@LeeWoofenden To be frank, I'm pretty confident continued sodomy permanently damages the anus. Comparatively, continued vaginal intercourse damages nothing.

@El'endiaStarman Conditions are historically defined by symptoms that deviate from typical function.

Attraction to the same sex is pretty far from typical, not that this is the only metric for condition classification in modern medicine.

But some qualifier that deviates from what's typical is always present.

Even in extreme cases, such as death. ;)

> 76% Say Students Shutting Down Offensive Speakers Reveals “Broader Pattern” of How Students Cope

Prior to the pattern of "offensive" speakers actually being prevented from speaking at college campuses, I signed numerous petitions to get abortion advocates barred from speaking at Catholic colleges and universities

None of which were heeded...

It's a bit different at a public university though.

@fredsbend And I find that to be unfortunate.

@fredsbend If you mean anal sex, it's true that it is riskier than vaginal sex. However, not all gay men have anal sex, and many heterosexuals have anal sex, so this is not an issue exclusive to or even necessarily associated with a homosexual relationship. Also, safe sex practices such as lubricants and condoms greatly reduce the risks.

when you think of two people dating / getting married, do you automatically think about sex?

if no, then why do you only think about sex when homosexuality is involved?

@fredsbend Further, lesbians are also homosexuals, and though some lesbians do engage in various forms of anal sex, the majority do not.

[not addressing anyone in particular]

@LeakyNun I can't imagine a healthy relationship not including sex. I'd say that only well established relationships can manage long periods without sex, but I don't think such a relationship can be established without sex in the first place.

@El'endiaStarman A double edged sword there.

Perhaps there is hope for Protestantism yet--at least when it comes to Luther's massive error in proclaiming sola fide as the core doctrine of the church: "After 500 years of Reformation, More Than Half of Protestants in America Disagree with Luther"

And as for sola scriptura, I've long maintained that Protestants historically gave more authority to Luther and Calvin's teachings than they did to the teachings stated in Scripture. So that part of the article is, in my view, simply a recognition of the reality that exists in Protestantism in comparison to the sola scriptura theory. Protestants in practice give more weight to church authority, and specifically to the doctrines of their founding theologians, than they do to the Bible.

@LeeWoofenden Those are cultural, not convictional protestants. Probably mostly "mainline".

Half of Protestants in America probably think the Constitution was written in stone at Mount Sinai

I don't know what Protestants you mix with, but I have never heard any Protestant make an argument with "Calvin said it so it must be true" as a basis for their position. Both Calvin and Luther were wrong about a bunch of stuff and no one has any issue with disagreeing with them because our highest authority is Scripture, not human theologians.

Protestantism has always encouraged the Berean spirit, in general contrast to Catholicism.

@fredsbend If by that you mean that "natural" does not imply "bad", then I totally agree. The naturalistic fallacy cuts both ways.

Now, it may be the case that the reasons that X is natural are valid arguments for position Y. E.g., incestuous relationships - unnatural and/because they increase the chance of genetic deformities in children.

Avoiding rotten fruit - natural and/because they can have toxins and bacteria and stuff that will make you sick and maybe die. Not murdering your competitors - unnatural and/but it's immoral. Internet - highly unnatural and/but it's bringing together people in unprecedented and mostly positive ways.

@El'endiaStarman In this context, I meant to point out that homosexual attraction feeling natural is not a valid argument for the attraction being good.

I couldn't find the answer with some googling, but maybe you can help.

The numerals are replacable, and the sign board is inside the church.

pinterest.com/pin/9781324164305160 seems to call it "hymn board"

ok, that solves it, it's a hymn board en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hymn_board . sorry for the bother

@LeeWoofenden I agree with @Birdie. You're way off. Every protestant I've known wants to look in the bible first.

@b_jonas With old churchy things like this, there may be a common name and a real name.

@fredsbend Yes, there can be multiple names.

@LeeWoofenden In fact, I can count on one hand the number of Christians I've met that have even read Calvin's works.

Luther, a bit more, but that's because I attended a Lutheran church for a while.

Even still, however, if something comes up in conversation, they almost always turn to the bible for authority. The clever few will recognize there's been volumes written for ever passage, and they'll note different interpretations.

@LeeWoofenden Do you mean even now they give more authority to that, as opposed to hundreds of years ago?

@b_jonas It doesn't matter what he means. He's wrong either way ;)

@fredsbend Oh yeah, that too.

@curiousdannii Then the "cultural" Protestants are closer to what the Bible teaches than the "convictional" Protestants. God has is ways of getting past doctrinal error in those who are more committed to following Jesus Christ in their lives than they are to adhering to church dogma.

@Birdie You don't have to read Calvin to be imbued with his teachings. Presumably the pastor studied Calvin, and Calvin's teachings, in seminary. The pastor then passes that on to the laypeople of the congregation. And the pastor doesn't necessarily say, "This is what Calvin teaches." So the laypeople hear and accept Calvin's doctrine without knowing where it came from.

@fredsbend And that's the difference between perception and reality. Protestants are taught, and believe, that every teaching should be based on the Bible. And they fervently believe that all of their teachings are based on the Bible. The problem is, they can't actually quote any passages from the Bible that state the fundamentals of their doctrine, such as justification by faith alone or penal substitution. So where do those beliefs come from?

@fredsbend The reality is that those teachings don't come from the Bible. They come from Luther, Calvin, et. al. But Protestants have been so imbued with them, usually without knowing where they came from (see my response to @Birdie just above, that when they open the Bible, all they see is those teachings, even though the Bible never actually says that we are justified by faith alone or that Christ paid the penalty for our sins.

@fredsbend I've had this conversation with Protestants so many times, including here, that it's pretty much old hat by now:

"Where does the Bible say that we are justified by faith alone?"

(Quotes passage from Paul saying we're justified by faith and not by works.)

"But that doesn't actually say that we are justified by faith alone. Why do you add "alone" to what the Bible says there?"

(Mumbles something about how that's what it means.)

"Are you aware that in the only passage in the Bible that actually mentions faith alone, James 2:24, it is explicitly rejected as justifying a person?"

"Well, that means something else" (mumbles something about positional rather than soteriological some sort of Protestant mumbo jumbo).

"Do you know where the doctrine of justification by faith alone comes from?"

"It comes from the Bible."

"Where does the Bible say we are justified by faith alone?"

(rinse and repeat)

"In fact, it was Luther, not the Bible, who said we are justified by faith alone."

"What? I've never even read Luther!!!!!"

@LeeWoofenden "I've had this conversation with Protestants so many times, including here..." - well that's not true: a conversation necessarily involves listening to the other side and you miss that part of things out.

@fredsbend The fact of the matter is that Protestants can't quote a single passage that actually says that we are justified by faith alone or that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. And yet, "convictional" Protestants believe those things. So where did they come from. Any objective scholar or student of church history can point to Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, and so on as the source of these doctrines.

@fredsbend So in reality what are Protestants giving more authority to? The Bible or their founding theologians?

@bruisedreed In your opinion. Because you don't like what I'm saying, and you don't like the fact that you cannot actually quote any passages from the Bible that say that we are justified by faith alone or that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. So instead of recognizing that the Bible doesn't actually teach these things, you get mad at me and attack me for pointing out that truth to you.

@b_jonas I mean both historically and in the present, Protestants who believe in basic Protestant doctrine in fact, if not in their own minds, give more authority to Luther, Calvin, and the other leading Protestant theologians than they do to the Bible, because if there's a contest between what the Bible says and what Luther says, they'll pick what Luther says and not what the Bible says. See my response to @fredsbend above.

@LeeWoofenden No, it isn't because I don't like what you are saying, it is because you don't listen to what others are saying - you either ignore it completely or misrepresent it.

@bruisedreed In your opinion.

@bruisedreed If something someone says is nonsensical, self-contradictory, flatly contradicts the Bible's plain teachings, or is just a lot of theological jargon, I'm going to say so. And that's exactly what every Protestant argument justifying justification by faith alone is. It flatly contradicts the Bible, it's nonsensical, self-contradictory, and supported by a lot of theological jargon that has no real meaning.

@bruisedreed James 2:24 should be enough to settle the issue on justification by faith alone. The fact that it doesn't for "convictional" Protestants shows that in fact, they give more authority to Luther than to the Bible.

@LeeWoofenden I think you forget just how frequently you do talk about it. To us, at least.

@LeeWoofenden They believe a lot more than just the few dogmas you keep barking at. [I think I'm clever ;)

Besides, Swedenborg claims the ghost of Luther confessed to him that he stressed "faith alone" only do he could ensure a break from Catholicism.

Just like old Chuck Darwin's deathbed recanting of evolution.

@LeeWoofenden I think people often read what they already believe into the bible, Swedenborgians no exception.

That's what happens when you compile ancient texts and call them the "word of God".

There's many things protestants believe, and they use the bible rather well to support them. Some of these beliefs conflict with neighboring churches, yet the bible is still the authority for both of them.

And at this point, cue @PeterTurner to note "that's why you (the church) needs the magisterium."

And frankly, he makes an excellent point. If only the Catholic church didn't seem so evidently not godly.

@fredsbend How could I forget?

@fredsbend True. And some of it is even true. But the dogmas I'm barking at are at the core of Protestant belief. Without them, the rest falls apart.

@fredsbend That's irrelevant to the historical fact that Martin Luther, not the Bible, is the source of the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

@fredsbend Certainly. But the Bible also has intrinsic meaning. To deny that is to say that language has no meaning of its own, but only what we impose on it. And that is to say that actual communication is impossible--that everything we "read" is simply our own mind creating meaning in a text that has no meaning of its own.

@fredsbend In other words, you can't just make the Bible say whatever you want it to say.

@fredsbend In what way do they use the Bible "rather well" to support their beliefs? I have yet to hear a really good biblical argument for the fundamentals of Protestant doctrine.

@fredsbend When Protestants ignore and explain away plain text such as James 2:24 bearing on their doctrine, and heavily interpret other texts that aren't so clear in order to make them support their doctrine, how is that "using the Bible rather well" to support those doctrines? It is, in fact, ignoring the plain statements that the Bible makes in favor of obscure and historically inaccurate human interpretations to attempt to make the Bible say what they want it to say.

@fredsbend The magisterium is the teacher for Catholics when it comes to Divine and Natural Law, so you get a 2-fer there (and avoid all Lee's points about using the Bible to support all your beliefs).

@PeterTurner To be clear, I am not a proponent of sola scriptura if that means that every belief must be stated in or derived from the Bible. Rather, what I've consistently said is that the essentials of Christian doctrine, especially as regards our salvation, must be plainly stated in the Bible or they cannot claim to be essentials of the Christian faith.

@PeterTurner There are, of course, many secondary and ancillary beliefs that are valid but are not stated in the Bible. On those, there can certainly be variation of belief and still be within the general realm of Christian doctrine.

@PeterTurner But doctrines that various Christian denominations claim as litmus test beliefs, without which one is not Christian, but that are not stated in the Bible, must be rejected as having the status those denominations claim for them.

@PeterTurner Among these are the doctrines of the Trinity of Persons, original sin, justification by faith alone, and the satisfaction theory of atonement in both its Catholic (Aquinian) and Protestant (penal substitution) varieties.

@PeterTurner Once human, creedal doctrines are set up as essential Christian doctrine, those human bodies that then go on to derive further doctrine based on those human doctrines are bound to fall into greater and greater doctrinal error. And that is precisely what has happened with the Catholic Magisterium and with Protestant theology generally.

@PeterTurner I'd be a Catholic if it wasn't for the Church ;)

@LeeWoofendenI know you're just trying to be clear where your reply applies, and I appreciate the through approach, but I wish you'd ping a bit less. For example, you pinged Peter 5 times in a row, all in reply to the same message just above yours. Your last volley with me was similar.

Lee, have you ever considered that you just don't understand the Protestant arguments supporting their doctrine? If fredsbend, who as far as I know doesn't have a dog in the race one way or another, can understand it and thinks the arguments are substantial then perhaps it is you and not the argument that is lacking.

The Proverbs say that there is wisdom in a multitude of counselors, and over and over again people here have told you that you're ignoring other people's arguments and not listening to them. Perhaps there is wisdom in what they have to say.

@Birdie For the two decades I was practicing Christianity, most of it was Protestantism, so it could be that.

@LeeWoofenden Because unlike you, very few Protestants are literalists. We believe in analysis and synthesis, not proof texting

I don't know if it's useful to say "literalist". Compared to, say, Jordan Peterson, basically every Christian is a literalist. I would say more that Lee depends more heavily on explicit statements than deductive statements.

@Birdie He thinks that labels and doctrines should be explicitly state in those precise words. He thinks that verses must not only state something positively, but also refute any possible misunderstanding. He refuses to allow different apostles to use words in different ways

Sure. My only point is that being a literalist or figurativist is a more or less meaningless label, because everyone is to some extent figurative and literal. Dispensational premils would say I'm too figurative, Jordan Peterson would say I'm too literal. It's a highly relative term.

@Birdie And compared to Lee almost no one is a literalist. That's my point.

He's so far to the side, his expectations of how we should read the Bible are basically unique. But I don't think he recognises that.

Can't say I disagree.