How few members is still mainstream? Or is it by revenue? Number of buildings?
No, they don’t. Read your own cite.
“Arguments against Johannine authorship[edit]
Bishop J.B. Lightfoot wrote that absence of the passage from the earliest manuscripts, combined with the occurrence of stylistic characteristics atypical of John, together implied that the passage was an interpolation.* Nevertheless, he considered the story to be authentic history.[18] As a result, based on Eusebius’ mention that the writings of Papias contained a story “about a woman falsely accused before the Lord of many sins” (H.E. 3.39), he argued that this section originally was part of Papias’ Interpretations of the Sayings of the Lord, and included it in his collection of Papias’ fragments. Bart D. Ehrman concurs in Misquoting Jesus, adding that the passage contains many words and phrases otherwise alien to John’s writing.[19] However, Michael W. Holmes has pointed out that it is not certain "that Papias knew the story in precisely this form, inasmuch as it now appears that at least two independent stories about Jesus and a sinful woman circulated among Christians in the first two centuries of the church, so that the traditional form found in many New Testament manuscripts may well represent a conflation of two independent shorter, earlier versions of the incident.”*[20] Kyle R. Hughes has argued that one of these earlier versions is in fact very similar in style, form, and content to the Lukan special material (the so-called “L” source), suggesting that the core of this tradition is in fact rooted in very early Christian (though not Johannine) memory.[21]
Arguments for Johannine authorship[edit]
There is clear reference of the pericope adulterae from the primitive Christian church in the Syriac Didascalia Apostolorum. (II,24,6; ed. Funk I, 93.) Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad argue for Johannine authorship of the pericope.[22] They suggest there are points of similarity between the pericope’s style and the style of the rest of the gospel. They claim that the details of the encounter fit very well into the context of the surrounding verses. They argue that the pericope’s appearance in the majority of manuscripts, if not in the oldest ones, is evidence of its authenticity."
You also forget the rest of John: "*When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus straightened up and said to her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ 11 She said, ‘No one, sir.’ And Jesus said, ‘Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.’
*
And, yes there is Matt 5:18 which is interpreted in the light of The New Covenant. Matthew 5:18 For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
“5:17-20 Let none suppose that Christ allows his people to trifle with any commands of God’s holy law. No sinner partakes of Christ’s justifying righteousness, till he repents of his evil deeds. The mercy revealed in the gospel leads the believer to still deeper self-abhorrence. The law is the Christian’s rule of duty, and he delights therein. If a man, pretending to be Christ’s disciple, encourages himself in any allowed disobedience to the holy law of God, or teaches others to do the same, whatever his station or reputation among men may be, he can be no true disciple. Christ’s righteousness, imputed to us by faith alone, is needed by every one that enters the kingdom of grace or of glory; but the new creation of the heart to holiness, produces a thorough change in a man’s temper and conduct.”
There is nothing in the Word of Jesus that says he was ever in favor of anything but forgiveness.
Do you have one? Can you find any?
Not until I know what you’ll reject out of hand.
You suggested that among a couple hundred million self-identified Christians (if we limit to the US?), the number of those that would like to kill gays “is so tiny they might not even fill a church.” This, despite the fact that people like Swanson (he is not alone) find audiences for just this message.
Please. Your claim is the extraordinary one here. That’s why I ask you for evidence.
What about Mark 16:16: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
And Matthew 12:31: “Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.”
Lack of faith in Him is the one thing He won’t forgive. On that point, Jesus is no different from Jim Jones.
Jesus, indeed, committed the most horrible spiritual crime in human history: He made a virtue of faith. And faith, sir, is a vice, not a virtue.
You dont accept anything else he says, why do you accept his claims for attendance at this rally?
Note that the Group his branch was affiliated with- the National Center for Family Integrated Churches - has removed his congregation from its list. Swanson is no longer affiliated with any church other than his own congregation. His congregation is a tiny church in CO, with only one employee and a tiny yearly budget. He is the pastor of his own church, a one man show.
Anyone can find listeners. Find me a mainstream church that backs him. There are none.
I can’t prove a negative. You need to show a main stream church that backs that preaching.
Then . . . why are presidential candidates showing up at his rally?! They never showed up for Fred Phelps! (AFAIK.)
Why should I give a fuck whether you consider them “mainstream” or not? What matters is that they exist–Christians, in this country, openly advocating the murder of homosexuals. They find apparently approving audiences (more than “a church”), and draw appearances from ostensibly serious political figures, from an ostensibly mainstream political party.
The Southern Baptist Convention had no problem allowing American Vision a place to voice their views.
Article on Christian Reconstructionism/Dominionism and it’s inroads in numerous Christian denominations. Notice how they favor a theocratic U.S. Quite similar to statements made by Cruz and Huckabee.
RationalWiki on same.
Sure, and there are nutcases openly demanding pants on horses and that the Earth is Flat.
There are over 300 Million Americans, and since they stopped committing any but those that ‘are a danger’- a fair number are insane. There are crazy Christians, crazy Muslims, crazy Jews, and crazy atheists. So?
Why thank you for making the point for many over here, the candidates then should know better. Indeed there are many crazies out there, but I don’t worry much unless they are appearing as king makers and it is because candidates are kowtowing to them.
Not *his *rally. He was one of about a dozen speakers, altho he is one of the organizers. They invited every Presidential candidate, even Hilary.
If you read the events webpage, it sounds fairly innocuous, altho certainly conservative. Nothing about “killing the gays” (and in fact Swansons speech did not contain any of that hate rhetoric) but there was a line about "Is your pastor ready to go to jail for refusing to officiate a same sex marriage?" and “The Supreme Court of the United States recently legalized homosexual marriage in all 50 states in the Obergefell V. Hodges decision. Are you ready to face persecution for opposing the homosexual agenda?” so any attendee can’t say they didnt know the conference was homophobic.
I am not saying there isnt a solid *minority *of right wingers that aren’t homophobic and that certainly includes some Christians. But it’s a minority.
Point taken. That said, the attendance of Cruz, Huckabee and Jindal within a hundred miles of any shindig thrown by (or even prominently featuring) this Swanson character is more of a SRIOTD.
Characterizing it as Republican Platform: “Kill the Gays” is just stupid histrionics of the kind that when I see it on Facebook from a progressive I otherwise esteem makes me think: “Clickbait. Hard pass.”
Hyperbole has its place, but the OP overshot the sweet spot by about a mile or two.
Like that’s any kind of excuse?!
The hate-filled screed of the OP?
Just pretend that we can imagine a complex plot that somehow places…Bernie Sanders, say…right there at the thing, but somehow unaware until he hears the guy speak, or someone tells him what was just said. Somehow, he didn’t know until just then.
How fast would he get to a microphone to say he has nothing to do with these people. Denounce, renounce, condemn and get me out of here, away from rabies cooties! Or not Bernie, Hillary. Or Joe Biden, Gov. O’Malley, take your pick.
So, lets stretch credulity. Say, these guys didn’t know who they were going to be oozing amongst. Then what, they got there and didn’t hear the speech? Didn’t hear anyone talking about the speech? Outside of those distant possibilities, what excuse can they offer for not speaking up immediately, and in no uncertain terms!
And if it were for political reasons, like they could not afford to offend that deranged demographic…well, that will do for “mainstream”, won’t it? If they hold political power that must be deferred to?
Right, that’s the difference. It’s not “oh god, this is shocking, I had no idea I was at a speech by this guy, my bad, I totally denounce this shit”, it’s “oh, yeah, if I admit I support the guy, that’s a little too extreme, but I’ll let my supporters who actually do want to kill gay people and love that message think I support this”
They’re choosing to exploit a toxic, horrible constituency by appealing to them but by playing it coy with sane people. It’s no accident, it’s the whole point.
Seems this incident is gaining a bit of traction, articles about it keep popping up in my news feeds.