A note to the Gallery

Yes, I'm going to make a scene about this. Nobody's forcing you to read this.

Okinrus

In our recent discussion in the topic Gay Bishop Appointed (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=26809&perpage=20&pagenumber=4) you have made a few assertions I find disagreeable enough that I would like to ask you specifically for an explanation.

- The extant that Robinson is doing it crosses the line. It is like making arguments that "you shall not murder" be interpreted only when your not in extreme rage.

To what degree do you actually compare homosexuality to murder, and what is the basis of this comparison?

- The interpretation that Robinson gives could just as well apply to bestiality because the bibical proof is similar.

Despite your repeated characterizations of Robinson's position, you never provide evidence of that position. Perhaps you might care to get around to starting that topic? Or at least presenting the basis of your assertions? Furthermore, to what degree do you actually compare homosexuality to bestiality, and what is the basis of that comparison?

Spotlight's yours, Okinrus. Take all the time you need.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Well I'd imagine that the similarity in Oki's mind is that they are all sins; not a lot of ambiguity there. I suppose he just doesn't care what degree of severity the sin is, as this would likely be something which you'd need some secular reasoning for, and from certain theological standpoints a sin is a sin is a sin. Of course if this were truly the case then why would he be getting all uppity about Robinson’s appointment? After all isn't the general idea that we are all sinners?

In short it's a convoluted mess, but luckily theology can work for you when it fits in line with your own prejudices, it's really a handy tool for that.

Well I'd imagine that the similarity in Oki's mind is that they are all sins; not a lot of ambiguity there. I suppose he just doesn't care what degree of severity the sin is, as this would likely be something which you'd need some secular reasoning for, and from certain theological standpoints a sin is a sin is a sin. Of course if this were truly the case then why would he be getting all uppity about Robinson’s appointment? After all isn't the general idea that we are all sinners?

I'm not upset that Robinson sinned but that he has a hedged interpretation of the bible. I'm not sure if he actually means to teach it, but it is not a valid interpretation. The problem I have is that he is unwilling to call a sin a "sin". He is therefore spreading error.

[/QUOTE] [/B]
To what degree do you actually compare homosexuality to murder, and what is the basis of this comparison?

[/B][/QUOTE]

They are both simply aberant behaviors, motivated by unrestrainted perverted lusts.

They are both simply aberant behaviors, motivated by unrestrainted perverted lusts.

Yah, perverted lusts should be restrained. Then they're okay.

You people are fucked, seriously fucked. It is just sex. Okay, so I'm not one to speak, but what sort of bloody moral void do you live in that you can blithly equate consensual sex with murder?

Originally posted by okinrus
The problem I have is that he is unwilling to call a sin a "sin". He is therefore spreading error.

Or he happens to be spouting truth, depending on how you look at it, which I suppose is something the Church hasn't been in the business of for a very long time.



Originally posted by biblthmp
They are both simply aberant behaviors, motivated by unrestrainted perverted lusts.

So you know both the minds of Murderers and Homosexuals? You must be a very empathic person. I'm honestly tempted to speak out on behalf of murderers in this instance, as I certainly don't see how perversion or lust can account for all murders, or even a very high percentage of them. . . but then I'm also factoring killing in wars, so I guess that changes things just a bit.

Anyway, explain to me how a homosexual, who is acting in the way which feels most natural to him/her in regards to sexuality in exactly the same way as a heterosexual would is perverted or especially lusty.

Originally posted by Mystech

Anyway, explain to me how a homosexual, who is acting in the way which feels most natural to him/her in regards to sexuality in exactly the same way as a heterosexual would is perverted or especially lusty. [/B]

In the same manner that a hetero sexual who commits adultery is acting perverted and especially lusty. Sex is reserved for the provence of hetero sexual marriage.

Sex is reserved for the provence of hetero sexual marriage.
Me wonders what came 1st, sex or marriage:bugeye:

Originally posted by biblthmp

They are both simply aberant behaviors, motivated by unrestrainted perverted lusts.

I find your views dispicable

There is no place for such views in modern society.

God created homosexuals.
Man wrote the bible.

You, biblthmp, do not understand homosexuals. God does.

No, Mr. Robinson is probably less a sinner than I am. However I believe that he is not teaching what is correct in this matter. As a bishop he has greater responisibility to teach what is correct. Leviticus 18 is stern to this regard.

"1 The LORD said to Moses,
2 "Speak to the Israelites and tell them: I, the LORD, am your God.
3 You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you once lived, nor shall you do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you; do not conform to their customs.
4 My decrees you shall carry out, and my statutes you shall take care to follow. I, the LORD, am your God.
5 Keep, then, my statutes and decrees, for the man who carries them out will find life through them. I am the LORD."

This means is that even if the entire world believes that homosexual acts are natural or good, we are not supposed to engage in then them. Paul said not to stray from what was taught to them even if an angel came and taught them differently. So a christian must be able to throw out everything including sex. Jesus said that we will be like the sons of God who are neither married do not get married. "They parted my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots." So we should get rid of anything that clings to the flesh because He has given up His flesh for us.

Okinrus

I'm not upset that Robinson sinned but that he has a hedged interpretation of the bible. I'm not sure if he actually means to teach it, but it is not a valid interpretation.

There is no one interpretation of the Bible that IS valid. Robinson’s can be as valid as anyone else.

Do you think your interpretation is valid?

Originally posted by kazakhan
Me wonders what came 1st, sex or marriage:bugeye:

Well, sex of course, came first. Marriage was a legal contract of ownership so that the wife and subsequent children were 'owned' and considered to be 'indentured' to the male. As with the RCC, priests initially could marry, but when they died, all their property went to their wives and children. So the RCC decided to make their priests celebate, then when they died, all their wealth went to the RCC. The priests often came from wealthy families and inherited their wealth. No wife, no children, made the RCC wealthier. Celebacy was only based on the RCC inheriting the wealth of the priests. Only after celebacy was established did the priests take a vow of poverty.

There is no one interpretation of the Bible that IS valid. Robinson’s can be as valid as anyone else.

Do you think your interpretation is valid?

There are interpretations that are plainly wrong and this is one of them. The truth or falsity of my interpretation does not affect the fact that Robinson is wrong. However Jesus did say that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. I believe that staying true to what the apostles taught is all that is necessary. There is no evidence that Jesus, the apostles, or the early church taught that homosexual acts were alright.



Well, sex of course, came first. Marriage was a legal contract of ownership so that the wife and subsequent children were 'owned' and considered to be 'indentured' to the male. As with the RCC, priests initially could marry, but when they died, all their property went to their wives and children. So the RCC decided to make their priests celebate, then when they died, all their wealth went to the RCC. The priests often came from wealthy families and inherited their wealth. No wife, no children, made the RCC wealthier. Celebacy was only based on the RCC inheriting the wealth of the priests. Only after celebacy was established did the priests take a vow of poverty.

Your out of your mind, but if you really want a married priest then go for the orthodox or byzantine church.

Originally posted by okinrus

Your out of your mind, but if you really want a married priest then go for the orthodox or byzantine church.

The truth about celebacy in the RCC has been documented in Xian literature. I am definitely not looking for any Xian religion, with or without married priests or anyone else of the Xian persuasion. Once you realize the RCC has told you nothing but lies, you don't go back.

Furthermore, the RCC is not the original church of Jesus. Jesus was a Rabbi and his following were Jews who went to the temple. The term 'church' was translated from the Aramaic meaning 'followers.' Jesus' followers were of the Jerusalem 'church.' Jesus' immediate group of followers were NOT the apostles. They came later. We've already discussed this. You're the one who doesn't believe the truth.

okinrus, your 15 minutes of infamy has long passed. I hear Jenyar is offering Xians tap dancing lessons. You might want to consider tap dancing for Jesus, but even Jesus would think you two are a big joke!

Im going to chime in and say that according to my highschool history classes this is the reason for the catholic priests being celebate. ... then again im sure it could be an anti-catholic plot cooked up by those free wheeling hippie athists in the text book publishing industry. Yes, im sure there was some perfectly good and divine and typicaly ineffible reason for that particular mandate, which just HAPPENED to result in the RCC inhereting all its priests lands and wealth upon thier death.

Like someone would really decide to become celebrate to make money. :confused: Before the Church had any power, authors such as Justin, Origen, Paul, and Mathew advocated celebracy. Those who were celebrate are better able to devote themselves to the church. There are, however, practical reasons such as STOPING the inheritance of priestly duties. This was common in pagan traditions and even somewhat in Judism, but the Church felt that inheriting a position as priest or bishop was corruption.

The priests did not become wealthy by becoming celebate Oki, the church organization became wealthy by mandating that its priests must be celebate

I'm not sure why they would become wealthy. I don't even think most priests owned property. In the Orthodox Churches, the bishops are celebate which is a sign of their devotion. The Church mandated their priests to be celebate so that they could totally devote themselves to Christ. It's a disciplin issue and is unrelated to doctrin. Most of the property that the church owns was of course donated by rich landlords.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-136.htm#P6105_1367241

Can you give me the name of the textbook though?

Originally posted by SpyMoose
Im going to chime in and say that according to my highschool history classes this is the reason for the catholic priests being celebate. ... then again im sure it could be an anti-catholic plot cooked up by those free wheeling hippie athists in the text book publishing industry. Yes, im sure there was some perfectly good and divine and typicaly ineffible reason for that particular mandate, which just HAPPENED to result in the RCC inhereting all its priests lands and wealth upon thier death.

Thanks, SpyMoose, for confirming my post.

Okinrus

As to the actual topic post ... there's no real time limit. "Fifteen minutes" is just a colloquial expression.
There are interpretations that are plainly wrong and this is one of them. The truth or falsity of my interpretation does not affect the fact that Robinson is wrong. I'm curious if it has occurred to you that you have asserted the following: The truth or falsity of the basis of my judgment of what is correct does not affect the fact that my judgment is correct.

Did it occur to you anywhere in there, or is it just more important to keep asserting that Robinson is wrong?

Because here's a little tip: Robinson is wrong. Any human being who takes a whack at it is wrong. Biblical faith is impossible to perfect.

Acknowledging the degree of presumption in deigning to attempt to affect your prayers ... I would ask you to include in reflective prayer considerations of the laws which Jesus specifically addressed in order to "fulfill", and the basis of that fulfillment taking place. The portions of The Law which found controversy in Jesus' ministry tended to address exclusion, oppression, and dignity. To heal the lepers, to bless the meek and promise them the Earth ... to save the Magdalene and spare the sinners the rightful Justice of God's condemnation. And why would that love and compassion diminish over time? God's love and Christ's redemption are eternal, and shall not wane. Is Christ present among us? Did Christ abandon the Castro when AIDS tore through the San Francisco gay community, or was He there to comfort the sinners in their hour of need? When did Christ abandon whom? I know that the Jesuits at my high school violated Leviticus (21.16-ff). But Leviticus was put aside for that Law which is greater. Did Jesus fulfill merely the Hebrew Law through atonement or sacrifice? Or did Jesus fulfill God's law by offering a loving redemption, in effect wiping clean transgressions against the Law? Would Jesus cast the first stone?

Comment on priests/celibacy

As I was taught at a Jesuit school, in addition to claiming the priests' property at their death for lack of heir there was also a controversy of the church awarding lands and hush money to the families of the priests' illegitimate children.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

I'm curious if it has occurred to you that you have asserted the following: The truth or falsity of the basis of my judgment of what is correct does not affect the fact that my judgment is correct.

My views do not matter because they do not influence Robinson's. The fact that Robinson's interpretation contradicts what the bible says does matter and since it is in an issue of morality, it matters moreso than other small details.

Your confusing mercy with teaching what is right and wrong. The two are really different. On issues of sexuality, Jesus was clearly conservative as to what was wrong. His view on divorce was a clear sign to take the Law even stricter than before, yet with mercy letting God punished.



I know that the Jesuits at my high school violated Leviticus (21.16-ff).

Many passages in the old testament are manifesting the spiritual realm with the physical. The difference though between this interpretation and the other, is this one has apostatic tradition while the other one does not.

My views do not matter because they do not influence Robinson's But they do matter, Okinrus, because they are the basis of you judgment.
The fact that Robinson's interpretation contradicts what the bible says does matter and since it is in an issue of morality, it matters moreso than other small details See ... this is a problem of having a church.

Jesus Christ did not require that Peter and those who come after him be him. If they could be Jesus Christ then Jesus would not have been needed.

Even within the contrivances of the religion, I'm stunned by your disregard for the simple reality of this.

And since I think you're judging Robinson's teachings on pure conjecture, I'm wondering how you can be qualified to give that judgment while bearing false witness.
Your confusing mercy with teaching what is right and wrong.Yes, Okinrus, they are separate things. But you're confusing yourself with God in presuming the knowledge to judge.
The two are really different. On issues of sexuality, Jesus was clearly conservative as to what was wrong.Yeah ... what is it in the Bible? Sixty rules concerning homosexuals, over three hundred for heterosexuals?
His view on divorce was a clear sign to take the Law even stricter than before, yet with mercy letting God punished. Well, I think it's a matter of what one wishes in faith:
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man 'against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's enemies will be those of his household.'

"Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10.34-39)And as to the apostatic tradition, well ... that's left for the Catholics. The Episcopalians seem to see it differently. Some people look at factors like function, effect, and compassion.

BTW, how long are your temple locks? Or did Jesus tell you to cut them? How about that belly-swelling torture for your wife when you're unhappy with her services?

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

See, Tiassa, Okinrus and others like him on this board have no clue what they're talking about. He is making the same mistake I made when I debated you in world history and culture; as he is uninformed and bias. Just look at his comment here:


In the Orthodox Churches, the bishops are celebate which is a sign of their devotion. The Church mandated their priests to be celebate so that they could totally devote themselves to Christ. It's a disciplin issue and is unrelated to doctrin. Most of the property that the church owns was of course donated by rich landlords.

Do you see how blatantly ignorant that is? "OF COURSE" the land was donated by rich landlords. "OF COURSE" the priests became celebate to totally devote themselves. "OF COURSE" the celebacy is a sign of devotion! No, it has nothing to do with the church making financial gains, or scaming the priests who spread their lies! And please stop saying that, because it hurts my brain when you speak something other than what I have been conditioned to believe!

Okinrus, OPEN YOUR EYES. You know jack SHIT about your own religion, and are so niave to the character of man that you might as well be def, dumb and blind. To you, the church is a completely divine and spiritual house of worship which had nothing but the BEST INTENTIONS for mankind. Well, buddy, it ain't. If you would stop brushing aside facts and evidences, and just listen, you'd see it!

JD

Do you see how blatantly ignorant that is? "OF COURSE" the land was donated by rich landlords. "OF COURSE" the priests became celebate to totally devote themselves. "OF COURSE" the celebacy is a sign of devotion! No, it has nothing to do with the church making financial gains, or scaming the priests who spread their lies! And please stop saying that, because it hurts my brain when you speak something other than what I have been conditioned to believe!

Unless if you can prove otherwise, I'm going to have to accept what the priests and the Pope earlier and now say on reasons why we have celebrate priests. Jesus and Paul both say that it is better to be celebrate because they can devote themselves to God better. Also even before the rule of celebracy for the priesthood was given, most bishops were celebrate. Justin Martyr on response to Roman allegations says that many christians were virgins. He also says that Christ came into the world eating, drinking and doing everything that is needed by the flesh except for having sex. So this tells us that celebracy was already practiced well before the council ruled for celebrate priests.



Okinrus, OPEN YOUR EYES. You know jack SHIT about your own religion, and are so niave to the character of man that you might as well be def, dumb and blind. To you, the church is a completely divine and spiritual house of worship which had nothing but the BEST INTENTIONS for mankind. Well, buddy, it ain't. If you would stop brushing aside facts and evidences, and just listen, you'd see it!

All I'm asking for is actual EVIDENCE and the fact that land was donated by rich landlords is true because I've heard it from a fairly secular history teacher. Some examples would be Charlemagne, Monteford etc. all of them would be expected to give land to the Church. The monastary tradition was the only institution that preserved the greek and roman writings. So all I've been hearing are these vague speculations from M*W, I will never trust that woman, and what Tiassa heard in Jesuit school. Well I never went to Jesuit school or Catholic school so if he wants to present written evidence it would be helpful. Sure I know that some priests commited scandal by not remaining celebrate, but their children were out of wedlock. In the early church those devoted to Christ would give up all they had anyways. To prove M*W's allegations though, she would be required to prove that the priests before becoming priests owned huge amounts of land.

But they do matter, Okinrus, because they are the basis of you judgment.

My own interpretation is that homosexual acts are wrong, however there may be mitigating factors. However whether this is true or not does not matter because Robinson contradicts the Scripture where it says that "man with a man is an abomination" giving no preconditions. If we assume that there are preconditions, why not assume everything in the Law as preconditions. So its a flawed view and dangerous because it could be used to justify any behavior. The reasons why God ruled that homosexual behavior was wrong was not to punish homosexuals but to protect them. So there are good reasons for teaching what is true here.



Yes, Okinrus, they are separate things. But you're confusing yourself with God in presuming the knowledge to judge.

No I'm not presuming God's judgement on Robinson. I feel that he is not qualified to be bishop. I'm not being hypocritical, I'm not qualified either. He is teaching outside of the Church teaching. It would be no different than ruling that a buddhist could not become bishop.



And as to the apostatic tradition, well ... that's left for the Catholics. The Episcopalians seem to see it differently. Some people look at factors like function, effect, and compassion.

Well I'm confused why they see it differently when it should be obvious. Yes, factors such as function, effect, and compassion still play in a role in deciding what is moral but I see no reason to negate the traditional interpretation that homosexual acts are wrong. It does not gain us anything. If we say that homosexual acts are wrong and homosexual acts are not wrong, then where's our loss. So we are forced to give the most probable and safest intepretation and I hope that you know what that is.



BTW, how long are your temple locks? Or did Jesus tell you to cut them? How about that belly-swelling torture for your wife when you're unhappy with her services?

I don't have a wife. Adultry is still wrong but we don't go around stoning those who commit adultry. There is no reason to think that the new law is any different on homosexual acts.

However whether this is true or not does not matter because Robinson contradicts the Scripture where it says that "man with a man is an abomination" giving no preconditions. If we assume that there are preconditions, why not assume everything in the Law as preconditions So when Christ preserved to save the Magdalene's life, was he just defending hookers? "Don't cast he stone at the hooker, but anybody else you want to kill in accordance with Law, go ahead"? Is that how the story should be read?
The reasons why God ruled that homosexual behavior was wrong was not to punish homosexuals but to protect them. This ought to be interesting. If you would be so kind, add that to the list of things I'd like you to expand on when you finally get around to the topic post.
So there are good reasons for teaching what is true here.I'm unsure of how to follow your more loaded words in that one. But it's enough to say that there are excellent reasons for prohibitions against all manner of nonreproductive sex when the tribe is wandering around the desert for longer than a generation, sanitation is at a minimum, and reproduction is vital.
No I'm not presuming God's judgement on Robinson. I feel that he is not qualified to be bishop. I'm not being hypocritical, I'm not qualified either. He is teaching outside of the Church teaching. It would be no different than ruling that a buddhist could not become bishop.(1) Yes you are presuming judgment because ...
(2) ... your hypocrisy comes in the fact that you have expressed your judgment of Robinson's sins as the disqualifying factor, which amounts to casting stones.
(3) In this case Church teaching is the Episcopalians' to resolve. It's true that so far they're doing alright in my book.
(4) So a Buddhist has the same knowledge and working relationship with scripture and Christians as a Bishop Robinson? I think at this point we can look to other job qualifications.

I would ask you to think analogously, for a moment, of the classic American post-Protestant fundamentalist who sees no mercy, who rejects the "liberalization"--in the form of tolerance--of Christianity. What many of these fundamentalists overlook is the idea that redemption and faith are endeavors of love: God's love for humankind in presenting a redemption, humankind's love of God and Jesus for their salvation, and above all else the love of a human for their neighbor. Blessed are the meek. Love thy neighbor. Whatsoever you do unto the least of My brethren ....

While the latter twentieth century has undoubtedly brought an accelerated "liberalization", the questions usually came down to seeking a compassionate and cooperative solution to social problems. Two millennia of pretending absolute ideological supremacy rusted the Christian rapier wit; when faced with the choice between tolerance or a massive cruelty within society, Christian hearts eventually choose tolerance. Even in Oregon, where it was close, Christians simply could not muster enough of their fellows to essentially ban homosexuality. Not enough Christians bought the idea that stripping civil and human rights was a kindness. Women's issues? Facing the choice of leaving their daughters to be beaten by future husbands and bringing women forward to a more respected place in humanity, Christians in general chose that the beatings and even the kind of blase misogyny in Timothy wasn't a kindness.
Yes, factors such as function, effect, and compassion still play in a role in deciding what is moral but I see no reason to negate the traditional interpretation that homosexual acts are wrong. Do you know what would happen to the American economy if every homosexual in the country went on boycott? Remember how fundamentalists complain that gays run Hollywood, influence politics unduly, have too much money to spend ... do you have any idea what would happen to the economy if that large a portion of the entertainment industry went away in a flash? I'm all for the independents, but I'm not about to let nihilistic hedonism set the standard. Civilized hedonism is enough; anything beyond that treads against the nearest thing to objective reasons for having a civilized society in the first place.

Would you refuse lifesaving treatment from a doctor who was gay? After all, if you want to set an arbitrary standard, it can be shown that a sodomite doctor in a monogamous relationship is still contradicting medical advice for the individual.

Would you refuse salvation when Jesus forgives the gays?
It does not gain us anything. If we say that homosexual acts are wrong and homosexual acts are not wrong, then where's our loss. So we are forced to give the most probable and safest intepretation and I hope that you know what that is.Your apparent argumentative detachment from the day-to-day trials of being human speaks much to why you see no reason to reexamine dusty moral assertions demonstrably dysfunctional in the present.

But you need to know that you're barely making sense. I don't mean argumentatively, I mean syntactically and colloquially. You're starting to remove yourself too deeply into yourself. Where's our loss? How so? It seems an arbitrary question to me.

In the meantime, and again, no pressure ... the updated list of issues I hope you will deign to comment on:

(1) Enlighten us regarding your comparison of murder and homosexuality.
(2) Enlighten us regarding your comparison of bestiality and homosexuality.
(3) Provide some citation to show us which of Robinson's teachings you're criticizing when you tell us vaguely how bad his teachings are.
(4) New: Expand, please, on how God is protecting homosexuals.

There are reasons why the clay birds flew away. And there are reasons why prodigal sons come home. Each within its heart, and God only knows the detail of the flight.
I don't have a wife Do you have temple locks?
Adultry is still wrong but we don't go around stoning those who commit adultryNo. In fact, churches have developed extra-biblical rules to allow people to be adulterous without committing adultery. I'm pretty sure we've discussed that comparison in relation to When Christ Was Gay.

I mean, look at you, Okinrus: you deviate from Church teachings whenever it's appropriate. I'm quite sure you have your reasons. I can't imagine that you're simply relying on Jesus Christ to forgive you for continuing deviations. I mean, that would undermine any argument you could make even the worst possible assessment of Bishop Robinson, e.g. that he plans the deathbed renunciation of sin and is therefore both insincere and so devilish as to have pulled it off.

Why do you depart from Church teachings?

So when Christ preserved to save the Magdalene's life, was he just defending hookers? "Don't cast he stone at the hooker, but anybody else you want to kill in accordance with Law, go ahead"? Is that how the story should be read?

There is no bibical indication that that was Mary Magdalene. In fact I don't think it was because my view is that Mary was not married and lived as a hermit the end of her days. Also Jesus does not say to Mary go teach everyone. She first listened to Jesus. So electing Mary bishop and having her sins forgiven are two very different things. Now you keep on saying that I cast stones but I tell you that the stones will prove to be witness. We are living stones and before crossing the Jordon, God commanded Josuah to place stones in the river to bear witness for all generations. Also I must remind you that you are not arguing with all christans in this thread. I cannot be held responsible for what christians in Oregon feel anymore than mormons in Utah.



I'm unsure of how to follow your more loaded words in that one. But it's enough to say that there are excellent reasons for prohibitions against all manner of nonreproductive sex when the tribe is wandering around the desert for longer than a generation, sanitation is at a minimum, and reproduction is vital.

No these words were to be kept by all Israelites. Jesus said that not one iota will be removed from the law until all was fullfilled.



1) Yes you are presuming judgment because ...
(2) ... your hypocrisy comes in the fact that you have expressed your judgment of Robinson's sins as the disqualifying factor, which amounts to casting stones.

No I have repeatively said that it is what Robinson teaches including by actions that he does, that disqualify him.



(3) In this case Church teaching is the Episcopalians' to resolve. It's true that so far they're doing alright in my book.

I don't think the decision represents what the majority of Episcopalians feel, especiall in foreign countries.



(4) So a Buddhist has the same knowledge and working relationship with scripture and Christians as a Bishop Robinson? I think at this point we can look to other job qualifications.

There are some Buddhists who do know the bible quite well. You not making much sense here though. Satan is also wise and knows the bible quite well. Maybe we should elect him. So to be sure, a bishop must devote their entire life and be ready to give up everything for God including their sex life.



Even in Oregon, where it was close, Christians simply could not muster enough of their fellows to essentially ban homosexuality.

Tolerance is different from the statement that homosexual acts being wrong. The mixup that you have is that you can not seperate the homosexual acts from the person. One of the dangers with homosexual behavior is that it slowly morphs itself into the person and become inseperable. However I can clearly tolerate the person who commits the crime, yet still feel that what he or she does is wrong. Also within our framework we could agree that something is wrong but feel that it is unforceble or infringes on privacy.



Would you refuse lifesaving treatment from a doctor who was gay? After all, if you want to set an arbitrary standard, it can be shown that a sodomite doctor in a monogamous relationship is still contradicting medical advice for the individual.

Not any more than I would refuse someone who steals, lies or curses. Looks like most of us do these things at some point in our lifes but later we realize that they are all wrong. Also a doctors job is different from the bishops. I feel that Robinson is not qualified to be bishop. It's no different than rejecting a Doctor's advice because he is not qualified.

"Would you refuse salvation when Jesus forgives the gays?"
The salvation of Robinson and Robison being bishop are two very different things. Personally I feel that Robinson will be shown mercy but I really cannot speak for God on this. In any case, it has no bearing on whether Robinson should be bishop.



But you need to know that you're barely making sense. I don't mean argumentatively, I mean syntactically and colloquially. You're starting to remove yourself too deeply into yourself. Where's our loss? How so? It seems an arbitrary question to me.

Well at some point we cannot be like the teachers of the law(talmud) who over burdened the people with laws that they themselves could not keep. However if Robinson really believes in the old testament then I'm not sure how he could come to conclusion without some major smoke from Satan. I mean Jesus did say that we should go the extra mile. Why not with him and take most the likely and safest interpretation. If he really believes that all sin causes death, then how can he put himself in that type of risk.

"1) Enlighten us regarding your comparison of murder and homosexuality."
I was not. I was only offering a interpretion that used Robinson's idea of preconditions in the Law. Of course there are mitigating factors but they do not have any bearing on whether something is wrong but only how wrong.

"2) Enlighten us regarding your comparison of bestiality and homosexuality."
Read the Law and you will see that they are similar. Robinson could use the same logic to validate bestiality. However I feel that bestiallity is more gravely wrong than homosexual acts.


"3) Provide some citation to show us which of Robinson's teachings you're criticizing when you tell us vaguely how bad his teachings are."
Wll do this later, if you need me to, but Robinson's interpretation of the old testament can be found in the news.

"(4) New: Expand, please, on how God is protecting homosexuals."
Homosexuals are persons. I'm specificially talking about homosexual acts, which are considered sins. In any case, God protects everyone but we have to allow him to protect us. We shouldn't put ourselves in situations or second guess the law to fit our own view.



I mean, look at you, Okinrus: you deviate from Church teachings whenever it's appropriate. I'm quite sure you have your reasons. I can't imagine that you're simply relying on Jesus Christ to forgive you for continuing deviations. I mean, that would undermine any argument you could make even the worst possible assessment of Bishop Robinson, e.g. that he plans the deathbed renunciation of sin and is therefore both insincere and so devilish as to have pulled it off.

Why do you depart from Church teachings?

I don't deviate from the Church teachings. If you want to show me where it might be helpfull. Sometimes what I write isn't clear and can be interpreted wrongly. I've already said that the salvation of Robinson is not a factor on whether he should or shouldn't be bishop.

There is no bibical indication that that was Mary Magdalene. In fact I don't think it was because my view is that Mary was not married and lived as a hermit the end of her days. Fair 'nuff. In fact, two seconds of checking tells me that you're right.
So electing Mary bishop and having her sins forgiven are two very different things. True, but when we go back to John 8 and examine the adulteress, which is more toward the central point, the question is not about forgiveness, but the responsibilities of other sinners. Jesus did not say, "I forgive this woman, therefore you shall not stone her."

- But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7, NAB (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john8.htm))
Now you keep on saying that I cast stones but I tell you that the stones will prove to be witness.Those that brought the adulteress before Jesus would have said the same thing.

You would effect a condemning judgment against another on the basis of the unfinished work of the Holy Spirit in their life; that seems plainly absurd to me.
Also I must remind you that you are not arguing with all christans in this thread. I cannot be held responsible for what christians in Oregon feel anymore than mormons in Utah.Something about the sower goes here.
No these words were to be kept by all Israelites. Jesus said that not one iota will be removed from the law until all was fullfilled. That's why having bishops at all is problematic. For you go on to claim:
No I have repeatively said that it is what Robinson teaches including by actions that he does, that disqualify him.Why do you apply this to Bishop Robinson any more than any other sinner? By that standard, no human being is qualified to be a bishop.
I don't think the decision represents what the majority of Episcopalians feel, especiall in foreign countries.I've found that very few churches represent what their congregations actually feel. In fact, I don't think I know of a single Christian who would include a sectarian label like Catholic, Baptist, Episcopalian, Lutheran, &c whose "church" represented what they actually felt. Nobody's forcing them to be Episcopalians but themselves.
So to be sure, a bishop must devote their entire life and be ready to give up everything for God including their sex life.In the Catholic church, yes, but we see what kind of disasters that brings.
One of the dangers with homosexual behavior is that it slowly morphs itself into the person and become inseperable That's ... an odd statement.
However I can clearly tolerate the person who commits the crime, yet still feel that what he or she does is wrong. At that point, maybe 1% of the human species can accomplish that across the board.[qoute]Also within our framework we could agree that something is wrong but feel that it is unforceble or infringes on privacy.[/quote]Which framework is that?
Looks like most of us do these things at some point in our lifes but later we realize that they are all wrong. Do you presume the Holy Spirit to be finished with its work on, through, or with Bishop Robinson?
The salvation of Robinson and Robison being bishop are two very different things. Personally I feel that Robinson will be shown mercy but I really cannot speak for God on this. In any case, it has no bearing on whether Robinson should be bishop.If judging the man's sins is what it takes to disqualify him, I'd say it has some bearing.
I was not. I was only offering a interpretion that used Robinson's idea of preconditions in the Law. Of course there are mitigating factors but they do not have any bearing on whether something is wrong but only how wrong . . . Read the Law and you will see that they are similar. Robinson could use the same logic to validate bestiality. However I feel that bestiallity is more gravely wrong than homosexual acts.So you find similarity between the suspension of will and consent implicit in murder and the rape of an animal with two adults experiencing love?

That's twisted, Okinrus.
Wll do this later, if you need me to, but Robinson's interpretation of the old testament can be found in the news. Well, since you find it so objectionable, you ought to have a discussion about those parts. Who knows, at worst you don't help your case any. At best you prove it.
Homosexuals are persons. I'm specificially talking about homosexual acts, which are considered sins. In any case, God protects everyone but we have to allow him to protect us. We shouldn't put ourselves in situations or second guess the law to fit our own view. O ... K.
I don't deviate from the Church teachings. If you want to show me where it might be helpfull. First off, I have to ask if there are any more surprises? Like, after all this talk of Catholic doctrine, and I'm about to show you Catholic materials, are you about to tell me you're actually an Anabaptist or something?

At any rate, from "Gay Bishop appointed (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=26809&perpage=20&pagenumber=4) (page 4 by my browser):
Okinrus: Anyways God defines reality

Tiassa: 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."

Okinrus: 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. Please refer to the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Omnipotence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm):
(Latin omnipotentia , from omnia and potens , able to do all things).

Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible. These last words of the definition do not imply any imperfection, since a power that extends to every possibility must be perfect. The universality of the object of the Divine power is not merely relative but absolute, so that the true nature of omnipotence is not clearly expressed by saying that God can do all things that are possible to Him; it requires the further statement that all things are possible to God . The intrinsically impossible is the self-contradictory, and its mutually exclusive elements could result only in nothingness. "Hence," says Thomas (Summa I, Q. xxv, a. 3), "it is more exact to say that the intrinsically impossible is incapable of production, than to say that God cannot produce it." To include the contradictory within the range of omnipotence, as does the Calvinist Vorstius, is to acknowledge the absurd as an object of the Divine intellect, and nothingness as an object of the Divine will and power. " God can do all things the accomplishment of which is a manifestation of power," says Hugh of St. Victor, "and He is almighty because He cannot be powerless" (De sacram., I, ii, 22).

As intrinsically impossible must be classed:

(1) Any action on the part of God which would be out of harmony with His nature and attributes;
(2) Any action that would simultaneously connote mutually repellent elements, e.g. a square circle, an infinite creature, etc. . . . .

. . . . (2) Mutually exclusive elements

Another class of intrinsic impossibilities includes all that would simultaneously connote mutually repellent elements, e.g. a square circle, an infinite creature, etc. God cannot effect the non-existence of actual events of the past, for it contradictory that the same thing that has happened should also not have happened . . . .

. . . . The omnipotence of God is a dogma of Catholic faith, contained in all the creeds and defined by various councils (cf. Denziger-Bannwart. "Enchiridion", 428, 1790). Lastly:
I've already said that the salvation of Robinson is not a factor on whether he should or shouldn't be bishop. Nor was the salvation of the adulteress a factor on whether or not she should have been stoned--e.g. punished, deprived, rebuked, judged unfit by other sinners.

I was saying that out on limb. I don't think anyone really knows the answers to these questions but God alone. That is why I said "I believe it is possible" ie. before(not in the sense of time but in logical order) the creation of the world God, created the physical laws such as an object's inability to be at two places at the same time nor two objects in the same place. The catholic encylopedia nor Thomas Aquinas is fully part of the catholic doctrin. There was a debate on another forum where the encylopedia was slightly inconsistant on what the church actually teaches.

I'm not sure what your arguing over. Are you saying that the prior actions of Robinson and his beliefs are should have no factor in whether he should be bishop? If not, then how exactly are we supposed to find a bishop. Your making a bishop have less less moral requirements than the president. And there are practical reasons for turning down Robinson but they are fairly obvious.

The catholic encylopedia nor Thomas Aquinas is fully part of the catholic doctrin. There was a debate on another forum where the encylopedia was slightly inconsistant on what the church actually teaches.I hadn't realized the CE was blasphemous.

Perhaps you would like to present the proper, non-blasphemous teaching? Since the CE is so obviously, then, erroneous?

After all, that article dates to 1911, as I recall. Care to update us?
Are you saying that the prior actions of Robinson and his beliefs are should have no factor in whether he should be bishop? I'm saying that if judging the man's sins is the only argument against his elevation to the office of Bishop, then the House of Bishops has acted appropriately in trusting God to be the arbiter of propriety. What the Bishops had before them, apparently, was an otherwise-qualified candidate--I presume the best, but I don't know how much competition there is for a job like that--and the only reason to stop his confirmation would be to claim oneself without sin and effect judgment against another (throw the metaphorical stone).
If not, then how exactly are we supposed to find a bishop. Your making a bishop have less less moral requirements than the president.How so? The only complaint I had about Clinton's handling of the Zippergate affair was not that he lied to us per se ... that's what I expect someone to do in that position; rather, it would have been nice if he said, "Yeah, I did her. So what?" Robinson's not using family connections to expunge a criminal record. Robinson did not leave an innocent man in prison until he died because of apathy.
And there are practical reasons for turning down Robinson but they are fairly obvious.Look ... what you need to do is lay out those practical objections ... I know you're reluctant to, but even if I come across the Bishop's personal letters in research, what I won't have is an explanation of your take on it to compare against.

You keep alluding to all these scandals and yet you provide nothing to actually give us substance to examine. Please consider doing so.

I'm just a spectator here, but I feel compelled to interject my own opinion here (don't ask why):

Firstly, the church has been advised on what behaviour is fit for someone in position of authority:


6An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7Since an overseer [traditionally 'bishop'] is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless--not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. 10For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. (Titus 1)
This is an obligation not lightly case aside, and hence the reaction. Homosexuality was associated with immoral and rebellious behaviour (nods to the Romans and pagan temple prostitutes), and therefore strongly objectionable. The problem has become both less and worse: Homosexuality has become an accepted sexual preference (read 'normal'), but sexual immorality has become destigmatized. You might be able to appreciate the problem.

I think Tiassa hit the nail halfway into the coffin with this one:


True, but when we go back to John 8 and examine the adulteress, which is more toward the central point, the question is not about forgiveness, but the responsibilities of other sinners. Jesus did not say, "I forgive this woman, therefore you shall not stone her."

- But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."
But I understand Okinrus's objection: our responsibility towards church authority is related to, but still distinct from our responsibility towards our faith and to the guidelines given by the apostles. His concern might or might not be justified, I have too little information to say. We have to distinguish where the boundary between secular and religious concerns are.

Jesus also said something of relevance, that drives the nail to the wood in my opinion:


Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them -- do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish." (Luke 13)
The discrimination over homosexual practices was a moral one - but few people appreciate this - therefore the church runs the risk of seeming to condone immoral behaviour (by the old associations) by "pleasing the crowd", but also run the risk of alienating homosexuals who grasp the morality and know salvation, if they perpetuate these associations.

There is no clearcut solution. The issue is not about the man's salvation (that much is clear), or even about "right or wrong", but is definitely one of love and sensitivity. I believe the church in question has deliberated and taken all factors into consideration, and that the bishop is probably qualified for the post. I have not read the article yet, but if bishop uses his position to teach a lifestyle contrary to the quote from Titus, it is a legitimate cause for concern (regardless of his sexual preference, but he should be aware of his own controversial position and display corresponding sensitivity).

The origin of the controversy is the intention to prevent scandal. I think it is the bishop's responsibility to live up to his position - especially since he is in the limelight. His appointment has clear secular implications which makes his position that much more delicate.

We are not to judge his person based on appearance or preference, but we have a responsibility to the integrity of the principles that placed him there. The sword cuts both ways, and that is Jesus' message.

1) I'm fairly certain that catholic priests werent compulsorily celibate for centuries.
2) teh church got rich off people leaving them land for masses, as well as the lucrative trade in dispensations, and donations from people, and visist to shrines and coysin gup to kings to get grants of land off, etc etc.
3) Does or does not, the new testament supersede the old testament?

A couple scriptures about homosexuality.
Romans 1: 24-28
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

1 corith. 6:9-11
9 know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor Effiminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, ...Read 10 and 11 for continuation of scripture...
Greek: Malakos
effeminate
1) of a catamite
2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness

1 timothy 1:8
8 But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

That defile themselves with mankind refers to homosexuality. Same greek word that shows up in the above 1 corith. text under abusers of themselves with mankind..
Greek word: arsenokoites meaning:
one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual

There are a couple scriptures in the old testament that deal with it also. Clearly, these three above scriptures are clear in their meaning. They distinguish Homosexuality as a lust of their heart and a dishonor to their body. It could be dishonor because of the original command to Adam to reproduce and multiply.. fill the earth yadda yadda. A homosexual cannot reproduce as was commanded of Adam and then again with Noah. Maybe this is why it was unnatural and a dishonor. I have people that I work with that are homosexuals and they are very productive to the society. They are not ignorant or of a lower species.. It is just that the scripture and text of the christian church is the holy bible. The verses in the bible portray what is right and wrong, but at the same time doesn't say that their isn't any hope for these people. The bishop does have the right of free speech, but at the same time, I think the scripture outlines what is right or wrong in this case.

Scripture as you have presented it outlines the Pauline evangelism's stance on homosexuality quite well. While you're at it, check up on what the Pauline scriptures say about women. Hell, my mother spoke in church. The girls in my youth confirmation class spoke in church.

I hadn't realized the CE was blasphemous.
Perhaps you would like to present the proper, non-blasphemous teaching? Since the CE is so obviously, then, erroneous?
After all, that article dates to 1911, as I recall. Care to update us?

In some respects the CE goes above and beyond catholic doctrin and into catholic theology. Not blasphemous, just not everything in there will be believed by all catholics. The two of course are seperate. If we left theology at what Thomas did, then there would be no catholic theology majors. Anyways the point where the CE was wrong was a place where protestants would pick up on. I'd have to search through a whole bunch of threads but I believe that it was just a little sloppyness. I don't believe that non-contradicting is a property of omnipotence. The CE is assuming the property of the goodness of God here. The way I see it all matter was made good ie. following the rules of God. Take an if then syllogin.
If E, then S
E
S

This is only a property of the universe because God does not lie or change his mind so to speak. Yet omnipotence does not assume anything else on the nature of God. So I believe I'm correct here. Of course this is more on the definition of omnipotence than actual doctrin.

In some respects the CE goes above and beyond catholic doctrin and into catholic theology. Not blasphemous, just not everything in there will be believed by all catholics.Fair enough, but it seems to me that if the CE is going to assert that the omnipotence of God is Catholic dogma, doesn't it follow that the explanation meets a Catholic dogmatic expectation? It seems ... useless, ridiculous, absurd, downright insane ... to assert a dogmatic belief and then misrepresent that doctrinal belief. Perhaps around here people do that, but if you're writing the Catholic Encyclopedia ...
The omnipotence of God is a dogma of Catholic faith, contained in all the creeds and defined by various councils (cf. Denziger-Bannwart. "Enchiridion", 428, 1790).I just don't understand why they would turn around and misrepresent that dogma?

Wouldn't that just point toward a common atheistic complaint about the inconsistency and dysfunction of religious faith?

The Omnipotence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm) entry for the CE was written by J.A. McHugh. I have a single bound volume of the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia, which lists among its contributors:

- McHugh, John Ambrose, O.P., S.T.L., Lector of Philosophy, Dominican House of Studies, Washington: Ricoldo da monte di Croce; Rossi, Berbardo de.

I can see how someone teaching false doctrine might come to such an office among Catholics. After all, that seems to be the assertion about an Episcopalian bishop. You're right. The CE is probably incorrect in its descriptions of Catholic dogma. After all, the article in question was written by a philosopher, for heaven's sake ....

A syllogism need not reflect reality in order to be true. It need only reflect the terms of its proposition.
This is only a property of the universe because God does not lie or change his mind so to speak. Yet omnipotence does not assume anything else on the nature of God. So I believe I'm correct here. Of course this is more on the definition of omnipotence than actual doctrin.So would the church permit such an explanation to contradict doctrine?

Fair enough, but it seems to me that if the CE is going to assert that the omnipotence of God is Catholic dogma, doesn't it follow that the explanation meets a Catholic dogmatic expectation? It seems ... useless, ridiculous, absurd, downright insane ... to assert a dogmatic belief and then misrepresent that doctrinal belief. Perhaps around here people do that, but if you're writing the Catholic Encyclopedia ...

They don't at least not here. They are giving a traditional theological definition of omnipotence. In way, I think they are right, but I there are also other non-traditional options.

A syllogism need not reflect reality in order to be true. It need only reflect the terms of its proposition.

Yes, but the framework of logic itself is based upon reality. So if logic is only based upon observation in this world or the way we were created, could there be other logical worlds? Another possibility is that that a logic is an attribute of God but that would be assuming something above just omnipotence. So what I think is that God could create a contradiction just as much as God could lie. This stems from God creating all mater by his word and so if God's word can contradict itself then certainly the matter that God created could contradict itself. Either way the perfect goodness of God would make these contradictions impossible.

there are also other non-traditional optionsThis tends toward the arbitrariness of faith. A non-traditional examination of church doctrine is exactly what's taking place with the Episcopalians. They may still decide they've made a mistake. There is no end point, no finality, to the ongoing experience. If they have faith, God will show them the way. And if God loves, and if God is remotely aware of the waning influence of His churches in society, and if God's love truly is compassion and redemption, then God has been prepared for this day since before the world was born.

He knows what He has wrought. And, despite all else, it is Good.

Ok, but I don't consider this issue part of the faith. It's more or less how we get God based upon certain assumptions. I could see Robinson's interpretation could be true from an interfaith perspective, for all we know God was talking about orgies and temple prostitutes, but the risk involved in accepting it is just too great.

God's plan A of course is to let the entire world deteriorate and then throw it all into the pit.

God's plan A of course is to let the entire world deteriorate and then throw it all into the pitWhich is one of the reasons God is generally ineffable: That's the dumbest plan in the history of the Universe ... oh.
I could see Robinson's interpretation could be true from an interfaith perspective, for all we know God was talking about orgies and temple prostitutes, but the risk involved in accepting it is just too great. Where is that interpretation of Robinson's? Or are you just going on the generalizations you imagine for him? That's part of the reason for this topic. As you keep referring to Robinson's interpretation and teachings, the question remains whether you know what those things are or are just speculating based on piecemeal punditry?

I'm wondering if Christians ever stop to think of something the Sufis generally like to remind us. Sufis remind that tales such as those compiled in Shah's Dervish Tales (one readily available volume I can think of)--essentially the Sufi classics like Nasrudin, Rumi, and others--cannot be taken at their surface value. An example would be the occasion that a Sufi master dismissed the patriarch Abraham for his lack of patience. Many people scoff and say, "But Abraham was never schooled by a Sufi master ...."

Unfortunately, that is so far beside the point that it actually has a countervalent demonstrative value.

The critic might point to the story and say, "But he killed a man nonetheless, this Sufi master."

That, too, is beside the point.

If you look at the Aesop-level fabulous interpretation, well, it works, but there still exists the assertion that this interpretation is superficial. I can't tell you how to interpret the story.

But part of it is the adage that God works in mysterious ways. People tend to have faith that they will be saved, but few demonstrate a faithful trust in the more subtle workings of God.

Metaphysical absurdities wander through my mind:

- Is the Devil getting stupid or just lazy?
- Is there a danger of denouncing the works of the Holy Spirit?
- Can we expect God to operate in an obviously intuitive way to human perception?
- Why does God create what is unsuitable to Him?

And so on.

I do understand your risk assessment, but I think it's founded more on faith in one's own knowledge and opinion than it is faith in God.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A12505-2003Aug1&notFound=true

http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/081603/rel_LB0236-3.000.shtml

Ok he calls his relationship "sacramental". I mean please choose any words but those to start scandal. We can say for certain that what Robinson did was premature.

Bishop Robinson seems prepared to openly stake his soul on this one. Anyone else?
Asked by an opponent to explain why God created male and female sexuality if not for procreation, Robinson said, "I believe that God gave us the gift of sexuality so that we might express with our bodies the love that's in our hearts. I think that's true of marriage, and I think that's why we hold marriage to be a sacrament."

But, he added, "I just need to tell you that I experience that with my partner. In the time that we have, I can't go into all the theology around it, but what I can tell you is that in my relationship with my partner, I am able to express the deep love that's in my heart, and in his unfailing and unquestioning love of me, I experience just a little bit of the kind of never-ending, never-failing love that God has for me. So it's sacramental for me." Such is the danger of a church which does not limit sexual expression to reproductive needs.

And as noted:
And James Bradberry, a lay deputy from southern Virginia, said that if Episcopalians "want to rely on the Bible exclusively" for their approach to same-sex relationships, then they should also be prepared to condone slavery and the submission of women.

"There are a lot of things in the Bible that we no longer do because our faith has evolved," Bradberry said. It also occurs to me that Robinson may well be qualified to make a certain assertion: I just need to tell you that I experience that with my partner.

Who here can tell him that he's wrong about that?

The Augusta Chronicle article is a reasonable summary of the issue as I've learned it over time.
But the Rev. Walter Wink of New York's Auburn Theological Seminary, a United Methodist clergyman, disagrees with that reading of Scripture by the Rev. Gagnon, a Presbyterian.

"The Bible has no sex ethic," the Rev. Wink said. "It only knows a communal love ethic" exemplified by Jesus' command to love your neighbor as yourself, which requires Christians to understand gays' experiences.

Societies' changing codes of sexual conduct should be assessed against that standard and in light of modern knowledge, he said.

The Rev. Wink acknowledged that "a lot of churches are not going to change" for the present, but he's convinced they will eventually shed old Bible interpretations that are "life-denying and intellectually dishonest."

"In 50 years most of us will look back and say, 'Why were we so slow? Why was this so difficult?"' he said.

Bishop-elect Robinson believes biblical conservatives will "come to know that they are wrong, in this life or the next one." "In this life or the next one" ... I keep telling you, the House of Bishops reaffirmed their faith in God with their vote.

I agree with Reverend Wink that this branch of Biblical conservatism is both life-denying and intellectually dishonest. And that's perhaps the most persuasive argument toward compassion and understanding.

Reverend Gagnon makes an important point as well: "If people can deny such a clear and specific scriptural teaching, he said, it raises questions about the point of adhering to the faith in the first place."

But that's the thing. Individual scriptural teachings--specific ones, at that--have adapted before. Whether it was the paring to four Gospels, a millennium and more of militant authoritarianism, or the liberalization of the faith into one more genuinely compassionate, the ages have seen much minor adaptation that, taken collectively, shows an evolution of the faith.

This is the next chapter. As more and more evidence arises indicating that homosexuality is a natural condition and not a random evil choice, people are bound to ask why God would create people inclined toward what God abhors, which will raise very fundamental questions among the faithful about why God bothered creating any of us who are in our natural state unsatisfactory to Him.

And that's even worse than the revenue loss Bishop Benna worried about. In addition to compassion, necessity backs Bishop Robinson's position as well.

Thank you for the articles. Very interesting.

This is the next chapter. As more and more evidence arises indicating that homosexuality is a natural condition and not a random evil choice, people are bound to ask why God would create people inclined toward what God abhors, which will raise very fundamental questions among the faithful about why God bothered creating any of us who are in our natural state unsatisfactory to Him.

Are you using homosexual as participating in homosexual sexual acts here are you implying that it's some sort of character trait. The bible says absolutly nothing about same sex attraction or inclination to the the same sex being by within itself sinful. Even if you could prove that a small percentage of the population are born gay, then the argument is no different than hermaphrodites. The difference here is that there are a higher proportion of gays than other genetically abnormal conditions leading me to believe that good many are not really born gay. Of course being born a sinner should not contradict calvinists. Rather it would prove that God predestines into hell.



It also occurs to me that Robinson may well be qualified to make a certain assertion: I just need to tell you that I experience that with my partner.

Yes, and I'm sure heterosexuals could say the same, but comparing it to a sacrament? Isn't that a little too far?

Rather it would prove that God predestines into hell.There is validity to predestination theory, but ....

You've summed up the theological conundrum reasonably well. We're just on different sides of it. I see no logical reason why God would, in love, create something and compel it toward abomination. Yet as the idea of homosexuality as a natural condition gains weight and acceptance, we have to wonder what's up.

At any rate, that rambling about genetic abnormality isn't what is generally considered a wise argument to make. I can't believe I haven't gotten around to citing this little bit of information earlier:
Lest you are tempted to believe that all of this is highly unusual and well out of the ordinary, you're in for quite a surprise. Homosexual behavior is not only common, but even more common in other species than in humans. While numbers are hard to come by, there are a few that present some interesting patterns. In ostriches, male homosexuality is much more common than bisexuality, but among mule deer, bisexuality is more common than homosexuality. Among our closest living relatives, the bonobo chimpanzees, few if any are either exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. Indeed, all that have been observed are exclusively permanently bisexual. ("The Natural Crime Against Nature (http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm)")Now ... if I'm not mistaken, the homosexual ratio for humans is argued between 1% and 10%. Anybody care to update me on the latest assertion?

Click the link. There's a table of numbers that you might just find interesting.
Yes, and I'm sure heterosexuals could say the same No, Okinrus, they cannot for the simple fact that if they are heterosexuals then they haven't lived in a homosexual relationship.
but comparing it to a sacrament? Isn't that a little too far? Based on the prior point, I'm not sure you or I can really say.

If I accept that Episcopalians are not so stupid as to put a complete and utter liar into a position where he stands a chance of attaining the title of bishop, well ... I'm going to have to trust the guy who has the experience to know.

I'm quite sure that some, if not many of the votes that approved his elevation came after hesitation. Some of those votes came not because the voting Bishop or Deputy specifically agreed with Robinson, but because he was unable to found a proper disagreement without violating other terms of faith. In other words, Bill the Bishop from Bobtown knows that he cannot contradict Robinson's testimony because (A) he does not know, and (B) cannot presume Robinson a liar. So when Robinson says he perceives the love as Sacramental, the Bishops are faced with what, by their own rules, is a strong argument. And so they placed their faith in God. Each who voted to elevate the Bishop held the stone and said, "I shall not be the first to cast; I am not without sin."

This is the day the Lord hath made. Part of rejoicing in it is to gladly accept the challenges put before you by the Holy Spirit. It is on the faith of others in their God and their Savior that Robinson has been elevated. The strongest candidate happens to commit a grievous Old-Testament sin. What a conundrum. Do you elevate a lesser candidate? Is this situation wrought of Satan? Of the Holy Spirit? Is it a random coincidence?

And so they looked to God and said, "We've got a good candidate. The rest is up to You."

You've summed up the theological conundrum reasonably well. We're just on different sides of it. I see no logical reason why God would, in love, create something and compel it toward abomination. Yet as the idea of homosexuality as a natural condition gains weight and acceptance, we have to wonder what's up.

Not really. I mean God created us all with other specific problems. Scientists have also found that traits of addiction are somewhat hereditary. There is no one saying that drunkness right because of the evidence that addiction is hereditary. So people could be predisposed to homosexuality prefering a more masculine female, while others prefer a more femine female.



At any rate, that rambling about genetic abnormality isn't what is generally considered a wise argument to make. I can't believe I haven't gotten around to citing this little bit of information earlier:

...yes but there is evidence that animals too may also become depraved but they certainly have less choice in the matter. God did order the Isrealites to kill any animal that anyone commited sodomy with. I think most of the evidence seems to be like male bonding. I doubt anal sex could occur in the animal kingdom because it is supposed to be painful without lubrication and the risk of disease is too great.




Now ... if I'm not mistaken, the homosexual ratio for humans is argued between 1% and 10%. Anybody care to update me on the latest assertion?

Yes around 5% or 2% but in some areas much higher.



No, Okinrus, they cannot for the simple fact that if they are heterosexuals then they haven't lived in a homosexual relationship.

No, you misunderstand. I'm sure that people who commit premarital sex could say the same thing concerning their lovers. However even if Robinson does feel this way, he's commiting scandal by saying that in a sacramental church.

Ok, I think it's that I get out of this argument because I don't see any end in site. So good bye with love!

I mean God created us all with other specific problems. Scientists have also found that traits of addiction are somewhat hereditary. There is no one saying that drunkness right because of the evidence that addiction is hereditary A couple of things:

(1) Where in the Bible is excess of liquor described as an abomination unto God, and where does the Bible call for the destruction of God's creations (e.g. people) for their excessive use of alcohol?

(2) Society has shifted from persecuting the addict (e.g. alcohol) to "assisting" the addict. Treating the disease instead of persecuting the addict. As the Drug War winds down, if you pay reasonably close attention, you'll see that this very idea of how we treat the addict is moving closer and closer to the heart of an issue from which such a vital reality has traditionally and forcefully been excluded.
yes but there is evidence that animals too may also become depraved but they certainly have less choice in the matter. This is the start of an ironic paragraph for you. Why does God create what He abhors? And why is that creation not God's responsibility?
God did order the Isrealites to kill any animal that anyone commited sodomy with.That seems about in line with such a nonsensical God. "You shall destroy what I have wasted My Own Time creating because it is an abomination. But it's all Good ...."
I think most of the evidence seems to be like male bonding.Statement of the year.
I doubt anal sex could occur in the animal kingdom because it is supposed to be painful without lubrication and the risk of disease is too great. I know for a fact that it does ... I'm currently digging around for a reference.
Yes around 5% or 2% but in some areas much higher.In other words, we're still looking at a range that can run up to 10% homosexual. That's well enough.
No, you misunderstand. I'm sure that people who commit premarital sex could say the same thing concerning their lovers.So now we're back to general adultery?

Robinson was speaking toward the assertion that such a bond cannot exist between same-gender partners. Premarital heterosexual sex? Duh. It may be sinful, but if it's a man and a woman committing the sin, at least they're still what closed minds think of as what nature intended.

I look over at a friend of mine; either one of us can tell you what premarital sex is like. Either one of us can tell you what extramarital sex is like in the sense that we've both slept with married people. But of us, only one of us can tell you about sex with a partner of the same gender. That's a functional reality because my friend never has.

When Bishop Robinson sat in front of the House of Bishops and said that he feels sacramental love with his partner, nobody was qualified to stand up and challenge it for the simple fact that, having no actual experience, they could only speculate.
However even if Robinson does feel this way, he's commiting scandal by saying that in a sacramental church.Scandals require at least two parties. One to "commit scandal" and one to have a problem with it.

That's a big argument in the United States. On the one hand, Americans were told that they shouldn't worry when Reagan "committed scandal" by breaking the law to negotiate with terrorists. Americans were told that they should not worry when Reagan "committed scandal" and supported a murderous Iraqi dictator with weapons of mass destruction. But on the other hand, Americans were told to fret themselves senseless when a Democrat got a blowjob at the White House.

Scandal is all what one chooses to make of it.
Ok, I think it's that I get out of this argument because I don't see any end in site. So good bye with love! Fair enough. I thank you for taking the time to present your case.