http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/05/bishop/index.html

The article says it all. Robinson is now the first openly gay Bishop of the Episcopal Church.

I don't think it ever says anywhere in the scriptures that a sinner can't be a bishop, so I don't see what all the hubbub was. Apparently some people felt that it was somehow against the religious teachings of the church, and honestly I'm all for that interpretation.

Every time a religious organization goes against nonsensical doctrine and acts using actual factual reason and logic it puts a big ol' grin on my face, to be sure.

I may not be a big fan of religion in general, but today I’ve gotta’ take my hat off to the Episcopal Church and give them a nod for having taken a move in a more progressive direction.

At least he is not pedophile :)

Even if Robinson is correct, he still spliting up the church. It's not a good decision for a "Bishop" whose supposed to care about his church.

Originally posted by okinrus
Even if Robinson is correct, he still spliting up the church. It's not a good decision for a "Bishop" whose supposed to care about his church. No, the homophiles are "spliting up the church".

No, the homophiles are "spliting up the church".

Yeppo. The homophobes are going to make things go one of two ways:

1. The gay Bishop must leave the church.
2. The gay Bishop must die.

Either way the church will split, because some church members are more compassionate then others. But the homophobes won't want the church to split so they'll kill the gay Bishop. At least that's how I see it.

Well, just sit back and laugh I guess. It can't not be a good thing. A church could be split. Homosexuality gets a better light to many. Irrational as they may be, those church members are voters.

What's an pro-homo anti-christian to do?Well ... you could try giving them some applause, congratulations, and moral support. The way I see it, Christianity needs to catch up with "the rest of us civilized folk" ....

If the church splits in conflict, the intellectual considerations of spiritual issues will tumble back toward traditionalism and perhaps even reactionary fundamentalism. That creates a headache for all Americans, regardless of the religion or gender of your sex partner.

And when America has a headache, well ... that's when we really do like to share with others ....

If the church holds together and faith grows stronger, that still works toward the anti-Christian's favor, as the faith will be at least slightly more intelligent and consistent. Sure, it doesn't seem like much in the here and now, but the little things, over generations, add up. I'm as sure as I can be, for instance, that the people who decided, "Ah, it's not worth fixing" when considering problematic issues of their writings which would eventually, though without their knowledge, perhaps, compose "Scripture" probably never imagined that the little thing not worth fixing would contribute to the slow and agonizing death of the faith they advocated.

But seriously ... it's cause for celebration. Episcopals, stand up and take a bow, and no, I won't stand behind you while you do.

A more removed perspective presents this question: As the Christians figure out the reasons to raise themselves above the shadows of their valley of death, will we welcome them to the city on the hill, or send them back to their quagmire with our ridicule?

It's all a matter of priorities. To me, the vote is significant because it tells me that Christians are still striving to understand themselves in relation to their human neighbors. This is a far better outlook than most days, when you get the impression that Christians would prefer their neighbors tacked to crosses. Remember, there's no place so deep that the Lord can't find you ... and judge you. (Borrowed from Ned Flanders.)

The vote helps put the issue of judgment back in God's hands where it belongs.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

No, the homophiles are "spliting up the church".

Usually I consider the first cause to be guilty. Unless if Robinson is a complete fool, he knew that by becoming a bishop would mean spliting up the church. The "homophobics" are those who agree with the what the church traditionally teaches. That homosexual acts are wrong and sinful.


If the church holds together and faith grows stronger, that still works toward the anti-Christian's favor, as the faith will be at least slightly more intelligent and consistent.

I'm sorry I don't quite see this. The church elected a bishop who openly defied the church's teaching on homosexuality. It's not like elected someone who stole something and then repented of it.

Originally posted by okinrus
Even if Robinson is correct, he still spliting up the church. It's not a good decision for a "Bishop" whose supposed to care about his church.

I don't see Robinson doing anything to split up the church. All I see is a bunch of pretentious old men busy going nuts over nothing. Don't blame Robinson for causing the division, he's just doing his job.

Maybe, however Robinson must know that he's spliting up the church. Of course he thinks the benefits, more support for gays, outweigh the risks.

There isn't really anything which indicates that he's trying to make this a battle for homosexual rights. As far as I can tell he's working for himself, because he wants to serve the church.

however Robinson must know that he's spliting up the church.

Again, I don't really think that it is he who is splitting up the church. I'm sure he can see all the others throwing shit fits, and is just happy to have his new position, and wants to get started doing whatever the hell it is a bishop does, exactly.

By that church's doctrine he may be a sinner, but I thought the idea is that we are all sinners, what's so special about homosexuals?

I'm sorry I don't quite see this. The church elected a bishop who openly defied the church's teaching on homosexuality. It's not like elected someone who stole something and then repented of it.Church teaching is a human institution, subject to fault and revision. It is not infallible. It is not eternal. By accepting this bishop despite his sins, the faithful are putting their faith in God's judgment. The best candidate God provided was apparently a gay man. Who here dares rise up and call the effects of God's will in the world evil? (cf - Matthew 12.31-32)

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Edit: Mystech, is that better? Although you're so right. I thank you. I totally lost my mind and decided to violate four years worth of habitual and established posting stylistics ;)

Originally posted by tiassa
Church teaching is a human institution, subject to fault and revision. It is not infallible. It is not eternal. By accepting this bishop despite his sins, the faithful are putting their faith in God's judgment. The best candidate God provided was apparently a gay man. Who here dares rise up and call the effects of God's will in the world evil? (Matthew 12.31-32)


Are you citing this whole post as a verce from the Bible? could we get some quotation marks over here? heh.

It's a good point, though. The man is a sinner in the eyes of his faith, and he's up front about his sin. By that same faith we are all sinners, yet we don't see any other bishops coming foward and saying that maybe they once did something which the church may somehow find moraly objectionable. He's a good honest man, why object to his being Bishop?

Church teaching is a human institution, subject to fault and revision. It is not infallible. It is not eternal. By accepting this bishop despite his sins, the faithful are putting their faith in God's judgment. The best candidate God provided was apparently a gay man. Who here dares rise up and call the effects of God's will in the world evil? (Matthew 12.31-32)

No, somethings in taught by the church are divinely ordained. Someone reading the Scripture must differentiate between code of conduct for 50AD churches and modern ones. It's not because of his sins, though. A bishop must stay true to what the church teaches. If he commits fault he must confess it as a sin. Robinson is openly gay and unrepentant. Robinson must hold Jesus more important than his sex life and remain celibrate.

As to God's will, unless if it is Divinely proclaimed to me that homosexual acts are not sinful, I cannot go against what the Church teaches.

Originally posted by okinrus
No, somethings in taught by the church are divinely ordained.
So the flat earth was divinely ordained, yet proven false? Ever see 'Dogma?

Someone reading the Scripture must differentiate between code of conduct for 50AD churches and modern ones. It's not because of his sins, though. A bishop must stay true to what the church teaches. If he commits fault he must confess it as a sin.
Ok, lets say he did that.

Robinson is openly gay and unrepentant.
Being gay is not the problem... the sex is.

Robinson must hold Jesus more important than his sex life and remain celibrate.
Did he say he wasn't celibate.

As to God's will, unless if it is Divinely proclaimed to me that homosexual acts are not sinful, I cannot go against what the Church teaches.
Has it been Divinely proclaimed to you that stoning is bad? Why don't you still do it?

"Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or the in the age to come."(Mathew 12:31-32)

I think your going to have to go to more explanation into this.

As to God's will, unless if it is Divinely proclaimed to me that homosexual acts are not sinful, I cannot go against what the Church teaches.Are you asserting the infallibility of the church?

I see why Christians don't like their God that works in mysterious ways.

You don't get it, do you? What right do the people have to temporal judgment? The best candidate put before them was obviously the gay man, else they would not have made the decision they made. God knows better than man, if my memory of faith serves me correctly.

Repent your sin of pride, Okinrus.

Why is it that the one thing faithful people can't stand is trusting in God?

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Has it been Divinely proclaimed to you that stoning is bad? Why don't you still do it?

Yes, Jesus save the woman who commited adultry from being stoned. He said to let the one who has commited no fault be the first to pick up his stone. So because everyone has sinned, captial punishment is wrong.

Originally posted by okinrus
Yes, Jesus save the woman who commited adultry from being stoned. He said to let the one who has commited no fault be the first to pick up his stone.
And what makes you think this apples to all situations? Perhaps it was *gasp* a metaphor?

So because everyone has sinned, captial punishment is wrong.
Hmm, I wasn't aware stoning was capital punishment... unless it ended in death.

Once again, you are avoiding the comments raised by answering a different question.

I don't believe in the episcopalian church.


You don't get it, do you? What right do the people have to temporal judgment? The best candidate put before them was obviously the gay man, else they would not have made the decision they made. God knows better than man, if my memory of faith serves me correctly.

How could this be the best candiate?


Repent your sin of pride, Okinrus.

Me Prideful :) You automatically assumed that homosexual acts were valid under God despite it never being divinely proclaimed.


Why is it that the one thing faithful people can't stand is trusting in God?

Explain how believing in homosexual bishop voted into different church than my own, is trusting in God. It is trusting in men?

Originally posted by okinrus
You automatically assumed that homosexual acts were valid under God despite it never being divinely proclaimed.
Oh no... I just looked in the bible... and using the internet was never divinely proclaimed.

And what makes you think this apples to all situations? Perhaps it was *gasp* a metaphor?

Jesus wrote it on the earth. "Therefore you shall be banned from the soil that opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your head."


So because everyone has sinned, captial punishment is wrong.
Hmm, I wasn't aware stoning was capital punishment... unless it ended in death.

Stoning is the intention of death. The old testament the theme is obediance over sacrifice, in the new testament it is mercy over sacrifice. If we kill someone because of their sin, we deserve to be killed for our "smaller sins".

You automatically assumed that homosexual acts were valid under God despite it never being divinely proclaimed.
Oh no... I just looked in the bible... and using the internet was never divinely proclaimed.

Using the internet was never condemned in the old testament.

I think your going to have to go to more explanation into this. Pray about it. Contemplate. God will reveal the answer to your heart.

And since that won't happen, what the hell ....

Very simply, God knows what is in Robinson's heart. The members of the church do not. What the members of the church know is that the candidate who appears best-qualified for the position is gay. This is a big issue, but given that Jesus was gay--um ... wow ... Google had a surprise for me. More on that in a minute.

At any rate, I was referring to a rhetorical argument ... frak ... Google has really thrown me for a loop. I don't know how I missed this.

Okay, "When Christ was Gay" (http://www.elroy.net/ehr/gay.html) was the link I was originally looking for.

But then I found this (http://www.salon.com/feature/1998/04/cov_10feature.html).

And ... well, this is just funny: Jesus was gay (Ananova) (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_785708.html?menu=)

(Sometimes I don't get news editors ... they're funny, but ....)

Now then, back to the issue ....

As it is the church must consider why God has brought them the blessings of this decision, but the motives of His Will are ineffable.

But most importantly, they hesitate to denounce this man as evil, for if the Holy Spirit has brought Bishop Robinson to this crossroads, the House of Blues--er, I mean House of Bishops--runs a serious risk of denouncing the works of the Holy Spirit, a condition most unsatisfying to their eternal souls.

We might look to Matthew 25, as well. Whatsoever you do ... would you turn Him away just because He wasn't what you expected?

Does Psalm 118 (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=RsvPsal.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=118&division=div1) put it in any better context for you?

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Pray about it. Contemplate. God will reveal the answer to your heart.
And since that won't happen, what the hell ....

Why not? I already mentioned that I've heard a voice say "trust me". Maybe my insanity will manifest itself in an answer :)


[quote]
Very simply, God knows what is in Robinson's heart. The members of the church do not. What the members of the church know is that the candidate who appears best-qualified for the position is gay. This is a big issue, but given that Jesus was gay--um ... wow ... Google had a surprise for me. More on that in a minute.
[/qoute]
I don't believe that Robinson is an evil man. I think that a bishop should teach what the Church teaches. Is there anything wrong with that?

I don't believe in the episcopalian church.Why do you assert the divinity of Episcopal doctrine and teachings, then?How could this be the best candiate?Ask the House of Bishops. In the meantime, do you know of a better candidate?You automatically assumed that homosexual acts were valid under God despite it never being divinely proclaimed.Hardly.

Rather, I'm pointing to your attempted usurpation of God's judgment.Explain how believing in homosexual bishop voted into different church than my own, is trusting in God. It is trusting in men? The Bishops have chosen to put judgment against Bishop Robinson's sins in God's hands, rather than to execute it themselves. His homosexuality aside, he was apparently the best candidate for the job, else we would not be having this debate by proxy of someone else getting it. In dealing with his homosexuality, the Bishops have deferred directly to God, an act of faith in His blessings. They would not have this choice to make were it not His Will.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

[qoute]
Why do you assert the divinity of Episcopal doctrine and teachings, then?
[/quote]
I don't but I don't see any reason why God would not look after one of his other churches.


Ask the House of Bishops. In the meantime, do you know of a better candidate?

I'm sure they could find someone who has not been divorced and accept the authority of the church's teaching completely.


The Bishops have chosen to put judgment against Bishop Robinson's sins in God's hands, rather than to execute it themselves. His homosexuality aside, he was apparently the best candidate for the job, else we would not be having this debate by proxy of someone else getting it. In dealing with his homosexuality, the Bishops have deferred directly to God, an act of faith in His blessings. They would not have this choice to make were it not His Will.

Why are you assuming that the bishops deferred directly to God? I don't believe in their church.

I don't believe that Robinson is an evil man. I think that a bishop should teach what the Church teaches. Is there anything wrong with that? That's beside the point. Your issue is not with Robinson's teaching but with other parts of his life.

The House of Bishops cannot condemn Robinson as any more of a sinner than any of their own selves. Despite some people's doubts about the intelligence of Christians, one cannot be a complete idiot and become a Bishop. If these are honest men, then they recognize exactly what you've already said. (cf John 8.7)

And ... I can't imagine that such an important point of daily faith would slip by the Bishops. Well, I can, but just barely, and under such circumstances that would cast the faithful even more ridiculously than my usual criticisms. Perhaps to the point of unfairness.

(And a toast to Persol ... you should see the haze in here!)

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

I swear the catholic church must be the dysfunctional organization on the planet. Their whole being is predicated on the fundamental trait of any dysfucntional entity created by humans: ignore.

They dismiss marriages amongst its priests, leading to a tradition of homosexuality which they ignore. This leads to fucked up priests who are pedophiles and can practise their disgusting behaviours in virtual immunity. The church knew they were pedophiles and homosexuals amongst its ranks. They ignored because a dysfunctional organization ruled by the dysfunctional must be dysfuctional(Thx de Feliciono).

The problem obviously has nothing to do with the priest being gay; rather, a problem exists because he is openly gay, and thus cannot be ignored. Absolutely fucking pathetic. Fuck, I bet the pope is gay. If only he would come out and say so. Imagine all the problems that would solve. Aye, blasphemer me. Kiss my ass.

That's beside the point. Your issue is not with Robinson's teaching but with other parts of his life.

No, not at all. Augustine was in a homosexual relationship, however he repented and gave up that lifestyle. There are many 50 year olds who are celibrate, is this that bad when the interest of the church is at stake?

I don't but I don't see any reason why God would not look after one of his other churches.Do you pretend to be God, or know what God knows?

Short of that, I don't see what the point has to do with anything. I can give a critical analysis of other faiths, but I can't write their faith statements for them.I'm sure they could find someone who has not been divorced and accept the authority of the church's teaching completely.Quite apparently, they didn't.Why are you assuming that the bishops deferred directly to God? I don't believe in their church. First off, I'm actually curious how it is you think those two sentences fit together. They seem to be their own paragraphs.

The Bishops, recognizing their own sinfulness, chose not to cast the stone, but rather to acknowledge the unique situation God blessed them with, and to go forward in trust that the Lord will do his reckoning with Bishop Robinson in due time.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

No, not at all. Augustine was in a homosexual relationship, however he repented and gave up that lifestyle. There are many 50 year olds who are celibrate, is this that bad when the interest of the church is at stake? Excuse me, Okinrus, but the point you were making, it seemed, had to do with whether or not Robinson teaches what the Church teaches.

Now you seem to have shifted to your problems with Bishop Robinson's personal life.

They're valid issues insofar as we have this discussion at all, but they're not the same issue, and should not be treated the same.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Do you pretend to be God, or know what God knows?

Well one of the requirements for knowing God is to keep all of his commandents (1 John). Knowing God and knowing everything about God are two different things.


First off, I'm actually curious how it is you think those two sentences fit together. They seem to be their own paragraphs.

I know that my english is not as clear as yours (:


The Bishops, recognizing their own sinfulness, chose not to cast the stone, but rather to acknowledge the unique situation God blessed them with, and to go forward in trust that the Lord will do his reckoning with Bishop Robinson in due time.

What makes you think that you know what the bishops were thinking anymore than my knowledge about God? Trust in God is completely different than trusting in men.


They're valid issues insofar as we have this discussion at all, but they're not the same issue, and should not be treated the same.

They can be treated similarly. What one believes is shown by what one does. Unless if Robinson is completely hypocritical, he must believe that homosexual acts are not a sin.

Well one of the requirements for knowing God is to keep all of his commandents (1 John). Knowing God and knowing everything about God are two different things. Beside the point. That you don't see any reason why God should or shouldn't has no bearing on what God wants. What makes you think that you know what the bishops were thinking anymore than my knowledge about God? Trust in God is completely different than trusting in men.First, and simply, it makes a better press release. Even if they don't believe it, it's the best thing to say. But then we're left at a simple question: Why confirm?

If simple prayer and reflection cannot lead a Bishop to figure out what I can sit here and say off the cuff, well ...

More genuinely, though, one of the benefits of having ditched the post-Christian ideology is the idea that I'm no longer bound by centuries of tradition to seek solely the worst in people by presuming their corrupt and sinful nature. Admittedly, I have an easy standard in some things for establishing corruption, but there's no reason to presume the bad in people. The bad shows. In the end, though, I have no reason to argue with the notion that the members of the House of Bishops believed genuinely that they were doing the right thing. If their belief is correct, then God is with them. If their belief is incorrect, we must consider the reasons why.

As we are not, despite the nature of your argument, privy to God's immediate thoughts, we cannot know if the Will of God is to shepherd Bishop Robinson by the Holy Spirit or by other means at God's disposal.

Consideration of these other means includes asserting the corruption of the decision and the hearts and minds and souls of the Bishops making it.

If that assertion is correct, then evil is identified. However, not being privy to God's immediate thoughts, we cannot know if that assertion is right or wrong. If that assertion is wrong, the condemnation of the Will of God in the form of the Holy Spirit acting through either Bishop Robinson or the Bishops who elevated him to his position as corrupt treads dangerously close to--as in directly over--the warning in Matthew 12.Knowing God and knowing everything about God are two different things.And knowing what God is thinking about any one specific issue is yet a third entirely.

The key issue with me on this point is this odd statement of yours: I don't but I don't see any reason why God would not look after one of his other churches.

It's only a couple of things that seem wrong with that, but essentially they come down to presumption of God's thoughts. On the one hand, I cannot presume that God "would not look after one of his other churches". To the other, while I agree that I can't imagine why, well ... duh. It's God. I'm not going to figure it out. Neither are you. There's a reason Christians have faith, namely that they cannot have knowledge of certain vital points.I know that my english is not as clear as yours Fair 'nuff. My bad, actually. I wasn't thinking in terms of that kind of translation.

Sorry to hit these point out of order.

But I think the fact that the Bishops chose to look past the homosexuality indicates that whatever punishment or denial is to be had for those sins is not theirs to give indicates that they are comfortable leaving judgment to God.

Judgment is God's alone. We may judge of the flesh, but true judgment is God's alone. Why would you accuse the Bishops of forgetting this?

The Bishops looked at their candidate and refused to throw stones. This is as it should be.What makes you think that you know what the bishops were thinking anymore than my knowledge about God? Trust in God is completely different than trusting in men.Something about faith in Jesus goes here. If I'm not mistaken, the Catholic Church at least protects against the idea that Jesus was not fully human. This is not exclusive to Catholics, and I would have to read up on the Episcopalian take, though the question so puzzles contemporary Christians that it well may not have come up in Episcopalian history.They can be treated similarly. What one believes is shown by what one does. Unless if Robinson is completely hypocritical, he must believe that homosexual acts are not a sin.Check the rules for heterosexuals. It's all pretty much a sin. Aside from requiring complete celibacy--an idea whose dangers ought to be obvious by now--every man of the cloth lives in sin. When your brain responds to the chemistry produced by your biology, you have sinned. It's a bit messed up.

However, to keep considerations in their proper scale, we can easily state that the good Bishop has every right before God, humankind, and his own conscience to reckon with his sins.

Choosing which sins to reject and which to endorse isn't really part of the package.

And you know, if Robinson is an utterly shallow human being, he can resort to the well-established premise that one need not believe what they teach. If he chooses to subject his conscience to such discord, well ... being gay in America in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries will have prepared him well.

However, if we choose to characterize Robinson as something more than the sum of one's xenophobic rejection, it's fair enough to say that a gay man who is bright enough to achieve the rank of Bishop is probably capable of some reasonably innovative thought. In fact, if I reject Original Sin as a presupposition pending objective demonstration, there suddenly opens the possibility that those who by their proximity to him experience part of his reconciliation process with God may find additional benefits hitherto hidden from the church faithful.

To me there is a great difference between the gender of the Bishop's human partner and his ability to teach those elements of faith required of him.

Tell me, does the Pharisee know more of compassion than the leper healed?

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

It's only a couple of things that seem wrong with that, but essentially they come down to presumption of God's thoughts.

God looks after everyone. While the English church split with us they have not, as of yet, decayed their teaching to this extant. Maybe this will sign to reunion the more conservative churches with the catholic church but I doubt it. Also when we look at sin, there is two kinds. There's habitual sin and more less occasional sin. The problem is that if we were to take the bible at face value, homosexual acts would be a mortal sin. Someone who sins habitually in this state is either unconcience of the choice or does not have grace within him. Though we have no right to judge Robinson, the Bishops do have to elect responsible men. A short list of traits of a bishop given in 1 Timothy are "This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospital, able to teach, not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money." Ok, now Robinson probably meets all of those qualities, except the "married only once" but this shows that we cannot be led by leaders who are going to create scandal. He cannot teach something different than what he does. He's putting alot of presure on himself. If this does not work out and the church's split, will he feel that he was personally responsible?


Something about faith in Jesus goes here. If I'm not mistaken, the Catholic Church at least protects against the idea that Jesus was not fully human. This is not exclusive to Catholics, and I would have to read up on the Episcopalian take, though the question so puzzles contemporary Christians that it well may not have come up in Episcopalian history.

Yes, Jesus is both man and God. Otherwise it negates the suffering of Christ. If he wasn't fully man then who's going to save the other part of man?


It's all pretty much a sin. Aside from requiring complete celibacy--an idea whose dangers ought to be obvious by now--every man of the cloth lives in sin. When your brain responds to the chemistry produced by your biology, you have sinned. It's a bit messed up.

It would be dangerous to force someone to remain celibrate, but there's no harm in remaining celibrate. Hmm maybe this is one of the reasons why the Catholic church has conservative leaders but for the most part liberal laity. It would seem now that letting priest getting married would open up the liberals into the priesthood. Despite there being no objection in the bible about married priest.


And you know, if Robinson is an utterly shallow human being, he can resort to the well-established premise that one need not believe what they teach. If he chooses to subject his conscience to such discord, well ... being gay in America in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries will have prepared him well.

Don't get me wrong, Robinson is probably a nice person, but he should not be bishop.


Tell me, does the Pharisee know more of compassion than the leper healed?

After healing a man, Jesus said "Do not sin again." The debate is not about Robinson's rightousness, which does not really matter, but is inability to consent to the teachings of sin. Which is totally normal, but a bishop must be irreproachable.

Originally posted by okinrus
Robinson is openly gay and unrepentant. Robinson must hold Jesus more important than his sex life and remain celibrate.

I'd have to agree with this, if it is expected of a Bishop to remain celibate, and he is now a Bishop, then that restriction should certainly apply to him. Has there been any word to make you think that he intends to continue having sex, or are you just assuming that he will?

Originally posted by okinrus
As to God's will, unless if it is Divinely proclaimed to me that homosexual acts are not sinful, I cannot go against what the Church teaches.

Haha worthless todie. He never said it very clearly for one, and he also said a lot of stuff that you like to ignore, otherwise you'd be stoning people dead in the street a whole lot.

Originally posted by okinrus
"Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or the in the age to come."(Mathew 12:31-32)

I think your going to have to go to more explanation into this.

God aparently likes to contradict himself? "Blasphemy will be forgiven, but blasphemy will not be forgiven." Ok, thanks a bunch Mathew you've made that pretty clear, haha.

Blasphemy is a victemless crime, if you ask me.

Originally posted by okinrus
Me Prideful :) You automatically assumed that homosexual acts were valid under God despite it never being divinely proclaimed.


Haha, God didn't proclaim a lot of things, Oki, this ain't the house that he built.

Originally posted by okinrus
Using the internet was never condemned in the old testament.

However eating pork and shaving your beard was.

God aparently likes to contradict himself? "Blasphemy will be forgiven, but blasphemy will not be forgiven." Ok, thanks a bunch Mathew you've made that pretty clear, haha.

Blasphemy is a victemless crime, if you ask me.

Blasphemy will be forgiven but blasphemy against the the Holy Spirit will not. It's clear because only by the Holy Spirit can we seek repentance for our sins.


I'd have to agree with this, if it is expected of a Bishop to remain celibate, and he is now a Bishop, then that restriction should certainly apply to him. Has there been any word to make you think that he intends to continue having sex, or are you just assuming that he will?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3079641.stm

While the English church split with us they have not, as of yet, decayed their teaching to this extant What right does the House of Bishops have to throw the stone?

Given the earlier citation of the article, "When Christ Was Gay", I figured to go out and grab a couple of references to Episcopalians and marriage in general. It's a bit of an issue with them.He says: "Fr. Woodruff is a young man with energy, ideas and resources. He is absolutely responsive, and he will try anything! This is Fr. Woodruff's first church, and his only job is to build it. I think it's wonderful that Fr. Woodruff is chaplain to the jockeys at Suffolk Downs, many of whom grew up in religious households in South America and in Ireland. They are often only in their '20s and hundreds of miles from home."

Trumbull was relieved to find the church because he disliked the changes in the Book of Common Prayer and ECUSA's disregard of Biblical teachings regarding sex. "The Anglican tradition has always held marriage to be a sacramental, lifelong union. Divorce, while not absolutely prohibited as in the Roman Catholic tradition, was accepted as something that happens sometimes, and that required a dispensation from the Bishop. Now, in the Episcopal Church there are clergy and bishops who have remarried multiple times. If you can get married in a civil ceremony, you can get married in the Episcopal Church, which is a complete change from what the position was. (MassNews (http://www.massnews.com/2003_Editions/4_April/040403_episcopalian_church_at_harvard.shtml))It seems to me that marriage is a difficult issue to the Episcopals. Attempting to deal compassionately with the sins taking place in marriages may well have led to a liberalization of the church. Nonetheless, most telling of all is the Episcopalian reservations against modernization:A final thought to ponder for those looking for a new Province of the Anglican Communion in the USA in the year 2000. If the Province begins by embracing the divorce culture (and this is highly probable because many desiring this Province are within that culture by design or by default) then it will soon be no better than the present ECUSA where the divorce culture was embraced in the 1960s and was then quickly followed by the civil rights, feminist, liberationist and lesgay cultures. (EpiscopalianOrg (http://www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928/Archive/divorce.htm))Yet even in a comparative context (see MassNews article), I'm not sure what the issue is with marriage. Catholic priests are expected to advise people on something they cannot know--e.g. marriage--and,.furthermore, the Catholic Church can issue dispensations allowing divorce and remarriage. Yet as McKinley (http://www.elroy.net/ehr/gay.html) shows ("When Christ Was Gay"), the Bible is fairly explicit about divorce and remarriage.

So what of those priests who endorse sin? I just wonder why it is that this sin is so important to people. If it's Dobson or one of those nuts, it's obviously about money, but what is it with a more traditional church? I mean, since trusting in God is apparently an idea you find quite unacceptable, I'm left wondering how exactly to address this concern of yours which seems specifically homophobic and not concerned with the general nature of sin in the churches, the fallibility of man, the infallibility of God, or the Judgment reserved to His Will.He cannot teach something different than what he does. As a basic faculty, that may yet prove to be correct. As an observational reality pertaining to the general possibility, I must advise that your perspective on the nature of people needs updating.If this does not work out and the church's split, will he feel that he was personally responsible?I don't see why he should. The Episcopal Org article makes it pretty clear that a schism has been developing at least since civil rights, which some Episcopalians find distasteful.Yes, Jesus is both man and God. Otherwise it negates the suffering of Christ Resorting to paradox doesn't help. See "The Crucifixion was a Fraud" (SciForums)" (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=6315). If he wasn't fully man then who's going to save the other part of man?Perhaps the same creator that imperiled them by His Will in the first place when he lied to Adam and Eve about the Trees?It would seem now that letting priest getting married would open up the liberals into the priesthood. Despite there being no objection in the bible about married priest.And, as Catholics can guide themselves extrabiblically and in response to contemporary issues, why should the Episcopalians be denied the same right?
Don't get me wrong, Robinson is probably a nice person, but he should not be bishop. Don't get me wrong, Robinson is probably a nice person, but he should not be bishop.[/quote]I'm guessing he's pretty nice, too, but that doesn't change your attempted usurpation of God's judgment. Hang on ... I'll go get you a bucket of stones. Remember, though, to open the door and go outside your glass house before you start throwing them.
After healing a man, Jesus said "Do not sin again." We might point out that obviously, Jesus is not finished yet. Don't doubt Jesus' power just because it doesn't look like what you want it to. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to doubt Jesus.Which is totally normal, but a bishop must be irreproachable.Ah ... I look forward to the day the churches enforce this rule and then promptly go away for a lack of qualified leadership. In other words, there's reasons people allow Bishops to be human. In fact, two primary reasons I can think of are,

- They are human
- Without human beings, there is no church

On any occasion that the Christians attempt to rise toward lucid reality instead of cloistering in the quagmire, I must applaud. As more and more ascend from the the valley of death to join the living in the city on the hill, there will as a natural result be fewer barbarians clamoring at the gates. Everyone's invited. It's just that people get tired of the factions who would tear the place apart just to make the quagmire look more attractive.

Then again, one of the first things a child learns about pigs is that they love to wallow in their own filth.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Yet as McKinley shows ("When Christ Was Gay"), the Bible is fairly explicit about divorce and remarriage.

Yes, divorse in almost all circumstances is wrong except in cases of adultry. It's difficult decision but the correct decision in most cases. Marrying a divorsed woman is a mistake because she and her ex may have a chance to get back together. Also the article that you posted is a distortion of the churches teaches with a fundamentalist view. Not all christians are fundamentalist.


Yet even in a comparative context (see MassNews article), I'm not sure what the issue is with marriage. Catholic priests are expected to advise people on something they cannot know

Actually priest are pretty good at this type of stuft becaues they have seen many marriages. Also the union with the church is similar to are natural marriage.


Resorting to paradox doesn't help. See "The Crucifixion was a Fraud" (SciForums)".

It's not a paradox. He has a divine nature and a human nature all at the same time. It's no more paradoxical than saying we are both flesh and spirit. "1:2 truly nailed for us unto the cross in the flesh in the time of Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch; from the fruit of which cross are we, even from his divinely blessed passion, that he might raise up a sign unto the ages, by means of the resurrection, even unto the saints and them that believe in him, whether they be among the Jews or the Gentiles, in one body of his church."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-hoole.html

"As a basic faculty, that may yet prove to be correct. As an observational reality pertaining to the general possibility, I must advise that your perspective on the nature of people needs updating."
Jesus said "Judge a tree by its fruits", so while he could teach it against homosexual acts it would be hypocritical.


Perhaps the same creator that imperiled them by His Will in the first place when he lied to Adam and Eve about the Trees?

This was not his Will. Why do you keep assuming that everything is the Will of God?


I'm guessing he's pretty nice, too, but that doesn't change your attempted usurpation of God's judgment. Hang on ... I'll go get you a bucket of stones. Remember, though, to open the door and go outside your glass house before you start throwing them.

Wait a minute. Why do you seem to think that I'm some sort of homophobe? I have ate easter dinner with two homosexuals. It's no big deal, but a position of bishop where one must be irreproachable and not create scandal, this is where we draw the line.

Also the article that you posted is a distortion of the churches teaches with a fundamentalist view. Not all christians are fundamentalist. I'll openly admit the fundamentalist aspect, but the passages presented make a clear Biblical argument. It seems to me that a very important but subtle consideration is how many legitimate variations of God's Law there are. If there is only one, we're all screwed. While I recognize the difference between the sects, I'm still puzzled at how each of these churches can separate from each other and not seek to reconcile. They are leaving the sick to their sickness, the captive to their prisons. Whatsoever they do not do for the least of His bretheren ..... Actually priest are pretty good at this type of stuft becaues they have seen many marriages. Also the union with the church is similar to are natural marriage.I agree that priests have the benefit of witnessing a large sample of marriages, but for those who are celibate, the intimate mysteries of human interaction are closed to them. It seems well enough to talk about "communication" and other such ideas, But I guarantee you that a Catholic priest, for instance, doesn't know what it's like to be lied to and put off for years about very basic issues between people. I mean, if I look at what is turning out to be my domestic partner's descent into various symptoms of either absurdity in the Camusite sense or insanity in the general, I have to admit that I never imagined someone acting this severely, and I can't imagine what it would be like if I was legally bound to her. Right now the fact that I can protect my daughter from the hostility is the only thing that keeps me from packing her off someplace safer.

I'm sorry, but a priest just doesn't have that experience. And in some traditions, he won't.

To the other, I'm brought to mind of a reverend (I don't know the official title, now that I think of it) at a Society of Friends meeting house whose family took a turn for the worst. Apparently in a family dispute, he struck his eldest son. The preacher, on reflection, decided that the situation was beyond his immediate control and sought the professional assistance of a psychologist who was of the flock. The resulting controversy did not focus on family troubles, did not focus on the fact that he struck his son. Rather, society conservatives asked him to step aside because, in his moment of trial, he sought a psychologist and not Jesus Christ.

More than the oddity of hearing such a point from Quakers, I have to say that I would prefer his advice on domestic issues than Father Jerry's, and I respect that man as the brightest star of the clergy at my Catholic high school, perhaps the brightest star I've found in the Catholic sector of my Universe. And that's the thing. Insofar as I know, Jerry was a master of teen angst dating back to his own youth. He knew those conflicts before he was a priest and he brought that knowledge with him. He belongs at a high school. But I wouldn't take actual marital or relationship advice from him, and on one occasion that the school asked him to do just that he fudged around the point because he knew that the seventeen year-old sitting in front of him had a simple leg up on him. If my girlfriend had been socially normal he might have dared, but nothing in his experience gave him any other wisdom to offer than to trust in God and do the right things. But between the two of us, he knew that I was the only one with a remote clue what was at stake and how it came to be. And it's not like a seventeen year-old has much along those specific lines, but still it was more than the priest had. He has a divine nature and a human nature all at the same time. It's no more paradoxical than saying we are both flesh and spirit.Ri-ight. But most of us don't assert the power to heal with touch by the power of the Holy Spirit, and those among us who do are generally regarded as fraudulent or crazy.

Nonetheless, to sum up what turns out to be a longer argument than I had thought necessary ... well, you even point out ... well, your take on it is bizarre. Jesus cannot be "fully" something and then something else as well. If he is fully human, then he is fully human as you or I are fully human. If Jesus is also God, as opposed to being specially endowed by God, the sacrifice is still diminished. Jesus cannot know sin and suffering from the human perspective if he knows what others can only have faith in.

Consider: You are tied up, blindfolded, abused. Your captor is a monster, and has ravaged you. You are tired, frightened, and seriously wondering if you will see daylight again ....

(sounds bad, right?)

.... And then the director yells, "Cut!" and several union men scurry out to untie you and start wiping the fake blood out of your eyes while your mind wanders to whether or not your assistant made those dinner reservations at the Met.

There is an amazing scene in Wes Craven's Last House on the Left. Watching a young girl pray after her rape, one is taken with the intended catharsis. Watching her subsequent execution is horrifying; that's why it's a horror flick.

Did the actor go through the actual experience the character was depicted as having experienced? The actor knows it isn't real, and sublimates reality in favor of the role. But is it the same thing? Jesus knew that, unlike others, his physical body would be raised in three days. Jesus knew he would ascend. Jesus knew (clearly, according to Luke 3) that he was not quite like everybody else, and would occasionally announce it all over town (e.g. - John 8)

On the other hand, I'm amazed at the lengths you'll go to in order to avoid certain considerations. I'm trying to track this vein back to its start. The closest I'm getting is when you shied away from the arcane realization that trusting in Jesus is trusting in man.

"Both God and man" so that Jesus could be "fully human" is actually the produce of a severe logical failure that would never have come up if it wasn't for the bizarre race to ideological consolidation that resulted in centuries of violence and division. (An interesting episode is when Athanasius won out against Arius at Nicaea; the winning argument may have been docetic at heart, but in modern terms we could say that the marketing was exponentially easier, and that's why the heretical position won influence over the Nicene Creed.)

The issue of how Jesus as a human being relates to Jesus the Divine is a sticky issue that Christians have failed to resolve for almost 1,700 years now.

For Jesus to be both "fully human" and "fully Divine" is a fundamental contradiction in terms, something intrinsically impossible and therefore beyond God. (see "Omnipotence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm)", with attention given to "mutually exclusive elements", such as a square circle. This was not his Will. Why do you keep assuming that everything is the Will of God? I'm going to answer you with a question: What part of the Universe exceeds God's authority?

Remember that even Satan is directly subordinate to God. Answers quite directly, according to the Bible.

I mean, I'm sure you're familiar with the story of the Fall of Man at Eden? You know, where God says, "Don't eat the fruit or you shall die." And then the Serpent says, "You won't die." So they eat the fruit and they don't die. And then God says, "If they eat of the Tree of Life, they will be like us and live forever."

Did you ever wonder about that "us"? It's a good thing you're not SDA; the latest I'm getting about Genesis from that camp is that God knew in advance (a common assertion) that Adam and Eve would fall and that the Son would be required to make a sacrifice on humankind's behalf, and, furthermore, that it was part of the Plan. Now, I realize this is controversial, and I have severe reservations about the Seventh Day Adventists, but in this case they're right on the mark. If God has the knowledge that God is asserted to have, and the power that God is asserted to have, then God knew damn well what would happen at Eden, and He chose to go forward with it. The Fall of Man is God's direct will.

Would we assert that Satan succeeded in defying God's authority? Does the Devil operate independently in the Universe? Or does Satan respond to God's bidding, according to the Book of Job?

Likewise, what authority put such an important decision, such that it could split in two a fraternity of God's endeavors (e.g. a church congregation) before the House of Bishops?Wait a minute. Why do you seem to think that I'm some sort of homophobe? I have ate easter dinner with two homosexuals. It's no big deal, but a position of bishop where one must be irreproachable and not create scandal, this is where we draw the line. Ohhh - kay. Um ... let's try it this way:

(1) Homophobia is not a necessary component. You might just be the kind of chap who likes throwing stones. Homophobia is only a component insofar as the Churches themselves are homophobic in general.

(2) Free advice, and this time not to be condescending but because you really need to understand this: I'm not ____ ... I have friends who are _____ .... (fill in the blanks) These statements actually have a bit of a damaging effect to one's presentation. Typically this announcement is followed by statements which are inherently _____ (whatever goes in that blank).

(3) And you do exactly that. It's not truly sinister or anything, so I'll get to that in a moment. But why is this where you draw the line? One sin too many? Why this line? With everything else wrong with church politics, teachings, and scandals, why this?

Now we have to remember that certain words bear certain weight that we assign them. Words like bigot, prejudice, and homophobe are excellent examples. In fact, they're the reason such things occur to me.

A bigot is merely one who insists on any particular opinion beyond the point of reason and propriety. The word has evolved to its negative context, I admit.

Prejudice merely implies judgment before facts are known. When I was a kid, I didn't like white chocolate because commerce teaches me that chocolate is dark brown. That was a prejudice. In fact, I prefer white chocolate. This is a preference based on equal consideration. Technically, if one prefers to have sex with the opposite gender but has never tried the same, well, it's kind of a prejudice. But this is not one that most homosexuals or bisexuals would hold against you unless you let that prejudice affect other functions. We can consider it by looking at homophobia.

All homophobia means is that one is frightened of homosexuality. Some find this an unfair characterization, since the roots of the word simply mean a fear of things that are the same. But in the end, it comes down to fear of same-sex partners. That fear arises from a certain lack of understanding, whether of the homosexual, homosexuality, or of the otherwise-ignored questions that one brings to their conscience in the presence of a homosexual. I can understand the idea that anal penetration scares a man; it scares a lot of women, too. But transferring that fear to people and discriminating against them on the basis of that fear is, by social convention, unacceptable. Whether it's homophobia, White Supremacy, Promise Keepers and other manly-man organizations, &c., the transference of an irrational fear based on a lack of knowledge to another person such that it interferes with human interaction is generally looked down upon as unproductive, selfish, and harmful.

The only reason the sins of other Bishops don't raise a scandal is because there's a lot of people who have similar scandals. Like the McKinley article noted of the fundamentalist Christians--if they went after something like divorce and remarriage, it would make too many of the flock uncomfortable.

The only scandal is that chosen by those who see a convenient opportunity to declare a scandal in order to demonize what they fear.

Oh, yes ....

(4) No Bishop is irreproachable.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by okinrus
Blasphemy will be forgiven but blasphemy against the the Holy Spirit will not. It's clear because only by the Holy Spirit can we seek repentance for our sins.

Enough double speak already, will blasphemy be forgiven or won't it?


Originally posted by okinrus
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3079641.stm

I saw nothing in here that suggests that he intends to not be celebate.

Jesus cannot be "fully" something and then something else as well. If he is fully human, then he is fully human as you or I are fully human. If Jesus is also God, as opposed to being specially endowed by God, the sacrifice is still diminished. Jesus cannot know sin and suffering from the human perspective if he knows what others can only have faith in.

Yes, Jesus had flesh, blood, felt pain and was born from a woman just as all men are, yet he still was God.



Jesus cannot be "fully" something and then something else as well. If he is fully human, then he is fully human as you or I are fully human. If Jesus is also God, as opposed to being specially endowed by God, the sacrifice is still diminished. Jesus cannot know sin and suffering from the human perspective if he knows what others can only have faith in.

We were made in the image of God. The image of God is man yet the true image of God that was not made is Jesus. I suspect that you are going by the conventual scientific definition of human. Every sin and every feeling even doubt Jesus feels within us.



The preacher, on reflection, decided that the situation was beyond his immediate control and sought the professional assistance of a psychologist who was of the flock.

There's nothing wrong with psychologist, however psychologists often have secular views.


Ri-ight. But most of us don't assert the power to heal with touch by the power of the Holy Spirit, and those among us who do are generally regarded as fraudulent or crazy.

Sins are forgiven through the holy spirit. It is the Holy Spirit that brings all to repentance and love of God. Spitual and emotional healing is more miraculus than any physical healing.


Did the actor go through the actual experience the character was depicted as having experienced? The actor knows it isn't real, and sublimates reality in favor of the role. But is it the same thing? Jesus knew that, unlike others, his physical body would be raised in three days. Jesus knew he would ascend. Jesus knew (clearly, according to Luke 3) that he was not quite like everybody else, and would occasionally announce it all over town (e.g. - John 8)

My take is that Jesus was feeling the pain of each and every sin. Also he feels the doubt within Peter's heart, the rejection of Judas, and the crowd because he is I AM and is within us.


I'm going to answer you with a question: What part of the Universe exceeds God's authority?

God gave us authority over the animals so we already have some give and take of power. Clearly we have a will and we are free to have that will. So God's authority is not constraining us. There is a clear distinction between having the power to know the future and allowing the creatures freewill of their own. Both must be possible for an all-powerful God.


"Both God and man" so that Jesus could be "fully human" is actually the produce of a severe logical failure that would never have come up if it wasn't for the bizarre race to ideological consolidation that resulted in centuries of violence and division. (An interesting episode is when Athanasius won out against Arius at Nicaea; the winning argument may have been docetic at heart, but in modern terms we could say that the marketing was exponentially easier, and that's why the heretical position won influence over the Nicene Creed.)

It's all through out the writings of Ignatius. Also Paul says that Christ was born in the image of man. Sometimes this is used to "disprove" the divinity of Christ though. Athanasius was correct though. For Jesus to be truth, he must have one essence. If truth has two essences it is more paradoxical than Jesus being both man and God.


Remember that even Satan is directly subordinate to God. Answers quite directly, according to the Bible.

Yes, but I believe that Satan causes destruction to cause God pain. Though it seems impossible for an all-powerful God to feel pain, an all-powerful God must know what pain feels like anyways. I believe that Satan and his angels created their own hell, but this is only private revelation from vatican's chief exorcists from a demon.


(1) Homophobia is not a necessary component. You might just be the kind of chap who likes throwing stones. Homophobia is only a component insofar as the Churches themselves are homophobic in general.

Somewhat. I suspect that my online writing is much more direct, however I don't throw stones at people but at the sin. David also had trouble throwing stones and well Christ is the cornerstnoe so let's keep throwing stones, just not at people.


(2) Free advice, and this time not to be condescending but because you really need to understand this: I'm not ____ ... I have friends who are _____ .... (fill in the blanks) These statements actually have a bit of a damaging effect to one's presentation. Typically this announcement is followed by statements which are inherently _____ (whatever goes in that blank).

There is no free advice. I don't try to convince but tell the truth. Your allegations that I'm some sort of homophobic are untrue, because homophobics are against homosexuals, while I'm against sin. And no I don't usually debate homosexuality with others, it's just that topic keeps coming up and I just state my views. And I don't fear homosexuals any more than I fear people commiting adultry or other crimes :confused: I just believe that it is wrong. Is there are adutraphobic?


And you do exactly that. It's not truly sinister or anything, so I'll get to that in a moment. But why is this where you draw the line? One sin too many? Why this line? With everything else wrong with church politics, teachings, and scandals, why this?

Yes, I'm against all wrongs.


Prejudice merely implies judgment before facts are known. When I was a kid, I didn't like white chocolate because commerce teaches me that chocolate is dark brown. That was a prejudice. In fact, I prefer white chocolate. This is a preference based on equal consideration. Technically, if one prefers to have sex with the opposite gender but has never tried the same, well, it's kind of a prejudice. But this is not one that most homosexuals or bisexuals would hold against you unless you let that prejudice affect other functions. We can consider it by looking at homophobia.

Homosexuality is clearly not a preferance. Even most gays will tell you this because it's against the born gay stance.

I don't mean so much total unreproachability just the facade :( yet not being hypocritical. Otherwise there will be members of the church who will openly defile the bishop's teaching on other matters because he's gay.

Yes, Jesus had flesh, blood, felt pain and was born from a woman just as all men are, yet he still was God. This is a point of faith that I won't deny you, We were made in the image of God. The image of God is man yet the true image of God that was not made is Jesus. I suspect that you are going by the conventual scientific definition of human. Every sin and every feeling even doubt Jesus feels within us. Right there Jesus becomes "superhuman".There's nothing wrong with psychologist, however psychologists often have secular views.True 'nuff. But what does that have to do with the discussion about whether a celibate priest gives good advice regarding issues that he does not, by experience, know?

The point being that the preacher with a family can tell me more genuinely about family experience than the celibate priest.Sins are forgiven through the holy spirit. It is the Holy Spirit that brings all to repentance and love of God. Spitual and emotional healing is more miraculus than any physical healing. Well, since you're arguing that Jesus can be both fully human and God at the same time, I'm wondering what that has to do with the comparison to mundane human flesh and spirit.My take is that Jesus was feeling the pain of each and every sin. Also he feels the doubt within Peter's heart, the rejection of Judas, and the crowd because he is I AM and is within us.Without limiting it to the two following possibilities, I offer my first response to that:

(1) Jesus is imagining the pain of sins he did not commit, OR
(2) Jesus is sensing the sins of all people, a condition most unnatural for someone who is fully human

Now, like I said, I'm not going to limit the possibilities, but that's what I see in it at first. So I'll have to ask you:

(3) ?????God gave us authority over the animals so we already have some give and take of power. Clearly we have a will and we are free to have that will. So God's authority is not constraining us. I hear you on that. But there's this dude named Job who might disagree, and also this weird guy named Satan. ("Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine.")

Remember that God has complete knowledge, Perfect Knowledge. That he chooses to not interfere in what he foresees is still an act of Will, such as we find at Eden.It's all through out the writings of Ignatius. And those are definitive?Athanasius was correct though. For Jesus to be truth, he must have one essence. If truth has two essences it is more paradoxical than Jesus being both man and God.Two essences? I think the more direct issue was whether Christ was part of the divine or the mundane order. Where Athanasius goes wrong is insisting on a strong, divine Christ. Something about sacrifice and crucifixion goes here. At any rate, as Athanasius has it:41. The Presence of the Word in nature necessary, not only for its original
Creation, but also for its permanence. But though He is Word, He is not, as we said, after the likeness of human words, composed of syllables; but He is the unchanging Image of His own Father. For men, composed of parts and made out of nothing, have their discourse composite and divisible. But God possesses true existence and is not composite, wherefore His Word also has true Existence and is not composite, but is the one and only-begotten God, Who proceeds in His goodness from the Father as from a good Fountain, and orders all things and holds them together. 2. But the reason why the Word, the Word of God, has united Himself with created things is truly wonderful, and teaches us that the present order of things is none otherwise than is fitting. For the nature of created things, inasmuch as it is brought into being out of nothing, is of a fleeting sort, and weak and mortal, if composed of itself only. But the God of all is good and exceeding noble by nature,--and therefore is kind. For one that is good can grudge nothing: for which reason he does not grudge even existence, but desires all to exist, as objects for His loving-kindness. 3. Seeing then all created nature, as far as its own laws were concerned, to be fleeting and subject to dissolution, lest it should come to this and lest the Universe should be broken up again into nothingness, for this cause He made all things by His own eternal Word, and gave substantive existence to Creation, and moreover did not leave it to be tossed in a tempest in the course of its own nature, lest it should run the risk of once more dropping out of existence; but, because He is good He guides and settles the whole Creation by His own Word, Who is Himself also God, that by the governance and providence and ordering action of the Word, Creation may have light, and be enabled to abide alway securely. For it partakes of the Word Who derives true existence from the Father, and is helped by Him so as to exist, lest that should come to it which would have come but for the maintenance of it by the Word,--namely, dissolution,--" for He is the Image of the invisible God, the first-born of all Creation, for through Him and in Him all things consist, things visible and things invisible, and He is the Head of the Church," as the ministers of truth teach in their holy writings. I mean .... the one thing that seems unacceptable to him is that Christ is fully human.Though it seems impossible for an all-powerful God to feel pain, an all-powerful God must know what pain feels like anyways.Perhaps. Nonetheless, the difference between a human being and God considerably changes the relative value of pain.I believe that Satan and his angels created their own hell, but this is only private revelation from vatican's chief exorcists from a demon.In that case I highly recommend Steven Brust's To Reign in Hell.

C'mon ... I mean ... Beelzebub's a golden retriever in the story .... (Really, it's a kick to read.)I suspect that my online writing is much more direct, however I don't throw stones at people but at the sin.It would seem to be that the House of Bishops bore this point in mind when considering Canon Robinson.There is no free advice. True. I'll send you the invoice for $420.00 tomorrow.I don't try to convince but tell the truth.I can think of a number of extreme and even unkind comparisons I could make of people who would say the same thing. I hear you, but it's all just an editorial assertion.Your allegations that I'm some sort of homophobic are untrue, because homophobics are against homosexuals, while I'm against sin.It obviously frightens you that the Holy Spirit should have anything to do with a homosexual. If the Holy Spirit will deal with the sinner, why not you? Is what's good enough for God just not good enough for you?

And while I'm willing to believe without objection that you don't have a thing against homosexuals per se, you are setting a second standard for them. None of these priests, pastors, bishops, or otherwise of any denomination are without sin, and tomorrow when they wake up, they will still be sinners. Why this sin? What is so special about it?

Given that we are made in God's image, one must wonder when exactly it was that God craved a good sodomite reaming. I mean, Robinson is in His image, too. And if his mortal coil, endowed by God, should lead him to prefer the company of men, well, that's really between him and God.Is there are adutraphobic?The emotions most commonly associated to someone else's adultery are either betrayal (if you're the wife) or envy (if Bob's new girlfriend is really hot).

Okay, that's hardly definitive.

But the larger point is that such statements as you made don't help your credibility. Hell I treat Christians decently, I won't hold their faith against them unless they give me a reason to, I'll dine with 'em and I'll even feed 'em. But it doesn't change the fact that I think they're dangerously bonkers. I may be genuinely civil to them, but I don't pretend for a minute that I respect them any more than my standard of human decency obliges me to respect all people until otherwise indicated by their actions. If someone accuses me of hating them ... I'll acknowledge the day when that was true, but I won't hold up the fact that I dine with Christians as evidence of my escape from bigotry.Yes, I'm against all wrongs. This is a great and polarized issue for those who make it so. Perhaps it can be used as a general application. Bring 'em all down. Every one of the sinners. Throw the stones; since you apparently don't throw them at the sinner, throw them at the houses of God which empower them to their evils. Smash the churches to rubble and restore the ideological integrity demanded by the Savior of the world. If that was the story in the headlines, I wouldn't care if anyone made bones about Robinson's being gay. More accurately, if that was the real debate, I wouldn't care who rattled their sabres.Homosexuality is clearly not a preferance. Even most gays will tell you this because it's against the born gay stance.My preference for white chocolate is also biological. The preference you're arguing against is a legitimate issue to argue when it is raised by those who would assert that someone wakes up one day and decides to throw their whole life into turmoil just in order to enjoy deviant pleasures.

Look at the "preference" as a conclusion based on experience. People generally prefer what their biology determines is comfortable. I don't mean so much total unreproachability just the facade yet not being hypocritical. Otherwise there will be members of the church who will openly defile the bishop's teaching on other matters because he's gay. Well ... wouldn't that be self-defeating for the others?

Furthermore ... well ... there is no furthermore. God will know what is in their hearts and if church members break faith in other parts of their lives in reaction to this, that's their own fate to tempt. He will separate the sheep from the goats. Nothing like making it easy. Oh ... wait ... He already knows who will deviate and who will not. Such is Life, or so it is written.

I just don't understand why so many faithful would presume to judge what faith reveals is God's alone to judge.

A note on the title: It comes from The Simpsons #EABF12. If I still fancied myself a poet, I'd try explaining the relevance. It would look a little bit cummings, to be sure, though. So I'm not sure that would help.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

The point being that the preacher with a family can tell me more genuinely about family experience than the celibate priest.

Sometimes a preacher with a family has a narrow view point. A celibrate priest has probably read books on marriage counciling and understands desputes because he too was in a family.


(3) ?????

Some of my interpretation is due to one of the saints who was blessed to share in the pain the cross for brief momen. I think she was left with the stigmata after Christ "stabbed" her with the bottom of the cross. Not sure if I'm recounting the story correct. Your definition of human is too selective and that is why you think that God being both man and God contradicts reality. Anyways God defines reality


I hear you on that. But there's this dude named Job who might disagree, and also this weird guy named Satan. ("Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine.")
anyways.

I doubt Job is a literal story but more of a didactic story or legend.


It obviously frightens you that the Holy Spirit should have anything to do with a homosexual.

Why would I be frightened? In I would be happy :confused:


If the Holy Spirit will deal with the sinner, why not you?

I am a sinner as well.


Is what's good enough for God just not good enough for you?

God is the only source of good :confused:


And those are definitive?

Ignatius was a desciple of John the Apostle. So his teaching is a
relection on what the apostles taught. The canon was not formed yet so the writings of the Church was the faith.


Two essences? I think the more direct issue was whether Christ was part of the divine or the mundane order. Where Athanasius goes wrong is insisting on a strong, divine Christ. Something about sacrifice and crucifixion goes here. At any rate, as Athanasius has it:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm
My argument still implies. The Father is perfectly trueful and so is the Son. Yet we can say that the Son is truth and so his the Father .


Perhaps. Nonetheless, the difference between a human being and God considerably changes the relative value of pain.

Pain is usually inflicted many ways but usually it is not completely rational. God allowed himself to be inflicted and to feel pain. Yet the true pain was caused by everyone who has sinned. In Jeremiah, God says "I will weep for them in secret". So Jesus was feeling the pain of rejection caused by the entire worlds rejection fo him, because he too his within their hearts but was rejected.


And while I'm willing to believe without objection that you don't have a thing against homosexuals per se, you are setting a second standard for them. None of these priests, pastors, bishops, or otherwise of any denomination are without sin, and tomorrow when they wake up, they will still be sinners. Why this sin? What is so special about it?

Those priests, pastors and bishops, however, admit that they commited the sin. Sexual sins are more dangerous than most other sins because they have a greater chance to be habitual. For 2000 years, the apostles and each Church Father believed that God declaired that homosexual acts were sinful. Yet Robinson has a new take on the Scripture not given to us by the apostles or the Church. People should not seek to justify themselves by Scripture. Paul clearly says that we are justified by the blood of Jesus.


The emotions most commonly associated to someone else's adultery are either betrayal (if you're the wife) or envy (if Bob's new girlfriend is really hot).
[/quotes]
You don't believe that homosexual acts are a sin? I'm giving you example of something that you believe is wrong to contrast with what I feel is wrong.

[quote]
I'll acknowledge the day when that was true, but I won't hold up the fact that I dine with Christians as evidence of my escape from bigotry.

Your being bigoted yourself. In many such posts, you assume what I believe based upon what some web site says about christians.


Look at the "preference" as a conclusion based on experience. People generally prefer what their biology determines is comfortable.

I don't think that the pychological matter can be ignored. While I feel that Leviticus explitly condemns homosexual acts, we also know that abuse and environment play a huge role in determining sexual identity. So the homosexual acts that the bible calls abomination are clearly orgies and uncontroled lust practiced by pagans. There are mitigating factors though but this still does not change the act itself being wrong. If homosexuality was a mere choice, then I think most would choose to become straight.

Originally posted by okinrus
Sometimes a preacher with a family has a narrow view point. A celibrate priest has probably read books on marriage counciling and understands desputes because he too was in a family.
I'm sorry, but that is bull. Reading a book on marriage counciling will only tell you how others explain marriage, not how it actually is.

Anyways God defines reality
I always though observation did that.

I doubt Job is a literal story but more of a didactic story or legend.
I doubt Jesus is a literal story

I am a sinner as well.
You should probably head Jesus's words and stop casting stones then.

God is the only source of good
People who don't believe in god also supply 'good'.

Sexual sins are more dangerous than most other sins because they have a greater chance to be habitual.
Proof? Reason? It doesn't say this in the bible.

For 2000 years, the apostles and each Church Father believed that God declaired that homosexual acts were sinful. Yet Robinson has a new take on the Scripture not given to us by the apostles or the Church. People should not seek to justify themselves by Scripture.
Double standard? You say he is not following the rules, and won't listen when he says you've interpreted the rules wrong. You are basically saying that the only true interpretation is the first one (which would also make yours wrong)

I'm sorry, but that is bull. Reading a book on marriage counciling will only tell you how others explain marriage, not how it actually is.

No, in fact this same example is given in the book <u>Writing worth reading</u> It doesn't take a genius to understand marriage and settle disputes.


I always though observation did that.

We only can only observe reality.


You should probably head Jesus's words and stop casting stones then.

Jesus had no problem telling the adultress that she sinned but this isn't really about who sinned. The debate is about whether Robinson should be bishop of a church that believes in the Scripture.


Proof? Reason? It doesn't say this in the bible.

I don't believe in sola-scriptura. But it is obvious that sexual sins do more damage.


Double standard? You say he is not following the rules, and won't listen when he says you've interpreted the rules wrong. You are basically saying that the only true interpretation is the first one (which would also make yours wrong)

No not really. Robinsons justification must come from Jesus within him but this does not negate the value of Scripture of what Paul says that it may be used for proof, correction and learning.

Religion and Spirituality are a work in progress. We don't know everything about God (although some fundamentalists claim to), so we shouldn't presume to know what God thinks. The Episcopal Church has always been relatively tolerant, to the dismay of more conservative Christians, and this is no exception. The ECUSA never took an official position on homosexuality, although a few individual churches actually have gay marrage ceremonies. The official decision of the church was simply that regardless of whether you believe homosexuality is right or wrong, it should be tolerated. This is, incedently, the same position the church takes on divorce, which the church recognizes as a sin, but allows out of tolerance.

I believe this is an admirable position. I do not believe that you "advocate what you tolerate", as has been asserted by some conservative christians; I believe it is a mark of class to be able to tolerate things that you believe to be wrong.


"And if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them." Matt. 6:32 NIV

"Do not judge and you will not be judged. Do not condemn and you will not be condemned." Matt. 6:37 NIV

"Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil" Matt. 6:22 NIV

If the above three verses don't justify allowing Gene Robinson his position in the church regardless of your feelings on homosexuality, you are simply clinging to an outdated interpretation.

The debate is not whether Robinson is an evil sinful man but whether he should be bishop. A bishop must do what he teaches. His interpretation must be consistant with scripture. As to tolerance, just about all churches teach tolerance of sinners.

Originally posted by okinrus
The debate is not whether Robinson is an evil sinful man but whether he should be bishop. A bishop must do what he teaches. His interpretation must be consistant with scripture. As to tolerance, just about all churches teach tolerance of sinners. Fine we are agreed. He does what he teaches. He believes it is consistant with scripture (and as a bishop, is more knowledgable of scripture than you), and you should be tolerant of other's interpretations.

You need to get out of this mindset that the voices in your head are god, so your opinions must be right.

He does what he teaches. He believes it is consistant with scripture (and as a bishop, is more knowledgable of scripture than you), and you should be tolerant of other's interpretations.

More knowledgable in other areas of Scripture perhaps, but his interpretation is hedged. Leveticus clearly says "man with a man" is wrong. It does not give any preconditions of marriage. If God wanted homosexual unions he would have designated a homosexual marriage. If we want to go further, Paul says not to offend others. This is clearly offending and making a scandal to the more conservative bishops. So if there was anything the bishop could do to become less offensive, such as becoming celibrate, then he should do it.

Originally posted by okinrus
More knowledgable in other areas of Scripture perhaps, but his interpretation is hedged. Leveticus clearly says "man with a man" is wrong.
Do you know hebrew? I think not. You are only reading translations.

If we want to go further, Paul says not to offend others. This is clearly offending and making a scandal to the more conservative bishops.
And you are clearly offending to me:rolleyes:

So if there was anything the bishop could do to become less offensive, such as becoming celibrate, then he should do it.
So you basically want the bishop to do what other people want 'just because'. Bullshit. I'd appreciate if you don't post anymore. It's offensive... and my god agrees with me that your posts are offensive.

Originally posted by okinrus
[BA bishop must do what he teaches. His interpretation must be consistant with scripture. As to tolerance, just about all churches teach tolerance of sinners. [/B]

You've contradicted yourself there. If the church and it's officers have to do what they teach, and the church teaches tolerance, it is obliged to practice it.

The Episcopal Church as a whole has no official position governing the morality of homosexuality. Homosexuality was never mentioned by Jesus, and is only mentioned in the old testement when recounting the laws of pre-christian Isreal (i.e. Leviticus). There is evidence that homosexuality existed in Jesus' time, but no record of it's having ever been condemned or commended by Jesus. So, basically we don't know how God feels about homosexuality or if it even matters to God. Individual churches within the ECUSA are split on whether or not homosexuality is allowed by God. So, if the only contentious aspect of this guys character is one on which the church is unsure of God's will, and he was called by God and the people of his diocese to be bishop, what justification does the General Convention have keeping him out of the office? Robinson does practice what he preaches -- He believes and preaches that homosexuality is okay, and the national church, in their uncertainty, gives him as an ordained minister the autonomy to do so.

Do you know hebrew? I think not. You are only reading translations.

Jews have taught this for generation and I could look up the exact words used in a hebrew dictionary.


And you are clearly offending to me

What can I say? I'm sure you can find something wrong that I do as well... ok should be obvious from this thread. Some of things that think are wrong, I've done before. Continuing this line of though, I offend myself. But if I'm really offensive and you really want me to shutup about homosexuals, just say the words again.


You've contradicted yourself there. If the church and it's officers have to do what they teach, and the church teaches tolerance, it is obliged to practice it.

Tolerance is your right to be homosexual and enter the church. Most churchs today practice tolerance. My church does.

I'm not a part of the Episcopal Church but there leaders indicate that they interpret based on the bible.


There is evidence that homosexuality existed in Jesus' time, but no record of it's having ever been condemned or commended by Jesus

Paul mentions homosexuality as boy prostitutes. The Didache which I think was the first thing a disciple would read mentions homsexuality. Actually Jesus clearly says man and woman become one flesh and let man not seperate what God has ordained. So the abstance of mentioning it probably indicates that the old law of homosexuality being wrong is still true, but that we should treat others with mercy. So there's no condemnation but what is wrong under the law is still wrong.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

And you are clearly offending to me

Originally posted by okinrus
I'm not a part of the Episcopal Church but there leaders indicate that they interpret based on the bible.
Yes, the Episcopal church interprets based on the bible, and more specifically the teachings of Jesus Christ. The phrase "New Testament" indicates that Jesus changed the rules (That's why christians eat pork, for example). again, Jesus never mentioned homosexuality.


The Didache which I think was the first thing a disciple would read mentions homsexuality.

As an Episcopalian, I can state with relative certainty that the writing you referenced is not a part of the bible used by the Episcopal Church.


Actually Jesus clearly says man and woman become one flesh and let man not seperate what God has ordained. So the abstance of mentioning it probably indicates that the old law of homosexuality being wrong is still true, but that we should treat others with mercy. So there's no condemnation but what is wrong under the law is still wrong.

There is still no mention of homosexuality in your reference to Jesus' teachings. Jesus was speaking about Divorce in the passage you mentioned, and while your interpretation of his absence of clarification is certainly a valid one, it is also a valid interpretation that his failure to clarify (given the fact that Jesus typically did not avoid speaking about issues of morality) indicates that sexual preference was of little importance to Jesus.
Either of these views are plausible, which is precisely why the Episcopal Church grants individual clergy members the autonomy of interpreting these passages "as God directs them"

Yes I know. The Didache is a 50-100AD writing that historians say was used as a first reading for disciples. It's an interesting writing and I think it was done by the apostles otherwise they would not say "Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there's a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet." I've also made mistakes such as assuming that a sin not mentioned in the bible was not a sin. On issues of morality, Jesus would say you know what the law says. Lately I've been a little too hard on homosexuals.

Okinrus,

Paul mentions homosexuality as boy prostitutes

Whoa... wait a minute, it is also mentions harlots who sleep with men... So your point would be??

Actually Jesus clearly says man and woman become one flesh and let man not seperate what God has ordained. So the abstance of mentioning it probably indicates that the old law of homosexuality being wrong is still true, but that we should treat others with mercy. So there's no condemnation but what is wrong under the law is still wrong

Come on .. Jesus doesn't mention it's okay to have water fights with others either...so that must mean it's wrong? :bugeye: Just for fun..go to a site called godlovesgays.com..just might challenge what you've been taught.

Why do you have such a problem with homosexuality...I mean would you throw as big of a stink over a bishop who was overweight because of practicing gluttony?

I red through your link above in full (All 4 translations) and it seems to be a pretty good primer on basic morality (even for nonchristians). I can't, however, seem to find any information about it's source. (Who wrote it, to whom, and on what authority). Still, I emphasize that most churches would make their decisions based on the bible. Other scriptures are generally regarded as being of tenuous credibility.

Sometimes a preacher with a family has a narrow view point. A celibrate priest has probably read books on marriage counciling and understands desputes because he too was in a family. I accept that potential for any armchair therapy. However, the generalisms of human association are sometimes obscured by the specifics. Textbook counseling works for some issues. For others, it underestimates human factors.Anyways God defines realityAmong the things intrinsically impossible for God are things which are, by nature, opposites. The famous example is that God cannot create a square circle, by the authority of what the words indicate. A circle cannot be a square and vice-versa. Any affirmative assertion of a square circle relies on perspective. I've seen someone draw a square with a circle inside it and say, "There, a square circle."

Wholly, fully, entirely, completely ... these speak to a totality. In a totality comprised of two aspects, neither is whole or full or complete.

Jesus knew his role. Jesus knew he would be raised. Jesus knew he was what other people were not. Jesus knew that he had what other people did not. It changes the balance of suffering on the cross. The very frailty which Jesus lacked and Athanasius decried is what would allow the directly comparable sacrifice.I doubt Job is a literal story but more of a didactic story or legend. Well, that's a hard thing about discussing the Bible with the faithful. When a Biblical point strikes the theology as inconvenient, it can be downgraded.Why would I be frightened? In I would be happy Well, that's the thing. You don't seem to trust the Holy Spirit to foster what's right. Your concerns about this Bishop can easily be reconciled in faith.

What seems to be the issue, then, is that the manifestation of the Holy Spirit may not be what you expect of it. True, I'm jabbing when I say, "obviously frightens", but I admit that the rejection of faith in the ways of God in order to object to the confirmation of Bishop Robinson--which is exactly what it looks like to me--begs further insight. I am a sinner as well.Fair 'nuff. God is the only source of goodI don't argue with that in this context.Ignatius was a desciple of John the Apostle. So his teaching is a reflection on what the apostles taught.Where to begin? Perhaps with the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans?Yet there are some who in their blindness still reject Him--or rather are rejected by Him, since in fact what they are contending for is not so much the truth about Him as their own final extinction. They refuse to be persuaded by the prophets, or the Law of Moses, or even in our own times by the Gospel--still less by the personal sufferings of so many of our own people, since they apply the same sort of argument to ourselves. So what is the point of my standing well in the opinion of a man who blasphemes my Lord by denying that He ever bore a real human body? In saying that, he denies everything else about Him; and the body he himself is bearing must be nothing but a corpse. My pen declines to write the names of these infidels, and I would even wish to have them erased from my memory altogether until such time as they come to a better mind about the Passion which effects our resurrection from the dead .... But look at the men who have those perverted notions about the grace of Jesus Christ which has come down to us, and see how contrary to the mind of God they are. They have no care for love, no thought for the widow and orphan, none at all for the afflicted, the captive, the hungry or the thirsty. They even absent themselves from the Eucharist and the public prayers, because they will not admit that the Eucharist is the self-same body of our Saviour Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His goodness afterwards raised up again ... For us, the only proper course is to have no dealings whatever with men of that kind, and to avoid all mention of them either publicly or in private; reserving our attention for the prophets instead, and particularly for the Gospel, in which the Passion and the crowning glory of the Resurrection are unfolded before us. (Smyrnaeans, 5-7)I point to that argument against docetism because it makes a different claim entirely: that Jesus was human and was raised (endowed) by God. Ignatius does not claim to the Smyrnaeans that Jesus is both fully human and fully God.

To the other, Ignatius also proves useful to other parts of our discussions: - Abjure all factions, for they are the beginning of evils. Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy, too, as you would the Apostles. Give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command from God. Make sure that no step affecting the church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop's sanction .... (Smyrnaeans, 8)

- Pay careful regard to your bishop, if you wish God to pay regard to you. (Polycarp, 6)

- My spiritual self, however, no man can impose upon; for that comes from God, and in origin and its destination are kalike known to it, and it can bring hidden things to light. Thus, at the time I was with you, I cried out, speaking with a loud voice--the very voice of God--"Be loyal to your bishop and clergy and deacons". Some who were there suspected me of saying this because I already knew of certain dissensions among you; but He whose prisoner I am will bear me witness that no such information had reached me from human lips. No; that was the preaching of the Spirit itself, telling you never to act in independence of the bishop, to keep your bodies as a temple of God, to cherish unity and shun divisions, and to be imitators of Jesus Christ as He was of His Father. (Philadelphians, 7)

- And so I entreat you (not I, though, but the love of Jesus Christ) not to nourish yourselves on anything but Christian fare, and have no truck with the alien herbs of heresy. There are men who in the very act of assuring you of their good faith will mingle poison with Jesus Christ; which is like offering a lethal drug in a cup of honeyed wine, so that the unwitting victim blissfully accepts his own destruction with a fatal relish. Guard yourselves carefully against men of that sort. You will be safe enough so long as you do not let pride go to oyur head and break away from Jesus Christ and your bishop and the Apostolic institutions. To be inside the sanctuary is to be clean; to be outside it, unclean. In other words, nobody's conscience can be clean if he is acting without the authority of his bishop, clergy, and deacons. (Trallians, 6-7) And even though we are discussing the appointment of an Episcopalian Bishop, we might insofar as we're discussing Catholic theology at all consider the parallel.Pain is usually inflicted many ways but usually it is not completely rational. God allowed himself to be inflicted and to feel pain. From the rubbish tip to the gem traders we find fascinating baubles. Have you ever seen the most godawful movie from the 1980s called Soul Man? The plot is simple: A white guy's parents bail on him as he's accepted to Harvard Law, so he takes an experimental tanning drug in order to pass himself off as black in order to win a minority scholarship. Of course, while at school, he meets and falls for the girl he happened to steal the scholarship from. Lots of laughs--cheap laughs--later, the unfortunate young fake-black stands before his professor and admits: No, I don't know what it's like. Because I can stop being black tomorrow. All I have to do is stop taking these pills ....

The discrimination, the harassment, the hatred ... this "black man" had the knowledge that he could make it go away tomorrow by not being black. Most black folks never had that option, which is why he refused to claim to know what it was to be black. Sure he got a taste, but it wasn't the same thing.

Likewise with Jesus. He knew who and what he was. He had knowledge and comfort that ordinary mortal folks don't. He had knowledge where most people are required to have faith. It makes the sacrifice easier when you know it's only three days before you're home again.So Jesus was feeling the pain of rejection caused by the entire worlds rejection fo him, because he too his within their hearts but was rejected. What's odd is that if I accept this position, it still serves a broader point of the topic: If Jesus knows, then Jesus knows, and Jesus knows damn well what Bishop Robinson is going through. And if the Holy Spirit still blesses him with election ... well?

And that's the thing: Jesus may know what is in Robinson's heart. God will judge him. And the House of Bishops appointed the best-qualified candidate they had before them.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Trusting in God, as Jesus trusted in God, is about the only definitive assertion of a route the Bishops had to follow.Yet Robinson has a new take on the Scripture not given to us by the apostles or the Church. People should not seek to justify themselves by Scripture. Paul clearly says that we are justified by the blood of Jesus.A comparison for you. I'll boldface the point:

- The world is watching curiously to see what George W. Bush will do next. If he continues down the merry road toward PNAC, the world will understand that the Bush Doctrine is a real thing that must be contended with. As it is, Bush's hesitance to address North Korea in military terms has given rise to the suggestion that the Bush Doctrine was a one-time excuse, an abuse of office and history, to justify an illegal war.

- The world will be watching Bishop Robinson. In religious circles, there will be more scrutiny given to the reconciliation of his expressed principle with his conduct than most people are subject to. If it develops that Robinson's perspective on the Scripture seeks only to justify himself, that will be apparent. If it develops that Robinson's perspective on Scripture has the effect of redefining broader currents of controversy within his church and within Biblical criticism, the world will know that there is a real theological interpretation to consider and will examine its pros and cons. Bishop Robinson's actions may yet give rise to the suggestion that his policies are one-timers, designed to excuse his behavior.

And if that happens, well ... I'll send you a cigar, or something. But the House of Bishops has placed their faith in God's guidance and confirmed his office. Now he has the chance to show it.
You don't believe that homosexual acts are a sin? I'm giving you example of something that you believe is wrong to contrast with what I feel is wrong.Adultery is adultery. It hurts your primary partner when you cheat no matter what gender they are.

Homosexuality has a much greater potential to comfort and please your primary partner than adultery.Your being bigoted yourself. In many such posts, you assume what I believe based upon what some web site says about christians.The functional reality is that your expressed opposition to Robinson's appointment because of his homosexuality amounts to casting stones. Mother Teresa was a sinner, but I'm not going to argue when they canonize her.I don't think that the pychological matter can be ignored. While I feel that Leviticus explitly condemns homosexual acts, we also know that abuse and environment play a huge role in determining sexual identity. So the homosexual acts that the bible calls abomination are clearly orgies and uncontroled lust practiced by pagans. There are mitigating factors though but this still does not change the act itself being wrong. If homosexuality was a mere choice, then I think most would choose to become straight. I don't really want to argue this point because we don't have to.

The level of preference involved is much like a friend of mine who preferred soy milk to cow's milk - dairy disagreed with her biology; it made her sick. One day I managed to pick up some soy milk and a dairy-free sorbet. Sure, what came out of the blender was one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen, but she said it tasted fine, and that was the first time in her life that anybody aside from her ever made her a shake. The next several times I saw her, she was wolfing down that damned berry sorbet.

I think the best way to look at it is whether or not we believe he left his wife for cock or cross. The public assertion is that he left for the cross, which is right in line with Jesus' teaching, If his actions, policies, and advice hold up to that standard, I have no reason to doubt it.

Note: I'm reading through this now ... St. Ignatius of Antioch and the Renewal of the Anglican Episcopate (http://justus.anglican.org/resources/pc/essays/hacking1.html)

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Among the things intrinsically impossible for God are things which are, by nature, opposites. The famous example is that God cannot create a square circle, by the authority of what the words indicate. A circle cannot be a square and vice-versa. Any affirmative assertion of a square circle relies on perspective. I've seen someone draw a square with a circle inside it and say, "There, a square circle."

I believe it is possible. We are presupposing logical laws ahead of God who does not have to abide by them. The definitions of square and circle are human definitions though. The fact that they contradict would mean that we are giving a undefined command to an omnipotent God.


Well, that's the thing. You don't seem to trust the Holy Spirit to foster what's right. Your concerns about this Bishop can easily be reconciled in faith.

You keep forgeting that I'm not in their church. I would not be expected to believe that the holy Spirit would in any way guide their church. Though I do believe that it guides all people somewhat. Also, not every decision that we make is by the holy Spirit.


What seems to be the issue, then, is that the manifestation of the Holy Spirit may not be what you expect of it. True, I'm jabbing when I say, "obviously frightens", but I admit that the rejection of faith in the ways of God in order to object to the confirmation of Bishop Robinson--which is exactly what it looks like to me--begs further insight.

The holy Spirit is the voice of love.


I point to that argument against docetism because it makes a different claim entirely: that Jesus was human and was raised (endowed) by God. Ignatius does not claim to the Smyrnaeans that Jesus is both fully human and fully God.

"6:1 Let no man be deceived. Even the heavenly things, and the glory of the angels, and the principalities, both visible and invisible, if they believe not on the blood of Christ, for them also is there condemnation. Let him who receiveth it, receive it in reality. Let not high place puff up any man. For the whole matter is faith and love, to which there is nothing preferable. " A clear indication of Godhood since there was no creation without Christ.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians
"...that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God: Abundant happiness through Jesus Christ, and His undefiled grace."

"...have become acquainted with your name, much-beloved in God, which ye have acquired by the habit of righteousness, according to the faith and love in Jesus Christ our Saviour. Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God, ye have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you." Notice the blood of God.


And even though we are discussing the appointment of an Episcopalian Bishop, we might insofar as we're discussing Catholic theology at all consider the parallel.

Not really. There have been bishops that have been evil and corrupted.



From the rubbish tip to the gem traders we find fascinating baubles. Have you ever seen the most godawful movie from the 1980s called Soul Man? The plot is simple: A white guy's parents bail on him as he's accepted to Harvard Law, so he takes an experimental tanning drug in order to pass himself off as black in order to win a minority scholarship. Of course, while at school, he meets and falls for the girl he happened to steal the scholarship from. Lots of laughs--cheap laughs--later, the unfortunate young fake-black stands before his professor and admits: No, I don't know what it's like. Because I can stop being black tomorrow. All I have to do is stop taking these pills ....

Yes I've seen it. Jesus loves us and he feels the pain of the cross everytime that we sin. Pain is just as much a part of love as pleasure. He will weep perfectly for those who do not love him. He wept at the death of Lazarus yet he knew that he would raise him up.


The functional reality is that your expressed opposition to Robinson's appointment because of his homosexuality amounts to casting stones. Mother Teresa was a sinner, but I'm not going to argue when they canonize her.

The problem is that he does not admit that it is a sin but reinterprets the bible. First of all, crazy interpretations of the bible are going to harm your faith because eventually you will aknowledge that they are crazy. I would have absolutly no problem if he stood up to there and said "look guys, I'm a sinner and I struggle with my homosexuality".

Okinrus

Sorry to be so long about it, but, well ... okay, work with me here for just a second, please.

I don't have any problem whatsoever regarding the diversion of this topic about Episcopalians into considerations of Catholic doctrine; the comparative is of such importance that I'm more than happy to undertake it.

But here I'm puzzled, as you start to abandon that Catholic influence in favor of ... what?

It's not that you haven't a right to your personal interpretation, but at some point that's all we're working with--personal interpretations.
I believe it is possible. We are presupposing logical laws ahead of God who does not have to abide by them. The definitions of square and circle are human definitions though. The fact that they contradict would mean that we are giving a undefined command to an omnipotent God. And you know, we were doing so well with the Catholic doctrinal exploration. If I ask you to source this idea for me, it's only because I want to make sure that I'm not simply responding to an ideological convenience constructed in order to reinforce subjective presuppositions.

Okay, the thing is that certain words humans invent have specific meanings. "Circle" and "square" represent two separate ideas which God made separate. A circle is not a square, a square is not a circle, else God would have made it so. The definitions of the words describe disparate elements within the diversity of God's creation. I wish to change the terms for a moment, admittedly with the intent of further simplifying the issue. (Strangely, it takes a few extra words to do so ....)

- Can God make a red that is blue? No. That is called purple. "Purple" describes a set of frequencies which human beings interpret as a color (idea) that is independent of other colors (ideas), even those that can be combined to form "purple". "Red" describes a specific set of frequencies. "Blue" describes a specific set of frequencies. The words represent divisions within the alleged stainless unity of God, divisions established by humans as relevant to our conduct in the Universe. Without Red or Blue or Purple (or Green or Yellow or Orange or even the colors we can't see) there would be no idea of God to transmit. If God implements a frequency that equates to "Red" it will not be "Blue". God might choose to implement a frequency that equates to Red and cause some prophet or another to decry red as blue, but God cannot make a Red that is Blue without changing t