Why is homosexuality wrong?

[Greatest I Am]

Why is homosexuality wrong?

We all know what gays are and what they do. All of God’s laws are responses to a victim of some sort.

The one lied to is deceived.
The one who is killed is deprived of life.
The one stolen from looses his goods.

In the case of homosexuals there does not appear to be a victim or anyone hurt by the actions of the participant.

Why then does God discriminate against homosexuals?
It appears to go against His usual justice.

Regards
DL

[Easyrider]

Micatala,

I disagree with the vast majority of what you just wrote. For instance, you pose a question that is so unbiblical I can't believe you folks still use it:

"How many times have you ever asked anyone to repent of eating shellfish..."

Did Jesus not declare all foods clean in Mark 7:19?

'For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")' Add to that Peter's account in the book of Acts.

Why then do you continue to resurrect this obvious lame duck?

God didn't destroy a seafood restaurant, but he did destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, in which one of the prominent sins was sexual perversion and immorality (Jude 7).

Anyway, it's obvious we'll never agree so you believe as you will and so will I.

Cheers...

[micatala]

Micatala,

I disagree with the vast majority of what you just wrote. For instance, you pose a question that is so unbiblical I can't believe you folks still use it:

"How many times have you ever asked anyone to repent of eating shellfish..."

Did Jesus not declare all foods clean in Mark 7:19?

'For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")' Add to that Peter's account in the book of Acts.

Why then do you continue to resurrect this obvious lame duck?

I have no argument setting aside this dietary proscription. The point is that you are willing to set aside OT law in this case because you have a scripture which directly contravenes the OT law.

With marriage, we have another teaching of Jesus which contravenes the OT law, and yet you use an OT scripture to contravene a logical consequence of Jesus teaching and your insistance on repentance. It seems you are willing to pick and choose which testament and which scripture.

In some sense, I am doing the same by saying it is appropriate to acknowledge the larger law of love takes precedence of OT law or other specific proscriptions. I believe I am being more consistent and more in line with Jesus overall teaching then you are. Yes, as you say, we probably will continue to disagree on this.

[Cathar1950]

Micatala,

I disagree with the vast majority of what you just wrote. For instance, you pose a question that is so unbiblical I can't believe you folks still use it:

"How many times have you ever asked anyone to repent of eating shellfish..."

Did Jesus not declare all foods clean in Mark 7:19?

'For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")' Add to that Peter's account in the book of Acts.

Why then do you continue to resurrect this obvious lame duck?

God didn't destroy a seafood restaurant, but he did destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, in which one of the prominent sins was sexual perversion and immorality (Jude 7).

Anyway, it's obvious we'll never agree so you believe as you will and so will I.

Cheers...

I was just reading about the hand washing story about Jesus.
If there is a bases to the story it might had to do with faith making poisons food eliminated by the body and nothing to do with ritual hand washing.
But the dream of Peter seems to be little more then fiction and an excuse to eat anything by gentiles as they wanted to think of themselves as the new Jews.
Giving us one silly unrelated example for not following one of the many rules is nothing more then rationalizations already present in the gospels and Acts by gentiles. God, even in the myth, did not distroy the twin cities because of homosexuality and to say so is beyond any attempt or intent of the stories.
Even your own writings tell us it was not the homosexuality that put them on God's bad side but their inhospitality. Rape and humilation are not the same as homosexuality and unlike others I don't think you are as much homophobic as you are just prejudice.

[Rayosun]

Notice the way that Easyrider, who has earned some kind of "Doctorate in Theology" uses his knowledge of the bible:

"God didn't destroy a seafood restaurant, but he did destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, in which one of the prominent sins was sexual perversion and immorality (Jude 7)."

Like most Conservative Christians who - unlike Jesus of Nazareth - are obsessed with homosexuality, Easyrider conveniently ignores a slew of references in the bible to Sodom and Gomorrah which don't support his interpretation in order to get to the one verse that does, in in the next to last book of the Bible, Jude. Here's the real deal, which I lay out on one of my excellent pages on this topic : http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/God&gays.html :

• The Biblical sin of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't homosexuality (or "sodomy"):
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  No story in the Bible has been used more to persecute homosexuals than the story of Sodom (and Gomorrah). By the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas had come to see all disasters of any kind as God's wrath at homosexual sin. Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, collapsing buildings, runaway horses, women falling into ditches - all these and more were understood to be expressions of God's displeasure at "the wickedness of Sodom." But people who view the biblical narrative of Sodom and Gomorrah as a story about "Sodomy" (or homosexuality) haven't read the rest of the bible. If all one reads in the Bible is the 19th chapter of Genesis, the first book of the bible, that would be an honest mistake. But read through the 48 references to the word "Sodom" in the rest of the bible and you learn that the writers of the bible hardly ever associated the fate of Sodom with what Conservative Christians now call "Sodomy".
  Although today's Christians have been programed to view this story as an account of homosexuality gone wild, that's not what the bible authors themselves saw in that story:
  + In Deut. 29: 23-26 . . ."destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which the Lord destroyed in his fierce anger-- they and indeed all the nations will wonder, "Why has the Lord done thus to this land? What caused this great display of anger?" They will conclude, "It is because they abandoned the covenant of the Lord, the God of their ancestors, which he made with them when he brought them out of the land of Egypt. They turned and served other gods, worshiping them, gods whom they had not known and whom he had not allotted to them"
  + Deut. 32:32 also speaks of Sodom and Gomorrah, without any hint of homosexuality.
  + The prophet Ezekiel, for example, wrote in 16:49-50 : "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."
  + The first chapter of Isaiah speaks of God's unhappiness with Sodom and Gomorrah, but says nothing whatever about homosexuality. What it does say is " learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow." (1:17)
  + Isaiah mentions Sodom again in 3:9 and in 13:19, but there in connection with homosexuality.
  + Jeremiah also mentions Sodom again without any connection to homosexuality.
  The Prophet Amos also mentions Sodom in 4:11 without any connection with homosexuality.
  + The Prophet Zephaniah likewise mentions the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah in 2:10 without any connection with homosexuality, but rather "in return for their pride, because they scoffed and boasted against the people of the Lord of hosts."
  + The Deuterocanonical books identify the sin of Sodom as the worship of competing gods (idols) pride and inhospitality:
  + In Wisdom 19:13-14, we read "...whereas the men of Sodom received not the strangers when they came among them."
  + In Ecclesiasticus 16:8 the sin is recognized as pride: "He did not spare the people among whom Lot was living, whom he detested for their pride."
  
  In the New Testament, too, there is reference to Sodom and inhospitality:
  + In Luke 10:10-13, Jesus compares the fate of towns that are inhospitable to his disciples to that which beset Sodom of its inhospitality."Whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say, 'Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near.' I tell you, on that day it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for that town."
  + Paul referred to Sodom and Gomorrah only once ( in Romans, 9:29 ) and not in connection with homosexuality.
  + The same is true of the Book of Revelations, which referred to Sodom only once (8:11) and not in connection with homosexuality.
  Peter likewise referred to Sodom and Gomorrah only once ( in 2 Peter 2:4 ) and not in connection with homosexuality.
  + Finally, in the second to last books of the Bible, Jude (1:7), the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah is attributed to unnatural lust, i.e. "Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."

[Easyrider]

Notice the way that Easyrider, who has earned some kind of "Doctorate in Theology" uses his knowledge of the bible:

"God didn't destroy a seafood restaurant, but he did destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, in which one of the prominent sins was sexual perversion and immorality (Jude 7)."

Like most Conservative Christians who - unlike Jesus of Nazareth - are obsessed with homosexuality, Easyrider conveniently ignores a slew of references in the bible to Sodom and Gomorrah which don't support his interpretation in order to get to the one verse that does, in in the next to last book of the Bible, Jude.

Tsk tsk...

More hubris from left field. I've never denied the other sins of Sodom and Gomorrah (inhospitality, pride, etc.), but this thread is on the topic of homosexuality, so Jude 7 (and the other passages in the OT and NT which speak out on homosexual sin) are entirely appropriate.

As for "Conservative Christians who are (supposedly) obsessed with homosexuality," I didn't start this thread, nor any other thread on the subject. It's just one of many I contribute to. So your statement is a farce. Perhaps if the pro-gay crowd wasn't so darned determined to inject their unbiblical vice into mainstream churches / pulpits, schools, the Boy Scouts, and every other area of society, the vast majority of us wouldn't even bother with the topic. And I'll go you one step further: You and yours quit promoting and defending the sin around the clock and I'll be glad to quit responding.

Here's the real deal, which I lay out on one of my excellent pages on this topic : http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/God&gays.html :

• The Biblical sin of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't homosexuality (or "sodomy"):

You want the "real deal"? Visit the following site, where the better part of your liberal, pro-gay theology is summarily decimated:

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/dallas.html#Sodom

Pro-Gay Argument #1:

Sodom was destroyed because of the inhospitality of its citizens, not because of homosexuality.

Professor John Boswell, in Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press 1980), supports this view, basing it on two assumptions: first, that Lot was violating Sodom's custom by entertaining guests without the permission of the city's elders,[75] thus prompting the demand to bring the men out "so we may know them"; second, that the word "to know" did not necessarily have a sexual connotation.

The Hebrew word yada appears 943 times in the Old Testament; it carries a sexual meaning perhaps 10 of those 943 times. The argument, then, is that the men of Sodom had no sexual intentions towards Lot's visitors.

Response:

The argument makes no sense in light of Lot's responses. His first response, "Don't do this wicked thing," could hardly apply to a simple request to "get to know" his guests. His second response is especially telling: he answered their demands by offering his two virgin daughters- another senseless gesture if the men wanted only a social knowledge of his guests. And why, if these men had innocent intentions, was the city destroyed for inhospitality? Whose rudeness was being judged - Lots', or Sodom's citizens?

The theory raises more questions than it answers. While Boswell and Bailey are correct in pointing out the seriousness of inhospitality in Biblical times, inhospitality alone cannot account for the severity of Lot's response to the men, or for the judgment that soon followed.

Pro-Gay Argument #2:

Sodom was destroyed for attempted rape, not homosexuality.

This argument is more common; it is proposed by lesbian author Virginia Mollenkott and others, and is far more plausible than the "inhospitality" theory.

"Violence-forcing sexual activity upon another- is the real point of this story," Mollenkott explains.[76] Accordingly, homosexuality had nothing to do with Sodom's destruction; had the attempted rape been heterosexual in nature, judgment would have fallen just the same. Violence, not homosexuality, was being punished when Sodom fell.

Response:

The argument is partially true; the men of Sodom certainly were proposing rape. But for such an event to include "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old," homosexuality must have been commonly practiced. Mollenkott makes a persuasive case for the event being much like a prison rape, or the kind of assaults conquering armies would commit against vanquished enemies,[77] but her argument is weakened by Professor Thomas Schmidt's cited evidence in early literature connecting Sodom with more general homosexual practices:

The second-century BC Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs labels the Sodomites 'sexually promiscuous' (Testimony of Benjamin 9:1) and refers to 'Sodom, which departed from the order of nature' (Testament of Nephtali 3:4). From the same time period, Jubilees specifies that the Sodomites were 'polluting themselves and fornicating in their flesh' (16:5, compare 20:5-6). Both Philo and Josephus plainly name same-sex relations as the characteristic view of Sodom.[78]

Pro-Gay Argument #3:

The real sins of Sodom, according to Ezekiel 16:49, were that it was "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." These have nothing to do with homosexuality.

Response:

Again, the argument is partially true. When Sodom was destroyed, homosexuality was only a part-or symptom-of its wickedness. Romans Chapter One gives a similar illustration, describing the generally corrupt condition of humanity, while citing homosexuality as a symptom of that corruption. But Ezekiel also says of the Sodomites: "They were haughty and did detestable things before me" (16:50). The sexual nature of these "detestable" things is suggested in 2 Peter 2:6-7:

If he [God] condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men...

And again in Jude 7:

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Dr. Bruce Metzger of Princeton Theological Seminary mentions other references to Sodom's sexual immorality in 3 Maccabees 2:5: "the people of Sodom who acted arrogantly, who were notorious for their vices." And again in Jubilees 16:6: "the uncleanness of the Sodomites."[79]

The pro-gay interpretation of Sodom's destruction has some merit: homosexual rape was attempted, and the Sodomites were certainly guilty of sins other than homosexuality. But in light of the number of men willing to join in the rape, and the many other references, both Biblical and extra-Biblical, to Sodom's sexual sins, it is likely homosexuality was widely practiced among the Sodomites. It is also likely that the sin for which they are named was one of many reasons judgment finally fell on them. (end of quotes)

And once again, we find absolutely zero mention of any gay marriage or pro-gay union or relationship, approved by God, anywhere in scripture.

As for Jesus never bothering himself with gay sex sin (not true, see below), he never mentioned wife beating either, so I guess you're ok with that?

Jesus is God (many scriptures). As God, Jesus is the one who gave Moses the Levitical law against gay sex to begin with; and he's the one who inspires all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), including prohibitions against gay sex in Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9-10, Jude 7, etc.

[micatala]

Perhaps if the pro-gay crowd wasn't so darned determined to inject their unbiblical vice into mainstream churches / pulpits, schools, the Boy Scouts, and every other area of society, the vast majority of us wouldn't even bother with the topic. And I'll go you one step further: You and yours quit promoting and defending the sin around the clock and I'll be glad to quit responding.

This is like the white southerner saying "if those uppity blacks would just stay in their place and stop insisting on their rights, we wouldn't get so upset."

This past September 4th wsa the 50th anniversary of the Little Rock nine, the first black high school students to attend Little Rock's Central High School. One of the nine described how she had never experienced hatred growing up in LR. She simply accepted the 'unwritten rules' that there were places she couldn't go and things she couldn't do. She didn't experience hatred because she didn't know any whites or have much direct interaction with them. It was not until she and other blacks insisted that they would not accept this second class citizenship that the hatred came to the surface.

Now, I can understand Easyrider may not like this comparison but from my point of view it is perfectly apt. Easyrider is saying he would not be bringing this up if it were not for 'the pro-gay crowd' pushing their agenda. I'm sorry, I don't think anyone should have to apologize for insisting on their rights, whether that be within the church or within civil society. From what I understand from his statements, Easyrider supports making gays second class or even non-members of the church, and supports laws that I view as discriminatory against gays. Whether this represents an 'obsession' or not is not the point. The effect of this attitude and position being widespread is a systematic discrimination against gays.

It is unjust.

It is, in my view, also un-Christian as it violates several over-riding biblical principles.


Regarding the discussion on Sodom and Gomorrah I would say a couple of things.

First, as with the group described in Romans chapter 1, the behavior exhibited by the citizens of Sodom stems out of their idolatry. As I have shown above, many behaviors are not sinful in and of themselves, but may be sinful depending on the attitude of the actors and the context of the actions. As noted in the citations provided by EZ, the behavior exhibited by the citizens of SG would be considered sinful even if it were only heterosexual in nature.

Thus, the distinction I made above, which EZ has not refuted, applies here as well. The alleged homosexual behavior of the men of SG can be viewed as sinful because of the violent and idolatrous attitudes of these men. They are violating the larger law of love. There is no reason to imply that we should conider all homosexual sex as sinful on the basis of this example, or the response by God depicted here.

Finally, Easyrider's accusation that those who advocate for gay rights are promoting sin is off the mark. Firstly, I have made a compelling case that it is not up to others to decide what is sin for a particular believer. That is between him or her and God.

Secondly, I have never advocated that anyone should engage in gay sex. I have simply said that because there is no compelling societal reason to do so, we should not ban gay sex or gay marriage. I have also said that CHristians should allow other Christians to pursue their own relationship with Christ without judgment from others as is clearly spelled out in Romans 14 and elsewhere and which Easyrider has not refuted. Again, the best response that has been offered is to ignore these teachings by selectively picking other verses out, interpreting them in a particular way, and giving them precedence over the larger law of love.

Now, if EZ and others feel that in their own conscience and in their own best reading of the entirety of scripture that they cannot in good faith engage in a particular behavior, whether it is drinking, smoking, eating shellfish, cutting their hair, or whatever, they should follow their conscience and I am fine with that.

But IMV they have no business applying their judgment concerning what is appropriate for them onto others if those others are not engaged in behavior that is harmful to them. By doing so, and further by helping to enact laws discriminating against gays, demonstrable harm is being done to those who are gay. Any claimed harms on the part of Christians who object to the 'gay agenda' pale in comparison, and could even be described as fictitious, compared to the harms gays suffer routinely.

[rusty]

"In the case of homosexuals there does not appear to be a victim or anyone hurt by the actions of the participant."

Keeping it simple: The victim is "nature and nature's God," the creator, the author of life, the one who created man. God did not create man to lie with man and that should be more than obvious by simply observing the natural function of certain body parts and orofices.

However, if homosexuals do not believe in a Creator then they are free to do whatever their heart desires on the path that leads to destruction. Like all of us, they have been given a freewill by our Creator.

Jesus has provided a way for man to use his freewill to enter a narrow path that leads to life. Those who choose freely to enter this path must repent and refrain from offending nature and nature's God. Unfortunately, not all will choose the narrow path!

Conclusion: God is REAL! Lost and lonely man needs a savior and a light to guide his steps. [/quote]

[upallnite]

Keeping it simple: The victim is "nature and nature's God," the creator, the author of life, the one who created man. God did not create man to lie with man and that should be more than obvious by simply observing the natural function of certain body parts and orofices.

Then god made an error in making the prostate easy to access and feel good when it is. A pennis can be stimulated with annal sex. The prostate can be stimulated with a pennis via annal sex. Your argument against nature does not reflect reality.

[Fallibleone]

"In the case of homosexuals there does not appear to be a victim or anyone hurt by the actions of the participant."

Keeping it simple: The victim is "nature and nature's God," the creator, the author of life, the one who created man.

Nature is the victim of homosexuality? How, exactly? How can the creator of all things be a victim? This does not make any sense. After all, he made the homosexuals.

God did not create man to lie with man and that should be more than obvious by simply observing the natural function of certain body parts and orofices.

Even if we accept as truth the argument that God created man (which I don't), I do not agree with your statement. As has been pointed out by a previous poster (on another thread, I think) mouths were 'created' for eating, drinking and communicating, not kissing. Are nature and God made victims by all the kissing, gay and straight, which goes on?

However, if homosexuals do not believe in a Creator then they are free to do whatever their heart desires on the path that leads to destruction. Like all of us, they have been given a freewill by our Creator.

There is no evidence that the path they are following leads to destruction.

Jesus has provided a way for man to use his freewill to enter a narrow path that leads to life. Those who choose freely to enter this path must repent and refrain from offending nature and nature's God. Unfortunately, not all will choose the narrow path!

We are ALL alive NOW. This God of yours is awfully touchy if he is offended so easily by the beings he created, behaving how he created them to behave.

Conclusion: God is REAL! Lost and lonely man needs a savior and a light to guide his steps.

Well that's nice, but this thread is not about whether God is real or not. I for one am neither lost nor lonely, and it is offensive and, in my opinion, wrong, to claim that anyone is, solely based on their sexuality.

[Rayosun]

. . . "As for Jesus never bothering himself with gay sex sin, he never mentioned wife beating either, so I guess you're ok with that?"

Nobody says that you as an individual can't take a moral stance that was not taken by J.C. The point being made when we direct your attention to the fact that "Jesus himself never (called) gay sex sin", is that people who claim to represent the teaching of Jesus Christ have no business claiming to speak for Jesus on this issue, especially when they are ignoring so much of what Jesus did teach about morality, so that they use Jesus name "in vain" in order to promote their obsession over homosexuality instead of promoting what Jesus did teach.

In this connection I did an extensive study of the gospels, rereading all four of them for the sole purpose of finding out what kind of behavior he was most concerned about and the kinds of people whom he condemned for such behavior. Not only did I find that he showed not the slightest concern over homosexuality, very little concern about any other sexual morality, but I found that he wasn't nearly as concerned about anybody else's behavior as much as that of religious leaders and for all of these reasons:

• Group VII : Jesus reprimanded RELIGIOUS LEADERS the MOST, for ...
  
  • insincere prayers and / or superficial virtue :
    Matt. 15:8; Matt. 23:23 || Mark 7:6 || Luke 11:42 ;
    requesting miraculous signs and then not accepting them :
    Matt.12:38 ; Matt. 16:4 ; || Mark 8:11 || Luke 11:29 ;
    doing good deeds just to impress others :
    Matt. 23:5 & Matt. 23:29 || Luke 11:47 ;
    seeking titles and places of honor :
    Matt. 23:7 || Mark 12:39 || Luke 11:43 ; Luke 20:46 ;
    ignoring weightier aspects of God's law : Luke 11:42 ;
    being liars : John 8:56
    being blind leaders and/or evil influences on those who looked to them for leadership : Matt.15:14 ; Matt. 16:6; Matt. 16:11 ; Matt. 23:16 || Luke 6:39 || John 9:41
    being hypocrites, whitened sepulchers, and/or a brood of vipers :
    Matt. 12:34 ; Matt. 23:32 ; || Luke 13:15 ;
    placing burdens, which they are not willing to carry themselves, upon others : Matt. 23:3 ; || Luke 11:46 ;
    preventing others from pursuing holiness :
    Matt. 23:13-15 ; || Luke 11:52 ;
    devouring the possessions of unsuspecting widows :
    Matt. 12:40 ; || Luke 20:47 ;
    sinning against the Holy Spirit :
    Matt. 12:32 ; || Mark 3:39 || Luke 12:10 ;
    promoting religious traditions counter to God's purposes :
    Matt. 15:5; Matt. 23:16 ; || Mark 7:8
    being false to the heritage of Abraham, whom they professed to honor : John 8:33
    questioning Jesus' authority to preach without the approval of their High Priest : Matt. 21:23 ; || Mark 11:27 || Luke 20:2 ;
    not recognizing John the Baptist and/or Jesus as authentic prophets :
    Matt. 21:33-46 ; || Mark 12:1-12 || Luke 19:39 ; Luke 20:9-19 ;
    condemning the innocent (including Jesus) :
    Matt. 23:34 ; Matt. 12:7 || Mark 13:9 || Luke 11:49 ; Luke 13:34 ; Luke 21:12 ; || John 7:22 ; John 18:23
    slandering Jesus' or his disciples' words or actions as "blasphemous", "illegal", or "contrary to sacred traditions" :
    || Mark 2:8; Mark 2:24; Mark 3:2; Mark 3:6 & Mark 3:22 || Matt. 9:4 ; Matt. 10:25 ; Matt. 12:2 ; Matt. 12:14 ; Matt. 12:24 ; Matt. 15:2 ; Matt. 15:12 ; || Luke 5:22 ; Luke 6:1 ; Luke 6:9 ; Luke 7:33 ; Luke 11:15 ; Luke 13:14 ; Luke 14:3 ; || John 7:24 ; John 8:53 ; John 10:31

This list is just a small part of my http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/about/clergysins.html , where references are all live links of the scriptural passages.