Okinrus - Your fifteen minutes of infamy

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 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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

[/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.

 

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?

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

Me wonders what came 1st, sex or marriage:bugeye:

 

Re: Re: Okinrus - Your fifteen minutes of infamy

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?

 

What came first--sex or marriage?

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 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.

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

 

okinrus, your fantasy is showing!

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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?

 

Inheriting the wealth...

Thanks, SpyMoose, for confirming my post.