was added in when I made my very first internet account and ryancs was taken, with ryancsh being the closest option. Since then, it's just been habit to stick to it.

2. You accuse me of Parody yet there is no evidence on conservapedia to prove that I am guilty of being a parody. I have only spoke with my own opinion and the guild-lines clearly state that the parody must me on conservapedia. In fact, I direct you to the difference between conservapedia and Wikipedia page in which it clearly states that conservapedia does not ban users due to outside blogs or activities. Even though the link to an internet joke is incorrect, you are still going against the values of conservapedia by trying to discredit me with outside information. Also, I might add that if I was a parodist would I not have begun being a parody when I joined and not 2 years later?

3. You blocked me for the 90/10 rule. Firstly I would point out that the rule states "90% talk page edits and only 10% quality edits to Conservapedia articles" on the conservative commandments. My contribution as a whole as been 75%talk and 25% edits, (5 to 20) but that includes the 4 debate talks I did over a year ago. This year it has been 5-15 and in June it was 5-2 (or 5-4 if you count my user page as talk). Surely this would show that I was starting to reform my behavior when you blocked me. I trust that an administrator, who is obviously dedicated as he is fervent to expel any troublemakers, would not like to give the impression "it doesn't matter if you reform we will still ban you" as this goes against the whole idea of repentance and forgiveness. In fact, your block has meant that I am not able to make the planned edits to the Liberal Denial page as I was blocked until 11PM and then had to spend my time writing this to prove my innocence.

So please, in the future, could you just ask before you block or give a verbal warning so that the accused (me in this case) has time to explain. Justice, not vengeance, is truly conservative. Ryancsh 5 June 2013 20:34 GMT

There is no evidence of parody or intentional misinformation from user Ryancsh. Karajou 02:02, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

I like how you didn't even bother to read that userpage. *sarcastic slow clap* brenden 15:50, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

You do have to admit, some of it is quite witty :) -- Penny

Can you please restore/undelete it so I can save it to a CD/USB ? God Be upon you, PennyS

That's really enough of the in-fighting with you and Brenden - he shouldn't be reverting your post on Andy's page, but your block of Rafael for suspected sock-puppetry is out of line. You don't have checkuser privileges and that he gets along with another user is not sufficient evidence. Frankly it's a questionable block of Eg too.--IDuan 14:31, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

Also you know it's ridiculous to block users with blocking privileges - he shouldn't be doing it to you; you shouldn't be doing it to him.--IDuan 14:37, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

First, I'd like to offer my sincere apologies for the accidental removal of those lines. I assure you it was completely inadvertent and I'm still not sure how it happened.

I was rather enjoying your modernized translation of one of my favorite books but noticed a number of minor spelling and grammatical errors. The intent of the translation was clear, but so were these typos. I had two tabs up, one in which I was reading and one in which I was editing. I can only imagine some finger-trouble between the tabs was the cause of my error.

It should have been clear that this was a simple error and not vandalism. Why would I vandalize a page and then continue to make edits to improve it? I admit the deletion was my fault, but we could have cleared this up an hour ago had you not been so quick to block.

In any case, you might wish to look at the typos that you reintroduced by reverting my edits. None are controversial. When blocked, I was also in the process of correcting another, changing "say lat next to his feet" to "she lay ..." I think it would be best if I don't touch this page (or others of yours) again so I will leave these to you to correct or not, but this wonderful text could use a simple copy-edit pass.

Again, please accept my apologies for accidentally triggering this episode. MelH 18:24, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

our First Commandment also applies to log entries, including block reasons. Thank you for keeping this in mind when blocking users. GregG 19:09, 28 June 2013 (EDT)

Well since not only Mr. Schlafly and my "liberal allies" here agree with me that "demoralizing" users via blocks is inappropriate, it seems that User:C has also agreed with me here. I hope you are demoralized about blocking users based on supposed "liberal sports stars". brenden 05:43, 29 June 2013 (EDT)

Ps - Your attempts at bullying Rafael should stop too, as any attempts to block him will be reverted by myself or my so-called "liberal allies", that include pretty much everyone but you. brenden 05:44, 29 June 2013 (EDT)

The block log is getting ridiculous; anytime someone with blocking rights wants to stick his neck out for a user and unblock him you should generally allow it to happen. Let Brenden be responsible for Rafael.--IDuan 14:02, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

Leave Eg, Rafeal, Brenden, AlanE, Davidspencer and any other user you want to bully alone. Otherwise we will act to stop you. You don't know what we can do, fear us, we are anonymous we are legion.

View the original article here

User:RalphCifaretto

View the original article here

User:Gawilburn42

View the original article here

Homosexuality and Christianity

(Difference between revisions)Homosexuals are allowed to be members, but "self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as [ministerial]] candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church." "Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches." However, it has yet to firmly resolve the issue (to stand with the Bible), and considers this a debatable subject.Leader Resources, What is the denomination’s position on homosexuality? Book of Resolutions. See also Judicial Council Decisions 984, 985 It yet supports traditional marriage, though not distinctive gender roles as being normative in such,The Nurturing Community and strongly supports ordaining women as pastors over men.[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/WOMENPASTORS.html Are women pastors Biblical?] It opposes [[homophobia]] as well as heterosexism, such as provides "a privileged status for people who identify as culturally defined heterosexuals" (which the Bible promotes), and supports equal civil rights for homosexualsBook of Resolutions, Opposition to Homophobia and HeterosexismThe Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church - 2008 (the sexual practice of said persons the Bible criminalizes). Liberal activists within the church continue to promote acceptance of homosexuality, with conservatives opposing.The Dallas Morning News, May 3, 2008: Hundreds protest Methodist church's stance on homosexuality at Fort Worth conferenceHomosexuals are allowed to be members, but "self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as [ministerial]] candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church." "Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches." However, it has yet to firmly resolve the issue (to stand with the Bible), and considers this a debatable subject.Leader Resources, What is the denomination’s position on homosexuality? Book of Resolutions. See also Judicial Council Decisions 984, 985 It yet supports traditional marriage, though not distinctive gender roles as being normative in such,The Nurturing Community and strongly supports ordaining women as pastors over men.[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/WOMENPASTORS.html Are women pastors Biblical?] It opposes [[homophobia]] as well as heterosexism, such as provides "a privileged status for people who identify as culturally defined heterosexuals" (which the Bible promotes), and supports equal civil rights for homosexualsBook of Resolutions, Opposition to Homophobia and HeterosexismThe Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church - 2008 (the sexual practice of said persons the Bible criminalizes). Liberal activists within the church continue to promote acceptance of homosexuality, with conservatives opposing.The Dallas Morning News, May 3, 2008: Hundreds protest Methodist church's stance on homosexuality at Fort Worth conference*[http://thegoodpoliticalshepherd.com/is-homosexuality-still-a-sin-what-does-the-bible-say-about-homosexuality.html Is Homosexuality Still a Sin? What does the Bible Say About Homosexuality?]

The issue of homosexuality and New Testament Christianity has historically been that of two incompatible doctrines and practices. However, with the rise of Biblical revisionism as well as sexual immorality, liberal writers and activists have sought to sanction homosexuality within Christianity. While exegetical efforts to contradict the traditional position regarding homosexuality and biblical interpretation are shown to be spurious, a number of formerly conservative Christian churches now tolerate or promote homosexuality, with some sanctioning same sex marriage. This has resulted in a necessary division between those who hold to traditional biblical exegesis as regards homosexuality, versus those who subscribe to the revisionist rendering of the issue (see also: Homosexuality and the Bible)

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

The term Christian was first given to believers in Jesus Christ in Antioch, (Acts 11:26) and as such it denotes born again souls who believed in the plenary inspiration of Scripture (2Tim. 2:16) and the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in the sinless, crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 10:34-43) God manifest in the flesh.[1](1Tim. 3:16) And which souls were taught to uphold the moral laws of the Bible, which would include those regarding homosexuality. It is also evidenced that these believers were taught an overall literalistic interpretation of Scripture, (Mt. 12:4o; 2Pt. 2:15; Jude 1:11; Rev. 2:14) when such is the literary form. Today those who doctrinally affirm this faith are most typically termed Evangelical Christians, while liberal churches and those in them usually deny or foster doubt in least one of the aforementioned areas, especially as regards homosexuality.

This denotes those who sexually seek those of their same sex over the opposite gender. While the term homosexual ("a barbarously hybrid word" [2][2]) is of modern origin, the condition is not, (Rm. 1:26,27) and in the Bible the inclination or motivation is not a determining factor in laws prohibiting sexual relations with illicit partners.

See also Homosexuality and biblical interpretation

The traditional Jewish and Christian position is that homosexual relations are sinful. As the Scriptures are the only written source to which assurance is given of full inspiration (2Tim. 3:16) (though not revelation all is written: Jn. 21:25; Rev. 10:4) they provide the highest authority on homosexual relations for those who oppose such,[3][4] and are attacked the most by those who do not.[5][6]

(Gen 1:26-27) "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: .... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Gen 2:24) "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (1 Cor 11:9) "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (Mat 19:4-6) "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, {5} And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? {6} Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

The uniquely compatible and complimentary union of the male and female, with the latter being distinctly made for the former, after others creations failed (Gn. 2:18-20), and which joining of opposite genders Jesus affirmed as the "what" of "what therefore God hath joined together", has historically been understood by Christians as being that which God sanctified by marriage. In contrast, in no place is marriage seen being established for homosexuals, rather it is only condemned wherever it is explicitly dealt with. Liberal Christianity typically responds to this problem by relegating this exclusivity to being caused by the need for procreation, and by reading sex into relations between heterosexuals (or by denying it when it is in a bad light). In countering this, it is shown that the union of opposite genders was for more than procreation, (Song; Prv. 5:18,19; 1Cor. 7:2-5; 11:1-11) and that the radically new marriage pro homosexual writers seek lacks the necessary Biblical warrant, which even their best efforts cannot find. [7]

(Gen 19:5-8) "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. {6} And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, {7} And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. {8} Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."

This text has generally being understood by Christians and certain first century Jews as manifesting attempted homosexual rape, with the homosexual intentions of the inhabitants of Sodom adding, in the words of Gordon Wenham, "a special piquancy to their crime. In the eyes of the writer of Genesis and his readers it showed that they fully deserve to be described as 'wicked, great sinners before the LORD' (13:13) and that the consequent total overthrow of their city was quite to be expected."[8] Jewish Ethics and Halakhah For Our Time (2002), comments, “The paradigmatic instance of such aberrant behavior is found in the demand of the men of Sodom to “know” the men visiting Lot, the nephew of Abraham, thus lending their name to the practice of “sodomy” (homosexuality)[9] Most pro homosexuals in liberal Christianity seek to disallow a sexual meaning in Gn. 19 based upon the relative rare use of the Hebrew word "know" for sex, though the offer of Lot's virgin daughters as well as the parallel story in Judges 19 best indicates a sexual meaning, while Jude 1:7 states fornication was an ongoing regional iniquity, including that of a perverse kind, culminating in catastrophic judgment.[10]

(Lev 18:22) "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Lev 20:13) "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Historically these texts have been held as universal condemnations of homosexual relations, in distinction to being restricted to a religious context (Dt. 23:17,18) or as part of ceremonial law, while certain revisionists in liberal Christianity seek to relegate them to one of the latter two contexts, with traditionalists refuting such attempts.[11][12] [13].[14][15][16][17] See Leviticus 18

(Rom 1:26-27) "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: {27} And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."

Romans 1 was written to both Jewish and Gentile Christians, and the apostle Paul appeals to both natural revelation, that of their Creator being manifest by what He made (cf. Ps. 19:1-6), as well as the account of creation in His word, which is a two fold approach he uses elsewhere. (Acts 13:16-41; 14:6-18; 17:2,22-31) In Roman 1 Paul reveals that as men exchanged the the true and living God for one made after their own desires, so God delivered them up to unclean desires, by which they exchanged their natural (as related to God's design and sanctification) sexual partner for that which is against nature, and received in their own bodies the just reward for what they did with them. The various theories which pro homosexual polemicists contend for range from asserting that Paul was ignorant of homosexuality as an orientation, and thus was only condemning heterosexuals acting as homosexuals, to supposing that Paul was only condemning pederasty, the of man/boy sex, which was common at both Greek and Roman cultures, to more complicated attempts that have Paul justifying homoeroticism to get back at the Jews.[18]

Traditionalists respond by pointing out that "nature" best pertains to creation, not the aberrant desires of fallen man, and that Divine inspiration transcends human limitations. In addition, Paul was most likely quite aware of what was going on in contemporary Greek culture as well as Roman, and Greek homosexuality evidenced that it was aware of homosexual "orientation." The history of homosexuality also manifests that homosexual affections and conduct was not limited to man/boy relations in ancient idolatrous cultures.[19][20][21][22][23] [24]

(1 Cor 6:9) "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"

(1 Tim 1:9-10) "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, {10} For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

As this is the obscure term in the Greek, homosexual writers labor much on this in order in the hope of disallowing it from universally applying to homosexuals, and and which attempts and their nature can be best seen in traditionalist responses which counter them.[25][26][27][28][29][30][31].

While making a distinction for ceremonial laws, (Col. 2:14-17; Heb. 9:10ff; cf. Rm. 14; Gal. 4:10) consistent with its Jewish foundation, the New Testament church was instructed to uphold the moral laws of the Old Testament, with abundant reinforcement of injunctions against illicit sexual partners. (Rm. 1:29; 2:22; 13:9, 1Co. 5:1; 6:13, 8; 7:2, 2Co. 12:21, Gal. 5:19, Eph. 5:3, Col. 3:5, 1Th. 4:3, Jam. 2:11; Rev. 2:22 21:25; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2,4; 18:3; 19:2)

As Gagnon notes, not only in Scripture but every extant "piece of evidence that we have about Jewish views of same-sex intercourse in the Second Temple period and beyond is unremittingly hostile to such behavior.[32][33] And that rather than lessening moral restrictions, Jesus instituted stricter requirements for marriage, based upon its original establishment.[34] And in so doing, the man and the women are specified as the "what" that God uniquely joined together (Mt. 19:4-6; cf. Gn. 1:26,27; 2:18-24).[35] [36]

That Judaism held homosexual relations to be sinful is seen by Jewish commentary.

Regarding the Genesis 19 account of the sexual intent of the Sodomites, the first century Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo (20 BC - 50 AD) described the inhabitants of Sodom,

"As men, being unable to bear discreetly a satiety of these things, get restive like cattle, and become stiff-necked, and discard the laws of nature, pursuing a great and intemperate indulgence of gluttony, and drinking, and unlawful connections; for not only did they go mad after other women, and defile the marriage bed of others, but also those who were men lusted after one another, doing unseemly things, and not regarding or respecting their common nature, and though eager for children, they were convicted by having only an abortive offspring; but the conviction produced no advantage, since they were overcome by violent desire; and so by degrees, the men became accustomed to be treated like women, and in this way engendered among themselves the disease of females, and intolerable evil; for they not only, as to effeminacy and delicacy, became like women in their persons, but they also made their souls most ignoble, corrupting in this way the whole race of men, as far as depended on them." (133-34; ET Jonge 422-23)[37]

Likewise, the first century Jewish historian Josephus stated:

About this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, in so much that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices” “Now when the Sodomites saw the young men to be of beautiful countenances, and this to an extraordinary degree, and that they took up their lodgings with Lot, they resolved themselves to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and violence (Antiquities 1.11.1 — circa A.D. 96).

Statements from ancient churchmen from after the death of the apostles[38] continue to uphold the Biblical prohibition of homosexual relations.

151 AD Justin Martyr: [W]e have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do anyone harm and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. And any one who uses such persons, besides the godless and infamous and impure intercourse, may possibly be having intercourse with his own child, or relative, or brother. And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods. (First Apology 27). 181 AD Theophilus of Antioch: Give studious attention to the prophetic writings [the Bible] and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God.. [God] will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortality by the patient exercise of good works, he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things.. For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous, and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries, and fornications, and homosexualities, and avarice, and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish; and in the end, such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire. (To Autolycus 1:14). 190 AD Clement of Alexandria: All honor to that king of the Scythians, whoever Anacharsis was, who shot with an arrow one of his subjects who imitated among the Scythians the mystery of the mother of the gods . . . condemning him as having become effeminate among the Greeks, and a teacher of the disease of effeminacy to the rest of the Scythians" … [According to Greek myth] Baubo [a female native of Elusis] having received [the goddess] Demeter hospitably, reached to her a refreshing draught; and on her refusing it, not having any inclination to drink (for she was very sad), and Baubo having become annoyed, thinking herself slighted, uncovered her shame, and exhibited her nudity to the goddess. Demeter is delighted with the sight--pleased, I repeat, at the spectacle. These are the secret mysteries of the Athenians; these Orpheus records" … "It is not, then, without reason that the poets call him [Hercules] a cruel wretch and a nefarious scoundrel. It were tedious to recount his adulteries of all sorts, and debauching of boys. For your gods did not even abstain from boys, one having loved Hylas, another Hyacinthus, another Pelops, another Chrysippus, another Ganymede. Let such gods as these be worshipped by your wives, and let them pray that their husbands be such as these--so temperate; that, emulating them in the same practices, they may be like the gods. Such gods let your boys be trained to worship, that they may grow up to be men with the accursed likeness of fornication on them received from the gods" (Exhortation to the Greeks 2). 220AD Tertullian: [A]ll other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both [human] bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities" (Modesty 4). 250 AD Novatian: [God forbid the Jews to eat certain foods for symbolic reasons:] For that in fishes the roughness of scales is regarded as constituting their cleanness; rough, and rugged, and unpolished, and substantial, and grave manners are approved in men; while those that are without scales are unclean, because trifling, and fickle, and faithless, and effeminate manners are disapproved. Moreover, what does the Law mean when it . . . forbids the swine to be taken for food? It assuredly reproves a life filthy and dirty, and delighting in the garbage of vice . . . Or when it forbids the hare? It rebukes men deformed into women" (The Jewish Foods 3). 253 AD Cyprian of Carthage: [T]urn your looks to the abominations, not less to be deplored, of another kind of spectacle . . . Men are emasculated, and all the pride and vigor of their sex is effeminated in the disgrace of their enervated body; and he is more pleasing there who has most completely broken down the man into the woman. He grows into praise by virtue of his crime; and the more he is degraded, the more skillful he is considered to be. Such a one is looked upon--oh shame!--and looked upon with pleasure. . . . nor is there wanting authority for the enticing abomination . . . that Jupiter of theirs [is] not more supreme in dominion than in vice, inflamed with earthly love in the midst of his own thunders . . . now breaking forth by the help of birds to violate the purity of boys. And now put the question: Can he who looks upon such things be healthy-minded or modest? Men imitate the gods whom they adore, and to such miserable beings their crimes become their religion. (Letters 1:8). Methodius, bishop of Olympus and Patara (AD 260-312); Commentary on the sin of Sodom: But we do not say so of that mixture that is contrary to nature, or of any unlawful practice; for such are enmity to God. For the sin of Sodom is contrary to nature, as is also that with brute beasts. But adultery and fornication are against the law; the one whereof is impiety, the other injustice, and, in a word, no other than a great sin. But neither sort of them is without its punishment in its own proper nature. For the practicers of one sort attempt the dissolution of the world, and endeavor to make the natural course of things to change for one that is unnatural; but those of the second son — the adulterers — are unjust by corrupting others’ marriages, and dividing into two what God hath made one, rendering the children suspected, and exposing the true husband to the snares of others. And fornication is the destruction of one’s own flesh, not being made use of for the procreation of children, but entirely for the sake of pleasure, which is a mark of incontinency, and not a sign of virtue. All these things are forbidden by the laws; for thus say the oracles: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. For such a one is accursed, and ye shall stone them with stones: they have wrought abomination. 305 AD Arnobius: [T]he mother of the gods loved [the boy Attis] exceedingly, because he was of most surpassing beauty; and Acdestis [the son of Jupiter] who was his companion, as he grew up fondling him, and bound to him by wicked compliance with his lust . . . Afterwards, under the influence of wine, he [Attis] admits that he is . . . loved by Acdestis . . . Then Midas, king of Pessinus, wishing to withdraw the youth from so disgraceful an intimacy, resolves to give him his own daughter in marriage . . . Acdestis, bursting with rage because of the boy's being torn from himself and brought to seek a wife, fills all the guests with frenzied madness; the Phrygians shriek, panic-stricken at the appearance of the gods . . . [Attis] too, now filled with furious passion, raving frantically and tossed about, throws himself down at last, and under a pine tree mutilates himself, saying, "Take these, Acdestis, for which you have stirred up so great and terribly perilous commotions." (Against the Pagans 5:6-7). 319 AD Eusebius of Caesarea: [H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: `Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it.' [Lev. 18:24-25]" (Proof of the Gospel 4:10). 367 AD Basil the Great: He who is guilty of unseemliness with males will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers" (Letters 217:62). 373 AD Basil the Great: If you [O, monk] are young in either body or mind, shun the companionship of other young men and avoid them as you would a flame. For through them the enemy has kindled the desires of many and then handed them over to eternal fire, hurling them into the vile pit of the five cities under the pretense of spiritual love.. At meals take a seat far from other young men. In lying down to sleep let not their clothes be near yours, but rather have an old man between you. When a young man converses with you, or sings psalms facing you, answer him with eyes cast down, lest perhaps by gazing at his face you receive a seed of desire sown by the enemy and reap sheaves of corruption and ruin. Whether in the house or in a place where there is no one to see your actions, be not found in his company under the pretense either of studying the divine oracles or of any other business whatsoever, however necessary" (The Renunciation of the World). 390 AD John Chrysostom: [The pagans] were addicted to the love of boys, and one of their wise men made a law that pederasty . . . should not be allowed to slaves, as if it was an honorable thing; and they had houses for this purpose, in which it was openly practiced. And if all that was done among them was related, it would be seen that they openly outraged nature, and there was none to restrain them. . . . As for their passion for boys, whom they called their 'paedica,' it is not fit to be named. (Homilies on Titus 5). 391 AD John Chrysostom: [Certain men in church] come in gazing about at the beauty of women; others curious about the blooming youth of boys. After this, do you not marvel that [lightning] bolts are not launched [from heaven], and all these things are not plucked up from their foundations? For worthy both of thunderbolts and hell are the things that are done; but God, who is long-suffering, and of great mercy, forbears awhile his wrath, calling you to repentance and amendment. (Homilies on Matthew 3:3). 391 AD John Chrysostom: All of these affections [in Rom. 1:26-27] . . . were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored than the body in diseases" … "[The men] have done an insult to nature itself. And a yet more disgraceful thing than these is it, when even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to have more shame than men" … "And sundry other books of the philosophers one may see full of this disease. But we do not therefore say that the thing was made lawful, but that they who received this law were pitiable, and objects for many tears. For these are treated in the same way as women that play the whore. Or rather their plight is more miserable. For in the case of the one the intercourse, even if lawless, is yet according to nature; but this is contrary both to law and nature. For even if there were no hell, and no punishment had been threatened, this would be worse than any punishment. (Homilies on Romans 4). 400AD Augustine: [T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way. (Confessions 3:8:15). 400 AD The Apostolic Constitutions: [Christians] abhor all unlawful mixtures, and that which is practiced by some contrary to nature, as wicked and impious" (Apostolic Constitutions 6:11).

Several texts in the Jewish Midrashic literature written in the early Christian centuries, such as Beresheth Rabbah 26:5 commenting on Genesis 6:2, also asserted that God is patient with all sins except fornication, and which included homoeroticism:

“He Who commits sodomy with a male or a beast, and a woman that commits bestiality are stoned. (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 54a Soncino 1961 Edition, page 367)

It has become apparent that many churches which were once committed to Scripture and overall held to biblical positions on homosexuality have increasingly yielded to the influence of liberalism on this issues. The Dr. A. L. Barry, President of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod states that two reasons for these changes in some churches is that 'First, homosexual groups within these churches often engage in "lobbying" efforts and gain considerable influence. Second and more important, attitudes toward homosexuality have changed as a result of changing attitudes toward the authority and reliability of the Holy Scriptures."[39]

As concerns the second aspect, evidence is seen which indicates that the degree of fidelity to the historic teaching on homosexual relations among denominations and believers usually corresponds to their view of the Bible. Fundamental, evangelical type churches hold to the historic position of plenary Divine inspiration, along with a basic literalistic approach to Biblical exegesis, so that while interpretations are understood within the context of their respective literary genres, a wide range of metaphorical meanings of the historical narratives are disallowed. This position basically understands that God, as the author of Holy Scripture, made His will for man evident and to be obeyed, and that His basic doctrines and laws on attitude and behavior, including as regards sexual partners, transcend time and culture. They affirm as critical such doctrines as the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, His literal vicarious death and resurrection, and second coming. In contrast, the revisionism of liberal Christianity typically denies the full Divine inspiration of the Bible, and also can easily allow denial of the immutability and universality of basic moral commands, such as regards sexual partners. This movement of liberalism began during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, which was helped by the rise of evolution, as both share a common motivation. (cf. Is. 30:9-11; Rm. 8:7; 1Cor. 2:14) [40] Louis Cassels, the religion editor for many years for United Press International, [41] states that such,

refused to accord any special authority to the Scriptures. They increasingly came to look upon the Bible simply as an ancient book which might, if subjected to proper critical study, yield some reliable data about the life of Jesus and the history of Israel. This attitude was reflected in the vogue of "higher criticism" which swept through German theological schools in the nineteenth century....

The most radical expressions of Liberalism jettisoned the concept of a personal God in favor of what Professor Daniel B. Stevick has aptly described as "the worship of abstractions spelled with capital letters." [42]

This god the product of human reason, and is consistent with what Paul describes in Romans 1:25, which is idolatry, and those who worship at that altar typically sanction homosexual relations.

Less extreme liberals, who may be termed Modern Orthodox, continue to uphold the Deity of Christ and other primary doctrines, and some officially hold the Bible to be wholly inspired, but render many historical miraculous accounts to be fables, designed to teach a lesson, but not historical fact, and also overall do not emphasis the authority of the Bible in practical application. These tend to subscribe to the "historical-critical method," which tends to disallow the miraculous in favor of natural explanations.[43], contrary to conservatives, [44] Such also hold to the liberal revisionist "Documentary Source Hypothesis", which renders the Bible to be the work of editors who edited it over long periods of time, rather than what the text states.[45] Many in this camp, in contrast to New Testament Christianity, are likely to doctrinally compromise on popular moral issues, or allow such in their denomination, and their doctrinal statements regarding the Bible tend to lack doctrinal depth and firmness.

Evangelical Christianity (which, as defined by Barna research, makes up approx. 6-7 percent of the United States [46][47] is more distinctive in that it holds to sola scriptura, that the Bible is the final, but not the only, authority, wholly inspired by God and inerrant, although most hold that this refers to the original manuscripts. Their scholars hold to the historical contextual and grammatical method, which understands Scripture in the light of its immediate and larger contexts, as well as linguistically aspects , and affirms its statements as accurate and true, within their respective literary genres, in contrast to revisionist theories designed to negate its authority.[48] Such also hold to salvation by grace through faith in the crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ and His sinless shed blood, by which the contrite and repentant soul is justified before God, not on the basis of merit gained by their own works. [49]

Presently, research polls indicate a slim majority (58%) of self identified Catholics and mainline Protestants (56%) favor of acceptance of homosexuality, with 26 percent of evangelical Protestants concurring.[50] Similarly, a different poll shows 39 percent of Roman Catholics and 79 percent of evangelical Americans affirm that homosexual behavior is sinful.[51][52]

The Alliance of Baptists--representing a small minority of Baptists--expresses that the Bible is an inadequate basis of authority, with human experience and science being able to sanction homosexuality, and homosexual marriage, as wells as to sanction "committed" sexual relationships outside marriage.[53][54][55]

The Anglican Communion's North American provinces allow a more subjective basis for interpreting the Bible, provoking vigorous opposition from the majority of the Communion's provinces elsewhere. Anglican authorities such as Archbishop Alan Harper, Anglican Primate of Ireland, and Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, have argued against the Biblical injunctions on homosexuality. These are refuted by Robert A. J. Gagnon and other conservatives.[56] [57] A theology committee for the House of Bishops for the Episcopal Church rejected same-sex rites after 18 months of study. In 1998, the world's Anglican prelates voted that sex between homosexuals is ‘incompatible with Scripture’ at the Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops in Canterbury, England.” [58]

The attitude of the Episcopal Church toward homosexuality is partly seen in its reaction to the election of an openly gay, non-celibate priest, Gene Robinson, the father of two grown daughters who had lived openly with another man for 13 years, as Bishop. On June 7 2003, the New Hampshire diocese of the Episcopal Church elected Robinson as its Bishop. The national church approved this, with 62 of 107 bishops convening at the General Convention in Minneapolis, Minn. on Aug. 5, voting to support the canon. Robinson met his current partner in 1988, and their house was blessed by Bishop Douglas Theuner. In 2008 they were legally "married" under the laws of the State of New Hampshire, with Robinson claiming to be a June "bride." Robinson later revealed that he struggled with alcoholism for years. [59][60][61] In April, 2005, Robinson promoted Planned Parenthood targeting "people of faith" to promote abortion rights and comprehensive sex education. He also attacked traditional interpretations regarding homosexuality and the Bible, and exhorted, "The story of freedom in Exodus is our story. ... That's my story, and they can't have it."[62] Robinson's ordination and his positions here are seen to manifest a "different Jesus" and Spirit (2Cor. 11:4; Jude 1:4,11,12).

In 2009, the Episcopal Church's triennial national convention in Anaheim, Calif., passed a resolution allowing for the ordination of sodomite bishops. Though officials did not created liturgical rites to bless same-sex unions, they approved a compromise measure that allows bishops, especially in states where same-sex unions are legal, to bless the relationships.[63]

On May 15, 2010, the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Los Angeles ordained lesbian Mary Glasspool, of Baltimore, before 3,000 people, who burst into applause at the end.[64] [65] This is the first time a lesbian ha been ordained in any church calling itself Christian, it being contrary to the source of the term, the Bible, (Acts 11:26) which condemns homosexuality, and which also upholds the headship of the man.[66]

The Episcopal Church, the U.S. affiliate of the Anglican Communion, is divided over homosexuality and same-sex marriages. This is expressed in the Report of the Theology Committee of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church. This also states that "The Church vigorously denounces discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation, [4.5] An example of this was seen in 2005, when six priests faced being defrocked by the Episcopal Bishop of Connecticut because of their refusal to abide by the ECUSA's practice of ordaining homosexuals and conducting same-sex blessing ceremonies. One of the six, Christopher Leighton of St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Darien, confirmed there was a deep chasm between conservative priests and leaders of the diocese over biblical authority. "The Bible's very clear," he stated, "that the only acceptable expression of intimacy, in human beings, is between a man and a woman for life, and we call it holy wedlock. And the recent decisions of the Episcopal Church fly in the face of the scriptures and of the worldwide Anglican Communion, and world Christianity."[67]

In America, Episcopal conservatives have formed dozens of rival churches, the Anglican Church in North America being the largest of them with a claimed membership of 100,000. In April, 2010, some 130 Anglicans from 20 in Australia endorsed a document encouraging each another to reconsider their relationships with The Episcopal Church, and condemning the western church body for pursuing "an agenda of their own desire in opposition to historic norms of faith, teaching and practice." [68] However, most opposition to the revisionist movement comes from outside the West. "Anglican groups in North America, Central America, Brazil, Japan, New Zealand and Southern Africa tend to lean toward an inclusive view of homosexuality. In contrast, a majority of Anglican churches in Africa (where a major number of Anglican churches are located) and the West Indies hold that the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin, and they are threatening to leave the Anglican Church if the church continues to condone homosexual behavior."[69] Peter Karanja, of the All Saints Cathedral Church in Nairobi, Kenya, may be seen as summing up the opposition in stating, "We cannot be in fellowship with them when they violate the explicit Scripture that the Anglican Church subscribes to. It's outrageous and uncalled for."[70]

The Assemblies of God is clear and detailed in stating that it holds the Bible to be wholly inspired and inerrant (in the original).[71][72] Its position on homosexuality states, in part,

Homosexual behavior is sin because it is disobedient to scriptural teachings. Writers sympathetic to the homosexual community have advanced revisionist interpretations of relevant biblical texts that are based upon biased exegesis and mistranslation. In effect, they seek to set aside almost 2,000 years of Christian Biblical interpretation and ethical teachings. We believe these efforts are reflective of the conditions described in 2Timothy 4:3, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” It should be noted at the outset that there is absolutely no affirmation of homosexual activity found anywhere in Scripture. [73]

The Christian and Missionary Alliance, also referred to as the Fellowship Alliance church, upholds the view that the

The Old and New Testaments, inerrant as originally given, were verbally inspired by God and are a complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men. They constitute the divine and only rule of Christian faith and practice.[74]

A provided statement on homosexuality is clear and unambiguous, part of which states,

The Old Testament reveals God’s original design to make human beings in His image, male and female. Each person’s completeness is realized in relationship to one who is alike in nature but opposite sexually (Genesis 2:10-24), unless a person is given the gift of celibate singleness (1 Corinthians 7:1, 7-8). In the New Testament, Jesus confirms the heterosexual creation of human beings: God made them male and female (Matthew 19:4). Throughout Scripture heterosexual families consisting of a father, mother, and their children (unless they are unable to bear children) are the norm of society. The New Testament reinforces the teaching of heterosexual love and sexual relations within marriage (Ephesians 5:22-33, Hebrews 13:4, 1 Corinthians 7:1-5). Alongside this clear biblical teaching on God’s design for heterosexual marriage are found specific instructions that prohibit homosexual conduct, for example: Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13). Homosexual conduct is detestable because it is out of harmony with the purpose for which God created human beings. But the same passage of Scripture strongly affirms the liberating power of the Christian gospel from all former sinful patterns of life, including homosexual behavior and inclinations: And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:11-12).[75][76]

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) officially holds to a liberal and subjective view regarding Scripture. It states that "God inspired the Bible’s many writers, editors and compilers", the mention of the latter entities indicating that it hold to the revisionary Documentary Source Hypothesis. It also seeks to "interpret Scripture by listening to the living Jesus in the context of the Church". As expressed, this holds that that the writer’s culture or personal experience or bias may have have resulted in "his missing what God was saying or doing, or that God now is saying or doing something new."[77]

As regards homosexuality, the ELCA affirms "... that gay and lesbian people, as individuals created by God, are welcome to participate fully in the life of the congregations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America." Nevertheless it stated, "The ELCA has no policy on the blessing of same-sex unions".

Previously, it was the policy of the ELCA that "all single rostered people, including those who are homosexual in their self-understanding," were "expected to abstain from sexual relationships." [78] However, on August 21, 2009, the ELCA voted 559 to 451 at its convention in Minneapolis, Minn., to allow sexually active gays in a "committed relationship" to be ordained.[79] In 2010, several dozen ELCA congregations opposed to the church's stance on homosexuality issues began the process of forming a rival church body, the North American Lutheran Church.

The other Lutheran bodies in the United States have continued to defend and maintain the tradition view of sexuality and marriage.

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church, a relatively new denomination formed mainly by souls resisting increasing liberalism among churches of the Presbyterian Church (USA), provides a rather extensive explanation of its beliefs and positions, with both the Westminster Confession of Faith and Essentials of Our Faith documenting such.

As regards the Bible, it holds that,

The infallible Word of God, the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, is a complete and unified witness to God's redemptive acts culminating in the incarnation of the Living Word, the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible, uniquely and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, is the supreme and final authority on all matters on which it speaks. On this sure foundation we affirm these additional Essentials of our faith...set forth in greater detail in the Westminster Confession of Faith.[80]

As regards homosexual practices, its Position Paper on Homosexuality states (compiled),

...the conviction of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church is that 1) homosexuality is a sin; and 2) God forgives repentant sinners.

...homosexual practice is a distortion of the image of God as it is still reflected in fallen man, and a perversion of the sexual relationship as God intended it to be.

We believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the infallible Word of God, the final authority on all issues to which it speaks. Therefore sexual attitudes and behaviors are to be judged in the light of the Bible, rather than the Bible being reinterpreted, modified or overturned by current cultural trends in thought and behavior.

Even some Christian churches and their leaders are granting moral legitimacy to homosexuality. The prevailing ethic in the minds of many has become a “genetically-based morality.”...The EPC finds such moral logic to be significantly flawed....The EPC asserts that God’s law alone as revealed in the holy Scriptures is to be our basis for morality. We reject attempts to base morality on scientific study. The Bible teaches that since the fall of man, mankind has been born with a sinful nature. The Bible teaches that greed, lust, envy strife, etc., are characteristic of fallen man, and in that sense are our orientation from birth. But while they may be our natural orientation, they are still sin. Simply put, the Old and New Testaments consistently condemn homosexual practice and repeatedly affirm that God forgives the repentant sinner.[81]

The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod (LCMS) holds that the Bible is inspired and inerrant, and only the source of doctrine. It "Rule of faith" is judged by it.

The "Holy Scriptures are the Word of God...they are in all their parts and words the infallible truth, also in those parts which treat of historical, geographical, and other secular matters, John 10:35.[82]

On homosexuality, in a detailed and consistent teaching it states that,

The Lord teaches us through His Word that homosexuality is a sinful distortion of His desire that one man and one woman live together in marriage as husband and wife.God categorically prohibits homosexuality. Our church, The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod,has declared that homo- sexual behavior is "intrinsically sinful."

And in addition,

While clearly affirming the sinfulness of homosexuality, we will also want clearly to affirm God's promise of forgiveness in Christ Jesus.Often families of homosexuals are embarrassed and ashamed. If Christian friends and relatives treat them in ways that increase this shame, it is little wonder that they will attempt to rationalize or otherwise explain away a son's or daughter's sinful lifestyle.[83]

The Mennonite Church issues a fairly strong statement on its belief in the Bible, which reads (in part):

We believe that all Scripture is inspired by God through the Holy Spirit for instruction in salvation and training in righteousness. We also acknowledge the Scripture as the fully reliable and trustworthy Word of God written in human language. We acknowledge the Scripture as the authoritative source and standard for preaching and teaching about faith and life, for distinguishing truth from error, for discerning between good and evil, and for guiding prayer and worship. Other claims on our understanding of Christian faith and life, such as tradition, culture, experience, reason, and political powers, need to be tested and corrected by the light of Holy Scripture.[84]

On homosexuality, the current understanding of God's will regarding human sexuality by the General Conference Mennonite Church (1986) and the Mennonite Church (1987) is expressed in its "Resolution on Human Sexuality" (adopted at the 1986 triennial session at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, by the General Conference Mennonite Church). As regards homosexuality it states,

We understand the Bible to teach that sexual intercourse is reserved for a man and woman united in marriage and that violation of this teaching is a sin.[85]

This was affirmed in 1998 by the Conference of Mennonites in Canada.[86]

The PCUSA denomination, in a carefully nuanced and liberal explanation of "What do Presbyterians believe about the Bible?", states, "We believe that through it God speaks to us--that it is inspired. For some, that means the Bible is inerrant. For others, it means that even though the Bible is culturally conditioned and not necessarily factual or even always true, it breathes with the life of God."[87] the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the Church universal, and God's Word to [them]."[88] The Scriptures, given under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are nevertheless the words of men, conditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions of the places and times at which they were written. They reflect views of life, history, and the cosmos that were then current.[89]

Similar to the United Methodists, its position on homosexuality appears to be in a state of flux. In Jun. 28 2008, The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)'s highest governing body voted Friday in favor of a proposal that would allow for the ordination of non-celibate gays and lesbians. In addition it was proposed that the requirement in the Book of Order, section G-6.0106bbe, be deleted which required clergy to live in "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between and a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness". Question 87 of the catechism states, "Can those who do not turn to God from their ungrateful, impenitent life be saved?" "Certainly not! Scripture says, 'Surely you know that the unjust will never come into possession of the kingdom of God. Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers or drunkards or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God.'" [90] More recently (March 2009) the Charlotte Presbytery also recommenced ending their denomination's longstanding ban on gays and lesbians becoming pastors and elders.[91] However, on April 27, 2009, a slim majority of the presbyteries voted against the proposed amendment, 89 to 69. Terry Schlossberg, of the conservative Presbyterian Coalition, said ``those who wish to change the biblically rooted standard have continually pressed the matter and required repeated votes that have had the same impact each time." This is the fourth time in the past twelve years that the proposal to amend the Presbyterian Church's constitution has been defeated in official presbyterial voting.[92]

Nevertheless, in certain doctrinal matters, many conservatives see a manifest discrepancy between officially taught and is often allowed. States Dr. D. Dean Weaver, senior pastor of Memorial Park Presbyterian Church in Pittsburgh and co-moderator of the New Wineskins Association of Churches (a network of dissident Presbyterians), "We think there is an unfortunate but clear distinction between what is on paper and what is the working theology of the denomination."[93] Adds Michael Neubert of the Presbytery of Southeastern Illinois, "The written standards of the denomination are precisely correct, but they are largely ignored." "And so, quoting the standard is pointless."[94]

Roman Catholicism holds that God is the author of sacred Scripture, which is wholly inspired, but it is not all revelation of truth, nor in effect, the supreme authority. While the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is held to be entrusted to her, the Church "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence." (80). The Pope and the Church's living Magisterium are also held to provide infallible truth, when declared in accordance with infallibly defined criteria. (891) Also, "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him. (100) By such the above doctrines are derived, and 'by a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith.' (889) [95]

In an apparent departure from the past,[96] the official (for America) New American Bible commentary considers historical narratives such as the creation and temptation story Gn. 2-3; Cain and Able (Gn. 4:16; the flood of Noah 6-8; the tower of Babel (Gn. 11); the story of Balaam and his donkey (Numbers 22 cf. 1Pet. 2:16; Jude 1:11; Rev. 2:14) etc., to be allegorical "folk tales to teach a lesson." It also considers the core of such narratives as Joseph (Gn. 37-50), Samson (Judges 13-16) David and Goliath (1 Sam. 17) and those of Abraham, Issac and Jacob (Gn. 13-36) to be historical, while otherwise being novels, using traditions to teach religious lessons.[97][98]

As regards homosexuality, Roman Catholic Catechism (1992), teaches that,

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. 2357

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.

In the Catholic Encyclopedia (Broderick) it states, based upon the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1990)

In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society....no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For, according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the consequence of rejecting God."[99]

In "Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care" (2006), American bishops stated, in part,

the Catholic Church has consistently taught that homosexual acts “are contrary to the natural law. . . . Under no circumstances can they be approved.

In the book of Genesis we learn that God created humanity as male and female and that according to God’s plan a man and a woman come together and “the two of them become one body.” Whenever homosexual acts are mentioned in the Old Testament, it is clear that they are disapproved of, as contrary to the will of God. In the New Testament, St. Paul teaches that homosexual acts are not in keeping with our being created in God’s image and so degrade and undermine our authentic dignity as human beings.

Homosexuals have also been banned from becoming priests. Estimates on the number of homosexual priests range from less than 4% to over 50%.[100] Of the 6% reported to have been sexually invloded with children, 4% were homosexual.

Is spite of official Roman Catholic teaching, a number of pr homosexual Catholic groups continue to seek to change this teaching.

Homosexual researcher John Boswell (1947-1994) in an effort many see as a case of homosexual historical revisionism, tendentiously worked to claim that the Roman Catholicism came to sanction a degree of homosexual bonding till the 13th century. However, his research and conclusions have been much disputed by liberal and conservative scholars alike.[101][102][103]

The largest Protestant denomination within the United States, the Southern Baptist Convention, clearly and concisely states that the Bible is inspired and inerrant, that

It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter."[104] "Baptists also make statements of belief, but all of them are revisable in light of Scripture. The Bible is the final word."

Regarding homosexuality:

We affirm God's plan for marriage and sexual intimacy – one man, and one woman, for life. Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. Homosexuality is not a "valid alternative lifestyle." The Bible condemns it as sin. It is not, however, unforgivable sin. The same redemption available to all sinners is available to homosexuals. They, too, may become new creations in Christ.[107] See also Resolutions.[3]

The United Church of Christ provides little in the way of official position on the Bible. The Constitution and Bylaws of the United Church of Christ mentions the scriptures/Bible once, stating that "It looks to the Word of God in the Scriptures, and to the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, to prosper its creative and redemptive work in the world."

Its overarching goal is unity, and as such "The UCC has no rigid formulation of doctrine or attachment to creeds or structures."[108] The United Church of Christ publishes The New Century Hymnal, which is the only hymnal released by a Christian church that honors in equal measure both male and female images of God.[109]

Far more is expressed in its Constitution and Bylaws as regards homosexuality, which it promotes more than any other major liberal denomination, sanctioning the United Church of Christ Coalition for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns, which

is composed of members and friends of the United Church of Christ who affirm the good news that all persons of all sexual orientations are loved and empowered by God. The Coalition actively works to combat prejudice and seeks justice for, and the full inclusion and involvement of, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered Christians in all expressions of the United Church of Christ...

On July 4, 2005, the UCC General Synod overwhelming backed a same-sex marriage resolution, "affirming the civil rights of gay - of same-gender - couples to have their relationships recognized as marriages by the state, and encouraging our local churches to celebrate those marriages." This made the UCC the first among major U.S. Christian denominations to promote same-sex marriage rights. [110]

Some dissident groups within the UCC made moves to separate themselves from this decision, such as The Biblical Witness Fellowship.[111]

Official United Methodist statements on the Bible lack depth and detail. It holds that the Bible is inspired by God and contains all things necessary to salvation.[112] It overall manifests that it allows subjective sources to alter basic moral teaching. [113]

Homosexuals are allowed to be members, but "self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as [ministerial]] candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church." "Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches." However, it has yet to firmly resolve the issue (to stand with the Bible), and considers this a debatable subject.[114] It yet supports traditional marriage, though not distinctive gender roles as being normative in such,[115] and strongly supports ordaining women as pastors over men.[116] It opposes homophobia as well as heterosexism, such as provides "a privileged status for people who identify as culturally defined heterosexuals" (which the Bible promotes), and supports equal civil rights for homosexuals[117][118] (the sexual practice of said persons the Bible criminalizes). Liberal activists within the church continue to promote acceptance of homosexuality, with conservatives opposing.[119]

? The Divinity of "the Christ, the Son of the Living God"? H. Havelock Ellis, "Studies in Psychology," 1897]? http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080606/survey-americans-divided-on-homosexuality-as-sin.htm? http://www.gallup.com/poll/117154/Catholics-Similar-Mainstream-Abortion-Stem-Cells.aspx? Pastor Joseph P. Gudel, Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture, The Authority of Scripture, Christian Research Institute Journal? Alex D. Montoya, The Master's Seminary Journal (TMSJ), 11/2 (Fall 2000), Homosexuality and the church? Genesis: the Unique Union of Man and Women, also Eunuchs and Exegesis? Gordon Wenham, In addition, from it the term "sodomy" was derived. The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality Expository Times 102 (1991): 259-363? (Cf. Genesis Rabbah 50:5, on Gen. 9:22 ff. More generally see M.Kasher, Torah Shlemah, vol. 3 to Gen 19:5.)? http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html #19 Homosex versus the Bible, Genesis 19; Jude 1:7]? Daniel Helminiak, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, pp. 46 - 47? A Reformed Response to Daniel Helminiak's Gay Theology? Gagnon, "God and Sex" or "Pants on Fire"? The "Irrelevance of Levitical Prohibitions" Argument? Homosexuality, Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law, pp. 65-69? The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9 David E. Malick? (“Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of ARSENOKOITAI (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10),” Vigiliae Christianae 38 [1984] 125-53)? THE MALAKOI AND ARSENOKOITAI (I COR 6:9): WHAT IS REALLY MEANT BY THESE TERMS?? Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 14; Heliminiak, What the Bible really says homosexuality (pro gay), p. 76; Hanks, Thomas D.; A Gay Apostle’s Queer Epistle for a Peculiar People: Romans 1:16-2:16; (compilation); Countrymen, Dirt, Greed and Sex, pp. 98-123; Edwards, "Gay/Leban Liberation, pp. 85-102; Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality, pp. 115-18; Boswell, ibid. pp. 108-113? Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 256-67; Richard B. Hays, "Awaiting the redemption of our bodies." pp. 6, 7-21; Hays, "Natural and unnatural: A response to John Boswell's exegesis of Romans 1." Journal of Religious Ethics 14 (1986), pp. 184-215); Greg L. Bahnsen, Homosexuality" A Biblical View, pp. 47-61; The Bible Knowledge Commentary, by John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck, Louis A. Barbieri Jr., Dallas; The Bible and Sexual Boundaries, by Craig R. Koester; David E. Malick, "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27," Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 599 (1993): 327-340.? [http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/32003b.asp One Flesh Why Sodomy Can Never Depict the Relationship Between Christ and His Church]? Gagnon, How Bad Is Homosexual Practice According to Scripture? [ http://www.ovrlnd.com/FalseDoctrine/Gay_Christians.html A Response to the 'Gay Christian' Movement, Vincent McCann, Spotlight Ministries]? Guenther Haas, Hermeneutical issues in the use of the Bible to justify the acceptance of homosexual practice? Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Apostle Paul on Sexuality: A Response? THE SOURCE AND NT MEANING OF ARSENOKOITAI, WITH IMPLICATIONS OR CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND MINISTRY, James B. De Young? [ http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_corinthians6.pdf The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9 David E. Malick? PAUL, HOMOSEXUALITY, AND 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11? Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate 1by Calvin Smith? Linguistic Grounds for Translating Arsenokoitai as “Homosexuals” De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications? THE MALAKOI AND ARSENOKOITAI (I COR 6:9): WHAT IS REALLY MEANT BY THESE TERMS?? http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoBalchHBTReview2.pdf? The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 159-83? Gagnon, Notes to Gagnon’s Essay in the Gagnon-Via Two Views Book? http://www.robgagnon.net/homoAuthorityScripture.htm? The Bible and Homosexuality; Mark 7:7: Did Jesus include homosexuality in “fornication?? Gagnon, why the disagreement over the biblical witness on homosexual practice? A Response to Myers and Scanzoni, What God Has Joined Together?? The Sodom tradition in Romans Biblical Theology Bulletin, Spring, 2004 by Philip F. Esler? What did early Christians believe about...?. Bible.ca? What about homosexuality? Julian Huxley And The Idolatry Of Evolution, The American Thinker, September 16, 2007? Informational, and overall fair analysis, though the missionary effects are an effect of the evangelical gospel, not the cause of its growth? What’s the Difference? A Comparison of the Faiths Men Live By, by Louis Cassels, 1995? The Bible’s Deadly Enemy, BRF Witness? [http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/LifeJ/HistCrit.htm The historical-critical method, by Barry D. Smith? Does Anyone Still Believe the 'Documentary Hypothesis'?? Survey Explores Who Qualifies As an Evangelical, The Barna Group, Ltd.? [1]? Why the Historical-Critical Method of Interpreting Scripture is Incompatible with Confessional Lutheranism. by John F. Brug? Ibid. Barna.org ? Religious landscape survey The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life? LifeWay Research study, June 2008? Revealing Statistics: differences among denominations? 1999 "Report on the Task Force on Human Sexuality"? The Alliance of Baptists Affirms Same-Sex Marriage? [ http://www.baptist2baptist.org/b2barticle.asp?ID=266 For the Bible tells me so. by Russell D. Moore November 2000]? The Faulty Orientation Argument of Anglican Archbishop Harper of Ireland, by Robert A J Gagnon? Rowan Williams’ Wrong Reading of Romans, Gagnon ? Saunders and Duin, "Church Elects Its First Gay Bishop", The Washington Times? Robinson's speech: Divisive, as expected? http://lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com/2009/01/bishop-gene-robinson-rick-warren-barak.html? Gay Episcopal Bishop Prepares for June Wedding, U/Miami News Service, December 4, 2007? Gay bishop backs Planned Parenthood, The Washington Times, April 15, 2005? Washingtonpost.com, July 18, 2009; "Episcopal Bishops Can Bless Gay Unions"? Associated Press, May 15, 2010? http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100514/episcopal-church-set-to-ordain-lesbian-bishop/print.html? http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/WOMENPASTORS.html? http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/5/52005c.asp? Episcopal Church Set to Ordain Lesbian Bishop, The Christian Post, May. 14 2010? http://christianteens.about.com/od/homosexuality/f/EpisAngHomosexu.htm (liberal)? Time magazine, Aug. 11, 2003? Our 16 Fundamental Truths The Scriptures Inspired? The inerrancy of Scripture? Homosexuality? http://www.cmalliance.org/about/beliefs/doctrine? Homosexuality? STATEMENT ON HOMOSEXUALITY? What do Lutherans believe about the Bible?? http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/New-or-Returning-to-Church/Dig-Deeper/Homosexuality-and-the-ELCA.aspx? Sara Shookman Lutherans to allow gay clergy, Gray Television, Inc (Aug 23, 2009)? Westminster Confession of Faith? Position Paper on Homosexuality? Of the Holy Scriptures? What about Homosexuality?? http://www.mennolink.org/doc/cof/art.4.html? http://www.ambs.edu/LJohns/Resolutions.htm? http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/R48721.html? What Presbyterians Believe, by David Robert Ord? Book of Order G-14.0405b.2? Confession of 1967 (9.30)? A Date with Disaster -- Presbyterians Approve Homosexual Clergy? http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2009/03/the-pcusa-inches-closer-to-ord.php? http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2009/04/presbyterians-defeat-move-to-a.php? http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070626/conservative-presbyterians-pc-usa-not-walking-the-talk/index.html? Rev. Michael Neubert of the Presbytery of Southeastern Illinois, according to Presbyweb? Catechism of the Catholic church? Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, no. 11; Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, no. 13; Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, no. 3; Pius XII, Humani Generis, no. 22? How to Read your Bible, Literary genres forms; The New American Bible, Catholic Book Publishing Company. NHIL OBSTAT Stephen J. Hartdegen, O.F.M. S.S.I.; IMPRIMATUR Patrick Cardinal O/Boyle, D.D. Archbishop of Washington? http://www.saveourchurch.org/thenewamericanbibleherisies.pdf? Robert Broderick, Ed., "Catholic Encyclopedia: Revised and updated edition," Nelson, (1987), Page 272a? Bill Blakemore, "Crisis in the Church: Is celibacy to blame?," ABC News; "Gay Priests," Religion & Ethics Newsweekly, 2002-MAY-10, sociologist James G. Wolfe The Silence of Sodom, by Mark D. Jordan p. 102; James G. Wolf, "Gay Priests," Harper and Row, 1989, Pages 59-60.; "Report: Priests hit hard by hidden AIDS epidemic," Associated Press, 2000-Jan-31; Judy L. Thomas, "Catholic priests are dying of AIDS, often in silence," Kansas City Star, 2000-JAN-29, at: http://www.kcstar.com. Sources compiled by the misnamed, pro homosexual "Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance"? David Wright, "Do you take this man ... --- Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe by John Boswell", National Review Aug 29, 1994; 59-60? Robin Darling Young, , Gay Marriage: Reimagining Church History, First Things, 47 ( Nov 1 1994), 43-? On Boswell and “Men who lie with a male” in 1 Corinthians 6:9: A Response to Harwood and Porter? The Baptist Faith and Message? Creeds and Confessions]? Resolution On The Bible June 1978? Position Statements/Sexuality? www.ucc.org, "What we believe"? UCC 'Firsts'? N.Y. Times, July 5, 2005; United Church of Christ Backs Same-Sex Marriage By SHAILA DEWAN? http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/United_Church_of_Christ/id/2037154? The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church, V-VIII? Commentary: Do United Methodist Bishops Really Value Christian Unity? By John Lomperis? Leader Resources, What is the denomination’s position on homosexuality? Book of Resolutions. See also Judicial Council Decisions 984, 985? The Nurturing Community? Are women pastors Biblical?? Book of Resolutions, Opposition to Homophobia and Heterosexism? The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church - 2008? The Dallas Morning News, May 3, 2008: Hundreds protest Methodist church's stance on homosexuality at Fort Worth conference

View the original article here

Obama Care

Donations Are Always Welcome and Appreciated

Translate

Monday, November 18, 2013

User talk:Markman

User:RalphCifaretto

User:Gawilburn42

Homosexuality and Christianity

About Me

Blog Archive