Ok...let's get this started. And, this time, let's see if we can get beyond citing scripture. The question I'd like to pose is this: why do folk mourn when a congregation splits apart like this? Isn't it natural that like-minded people will want to worship with like-minded people? If you are unhappy with your congregation's perspective or teaching on an issue ... go elsewhere. Congregational worship shouldn't be about shared history, heritage, or comparative numbers, should it?

With any luck, you'll find yourself allied with the Ugandan Church. Happy landing.

Doing what God wants us to do is always more important than following the worldly views, even if the worldly views are seen as being more politically correct with a president such as this one.

Clay, it seems to me the problem is in who decides what "God" wants us to do.

For some, they pick and choose from contradictory sections of the Christian Bible. Some pick and choose from contradictory sections of the Qu'ran.

Others depend on a clerical authority to tell us.

As far as I am concerned, I would prefer a god who wants us to treat each of us with the utmost of kindest and respect. That would allow each of us to think and behave in our own way so long as we don't hurt another person.

Clay, Clay, Clay....

Take a second look. This particular posting has nothing to do with Presidential politics. And little tpo do with "political correctness." It deals with a congregation of Lutherans who are divided (indeed who HAVE divided) over views on same-sex relationships. Apparently, a bit less than a quarter of the congregation was OK with the larger church's acceptance of clergy being in such relationships. The majority was not. My original question remains: is this something to mourn ... or should we be glad that folk can (and do) take their faith (and checkbooks) to more sympathetic groups? To what extent should a congregtion work to stay together "for the sake of the congregation"? Surely they won't always agree on every issue....

Clay - we can always count on you to state the ridiculous.

Three hundred and fifty people agreed about God's word, and that word definitely does say that we shouldnt hurt others. The new testament says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. So being homosexual with someone will definitely hurt them and yourself. If you dont believe God's word then dont argue. Where will it get you? It is between you and Him and we all will face that one day or another. Thanks.

Clay, I agree that there is no useful discussion between us if you believe a text is infallible and I believe it is debatable.

However, it would also be more meaningful if you would not use absolute pronouncements from your end of the spectrum.

I think it better if you choose comments such as "According to my beliefs, the Bible instructs us on what my God wants us to do in this instance."

No. According to God, homosexuality isnt ok. Thanks.

Works for me.

As should be obvious, my comment was addressed to Linda Muralidharan.

Clay, I have to ask you:

When you refer to "the Bible," do you refer to:

The 2nd century Greek translations of Aquila of Sinope and Symmachus the Ebionite?

The first translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek was (the Septuagint)?

The translation by Eusebius commissioned in 331AD by Emperor Constantine and delivered to the Church of Constantinople?

The Codex Amiatinus, a Latin Vulgate edition produced in eighth century England at the double monastery of Wearmouth-Jarrow?

The most notable Middle English Bible translation, Wyclif's Bible (1383), based on the Vulgate but banned by the Oxford Synod in 1408?

The first complete Dutch Bible, partly based on the existing portions of Luther's translation, printed in Antwerp in 1526 by Jacob van Liesvelt?

Tyndale's New Testament translation (1526, revised in 1534, 1535 and 1536) and his translation of the Pentateuch (1530, 1534) and the Book of Jonah, which were met with heavy sanctions given the widespread belief that Tyndale changed the Bible as he attempted to translate it?

The first English translations of Psalms (1530), Isaiah (1531), Proverbs (1533), Ecclesiastes (1533), Jeremiah (1534) and Lamentations (1534), which were executed by the Protestant Bible translator George Joye in Antwerp.?

The King James Version, which was translated under dicrection by James to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy? [Remember what I've said before about those pesky contemporary political and social factors having an impact on translations?]

[Do I have to remind you that James was a homosexual?]

And remember: As Hebrew and Greek, the original languages of the Bible, have idioms and concepts not easily translated, there is an on going critical tension about whether it is better to give a word for word translation or to give a translation that gives a parallel idiom in the target language. For instance, in the English language Catholic translation, the New American Bible, as well as the Protestant translations of the Christian Bible, translations like the King James Version, the New Revised Standard Version, and the New American Standard Bible are seen as fairly literal translations (or "word for word"), whereas translations like the New International Version and New Living Translation attempt to give relevant parallel idioms. The Living Bible and The Message are two paraphrases of the Bible that try to convey the original meaning in contemporary language. The further away one gets from word for word translation, the text becomes easier to read while relying more on the theological, linguistic or cultural understanding of the translator, which one would not normally expect a lay reader to require.

Also (good to know), in 2008, graphic representations of The Bible in Manga and Lego brick form were given approval by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I'm just asking...