Okinrus 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. 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: 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 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. 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. 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. Resorting to paradox doesn't help. See "The Crucifixion was a Fraud" (SciForums)". Perhaps the same creator that imperiled them by His Will in the first place when he lied to Adam and Eve about the Trees? 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.[/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. 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. 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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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. 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. 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. This was not his Will. Why do you keep assuming that everything is the Will of God? 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.
I'll be in the corner kicking the cat. Hey, at least it's not sodomy, right? 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 ..... 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. 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", with attention given to "mutually exclusive elements", such as a square circle. 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? 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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Enough double speak already, will blasphemy be forgiven or won't it? I saw nothing in here that suggests that he intends to not be celebate.
Yes, Jesus had flesh, blood, felt pain and was born from a woman just as all men are, yet he still was God. 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. There's nothing wrong with psychologist, however psychologists often have secular views. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I just believe that it is wrong. Is there are adutraphobic? Yes, I'm against all wrongs. 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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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.
Treaty, treaty, treaty, treaty, bill, treaty. This is a point of faith that I won't deny you, Right there Jesus becomes "superhuman". 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. 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. 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) ????? 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. And those are definitive? 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: I mean .... the one thing that seems unacceptable to him is that Christ is fully human. Perhaps. Nonetheless, the difference between a human being and God considerably changes the relative value of pain. 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.) It would seem to be that the House of Bishops bore this point in mind when considering Canon Robinson. True. I'll send you the invoice for $420.00 tomorrow. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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. 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 doubt Job is a literal story but more of a didactic story or legend. Why would I be frightened? In I would be happy Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I am a sinner as well. God is the only source of good Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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. 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 . 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. 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.
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)
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. We only can only observe reality. 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. I don't believe in sola-scriptura. But it is obvious that sexual sins do more damage. 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.
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.
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 mePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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.
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.
Jews have taught this for generation and I could look up the exact words used in a hebrew dictionary. 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. 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. 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
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. 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. 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?
