Okinrus I red through your link above in full (All 4 translations) and it seems to be a pretty good primer on basic morality (even for nonchristians). I can't, however, seem to find any information about it's source. (Who wrote it, to whom, and on what authority). Still, I emphasize that most churches would make their decisions based on the bible. Other scriptures are generally regarded as being of tenuous credibility.
Strangely, a vegan comes to mind I accept that potential for any armchair therapy. However, the generalisms of human association are sometimes obscured by the specifics. Textbook counseling works for some issues. For others, it underestimates human factors. 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." Wholly, fully, entirely, completely ... these speak to a totality. In a totality comprised of two aspects, neither is whole or full or complete. Jesus knew his role. Jesus knew he would be raised. Jesus knew he was what other people were not. Jesus knew that he had what other people did not. It changes the balance of suffering on the cross. The very frailty which Jesus lacked and Athanasius decried is what would allow the directly comparable sacrifice. Well, that's a hard thing about discussing the Bible with the faithful. When a Biblical point strikes the theology as inconvenient, it can be downgraded. Well, that's the thing. You don't seem to trust the Holy Spirit to foster what's right. Your concerns about this Bishop can easily be reconciled in faith. What seems to be the issue, then, is that the manifestation of the Holy Spirit may not be what you expect of it. True, I'm jabbing when I say, "obviously frightens", but I admit that the rejection of faith in the ways of God in order to object to the confirmation of Bishop Robinson--which is exactly what it looks like to me--begs further insight. Fair 'nuff. I don't argue with that in this context. Where to begin? Perhaps with the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans? I point to that argument against docetism because it makes a different claim entirely: that Jesus was human and was raised (endowed) by God. Ignatius does not claim to the Smyrnaeans that Jesus is both fully human and fully God. To the other, Ignatius also proves useful to other parts of our discussions: And even though we are discussing the appointment of an Episcopalian Bishop, we might insofar as we're discussing Catholic theology at all consider the parallel. From the rubbish tip to the gem traders we find fascinating baubles. Have you ever seen the most godawful movie from the 1980s called Soul Man? The plot is simple: A white guy's parents bail on him as he's accepted to Harvard Law, so he takes an experimental tanning drug in order to pass himself off as black in order to win a minority scholarship. Of course, while at school, he meets and falls for the girl he happened to steal the scholarship from. Lots of laughs--cheap laughs--later, the unfortunate young fake-black stands before his professor and admits: No, I don't know what it's like. Because I can stop being black tomorrow. All I have to do is stop taking these pills .... The discrimination, the harassment, the hatred ... this "black man" had the knowledge that he could make it go away tomorrow by not being black. Most black folks never had that option, which is why he refused to claim to know what it was to be black. Sure he got a taste, but it wasn't the same thing. Likewise with Jesus. He knew who and what he was. He had knowledge and comfort that ordinary mortal folks don't. He had knowledge where most people are required to have faith. It makes the sacrifice easier when you know it's only three days before you're home again. What's odd is that if I accept this position, it still serves a broader point of the topic: If Jesus knows, then Jesus knows, and Jesus knows damn well what Bishop Robinson is going through. And if the Holy Spirit still blesses him with election ... well? And that's the thing: Jesus may know what is in Robinson's heart. God will judge him. And the House of Bishops appointed the best-qualified candidate they had before them. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Trusting in God, as Jesus trusted in God, is about the only definitive assertion of a route the Bishops had to follow. A comparison for you. I'll boldface the point: - The world is watching curiously to see what George W. Bush will do next. If he continues down the merry road toward PNAC, the world will understand that the Bush Doctrine is a real thing that must be contended with. As it is, Bush's hesitance to address North Korea in military terms has given rise to the suggestion that the Bush Doctrine was a one-time excuse, an abuse of office and history, to justify an illegal war. - The world will be watching Bishop Robinson. In religious circles, there will be more scrutiny given to the reconciliation of his expressed principle with his conduct than most people are subject to. If it develops that Robinson's perspective on the Scripture seeks only to justify himself, that will be apparent. If it develops that Robinson's perspective on Scripture has the effect of redefining broader currents of controversy within his church and within Biblical criticism, the world will know that there is a real theological interpretation to consider and will examine its pros and cons. Bishop Robinson's actions may yet give rise to the suggestion that his policies are one-timers, designed to excuse his behavior. And if that happens, well ... I'll send you a cigar, or something. But the House of Bishops has placed their faith in God's guidance and confirmed his office. Now he has the chance to show it. Adultery is adultery. It hurts your primary partner when you cheat no matter what gender they are. Homosexuality has a much greater potential to comfort and please your primary partner than adultery. The functional reality is that your expressed opposition to Robinson's appointment because of his homosexuality amounts to casting stones. Mother Teresa was a sinner, but I'm not going to argue when they canonize her. I don't really want to argue this point because we don't have to. The level of preference involved is much like a friend of mine who preferred soy milk to cow's milk - dairy disagreed with her biology; it made her sick. One day I managed to pick up some soy milk and a dairy-free sorbet. Sure, what came out of the blender was one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen, but she said it tasted fine, and that was the first time in her life that anybody aside from her ever made her a shake. The next several times I saw her, she was wolfing down that damned berry sorbet. I think the best way to look at it is whether or not we believe he left his wife for cock or cross. The public assertion is that he left for the cross, which is right in line with Jesus' teaching, If his actions, policies, and advice hold up to that standard, I have no reason to doubt it. Note: I'm reading through this now ... St. Ignatius of Antioch and the Renewal of the Anglican Episcopate :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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. You keep forgeting that I'm not in their church. I would not be expected to believe that the holy Spirit would in any way guide their church. Though I do believe that it guides all people somewhat. Also, not every decision that we make is by the holy Spirit. The holy Spirit is the voice of love. "6:1 Let no man be deceived. Even the heavenly things, and the glory of the angels, and the principalities, both visible and invisible, if they believe not on the blood of Christ, for them also is there condemnation. Let him who receiveth it, receive it in reality. Let not high place puff up any man. For the whole matter is faith and love, to which there is nothing preferable. " A clear indication of Godhood since there was no creation without Christ. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians "...that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God: Abundant happiness through Jesus Christ, and His undefiled grace." "...have become acquainted with your name, much-beloved in God, which ye have acquired by the habit of righteousness, according to the faith and love in Jesus Christ our Saviour. Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God, ye have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you." Notice the blood of God. Not really. There have been bishops that have been evil and corrupted. Yes I've seen it. Jesus loves us and he feels the pain of the cross everytime that we sin. Pain is just as much a part of love as pleasure. He will weep perfectly for those who do not love him. He wept at the death of Lazarus yet he knew that he would raise him up. The problem is that he does not admit that it is a sin but reinterprets the bible. First of all, crazy interpretations of the bible are going to harm your faith because eventually you will aknowledge that they are crazy. I would have absolutly no problem if he stood up to there and said "look guys, I'm a sinner and I struggle with my homosexuality".
Throw away the stones, Okinrus Okinrus Sorry to be so long about it, but, well ... okay, work with me here for just a second, please. I don't have any problem whatsoever regarding the diversion of this topic about Episcopalians into considerations of Catholic doctrine; the comparative is of such importance that I'm more than happy to undertake it. But here I'm puzzled, as you start to abandon that Catholic influence in favor of ... what? It's not that you haven't a right to your personal interpretation, but at some point that's all we're working with--personal interpretations. And you know, we were doing so well with the Catholic doctrinal exploration. If I ask you to source this idea for me, it's only because I want to make sure that I'm not simply responding to an ideological convenience constructed in order to reinforce subjective presuppositions. Okay, the thing is that certain words humans invent have specific meanings. "Circle" and "square" represent two separate ideas which God made separate. A circle is not a square, a square is not a circle, else God would have made it so. The definitions of the words describe disparate elements within the diversity of God's creation. I wish to change the terms for a moment, admittedly with the intent of further simplifying the issue. (Strangely, it takes a few extra words to do so ....) - Can God make a red that is blue? No. That is called purple. "Purple" describes a set of frequencies which human beings interpret as a color (idea) that is independent of other colors (ideas), even those that can be combined to form "purple". "Red" describes a specific set of frequencies. "Blue" describes a specific set of frequencies. The words represent divisions within the alleged stainless unity of God, divisions established by humans as relevant to our conduct in the Universe. Without Red or Blue or Purple (or Green or Yellow or Orange or even the colors we can't see) there would be no idea of God to transmit. If God implements a frequency that equates to "Red" it will not be "Blue". God might choose to implement a frequency that equates to Red and cause some prophet or another to decry red as blue, but God cannot make a Red that is Blue without changing the fundamental character of the words themselves. Yes, God can make a square circle. But at that point the words "square" and "circle" cease having any practical application in life, as their definitions, their delineations, their demarcations evaporate. I don't see how that's relevant. We've been hopping back and forth across the lines the whole time. And now that you're adding yet a new vein with your position that comes from neither Episcopalian or Catholic doctrine, perhaps you might let me know what that vein actually is in order that I might respond to it in a proper context. So you see the sick and you criticize him for being sick? Whatsoever you do unto the least of his brethren, Okinrus. Don't let the faith of your desires get in the way of the reality of your faith. I've noticed that this is a hardly-arbitrary trend. Christians generally don't like to acknowledge the Holy Spirit if their personal mores recoil from the result of the Spirit's glorious workings. I hardly see how that would necessarily remove it from Bishop Robinson's confirmation. And? Then why did you bring Ignatius into it? Seriously? What the hell's the problem, Okinrus? A little too inconvenient for your faith to actually consider the ideas you bandy about like a reckless child? I mean, you even go so far as to quote Ignatius in your post immediately before treating Ignatius dismissively. At this point, unfortunately, I must doubt your integrity, both argumentatively and personally, based on the ideas you have put before me in our discussion. Is it so important to you to have another human being to condemn that you would sack your faith by tailoring it to meet your needs? By deigning to instruct God in morality? Look at yourself, Okinrus, you're throwing stones like a panic-fire. Take care with your aim, and also with your intent. You'll hop across sectarian lines when it makes your point but refuse them when it's too problematic for you to overcome the counterpoint. You'll raise the issue of Ignatius of Antioch, and you'll even hide behind it, and then run away from it as if it was a stranger offering you candy. Hello? If the wellbeing of your eternity is of absolutely no value to you, could you please remind me why you waste the effort on pseudo-Christian faith? And? Rather, could you possibly give an effort to connect that to the point you seemed to intend to respond to? You ought to start a topic examining those interpretations. Hell, even you reinterpret the Bible. Everybody does it, or else we wouldn't have "diverse" Christianity. Without constant reinterpretation, Catholicism would never have deviated from the path so much as to incite fracture. Of course, a more gnostic faith requires greater effort of mind, so I can see why that's not an option for most. With you on that point. Ever read Kramer and Sprenger? What justification does he owe you? Why should he stand on the streetcorner and shout his faith? True enough, he is now a Bishop, but he still has a conscience and a faith, and God will deal with him in that context according to God's choosing. Has it occurred to you that it doesn't matter under what conditions you would have absolutely no problems? You continue to throw stones, the Episcopalians have rolled away the stone, and their faith in God's judgment will light the cavern so that they might at least have the chance to understand for themselves the Truth of His Resurrection. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Steve Benson, Arizona Republic, August 7, 2003.
It's my own idea. Also don't ever assume that I speak complete and correct catholic doctrin anymore than someone else. Unless if it's been reviewed by the Bishop or I'm quoting the catchecism or something, I could easily be wrong. Nor do I see catholic doctrin adding any weight to the argument when we are predominately non-catholic. Yes and no. God could create an object where when your mind thinks "is it blue" it responds yes and to "is it red" no. Or God could create an object that reflects blue frequency light north and red frequency light south. Or perhaps God could create objects with different properties in different dimensions. I think you misunderstand what I mean by the Holy Spirit. He does not always say "Do this " or "Do that" using english words. Also the Holy Spirit is usually involved in healing us and not decision making. We have freewill to make decisions and that is one of the gifts that God gave us. No, but there is no reason for me to think that the Holy Spirit told each bishop to vote for Robinson. Otherwise He would have told everyone there to vote for him. Also because I'm not of that Church I could have the interpretation that their church has fallen away and that this is just a sign of it. Either way it is illogical to use the Holy Spirit working through their church as a valid argument. I was countering your view that the early church did not consider Jesus God incarnate. Also the view that Ignatius gives is not "if you see your bishop doing evil then let it slide". It is to do everything with the support of the bishop. We can and should rebuke others like John said. I'm not throwing stones. 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. Nope. He owes no justification to me because I'm not in their church. Yes let's hope they do not roll away their Rock of Deuteronomy 32. You can have just as much faith in God's judgement as to faith in what is wrong. If we believe that what Robinson teaches is wrong, then should we not try to protect ourselves from this wrong?
The apparent difficulties of faith? Smoke and mirrors. But the blue side is blue and the red side is red. And yes, it sort of, kind of works that way. In fact, the National Research Council can help you understand that what you're describing is rather mundane. Let's put a test to the theory. Go out in a car and start driving through red lights. And then tell the officer that the light was green. Yes, I suppose there is that. And the Goddess might raise the Great Pumpkin out of my ass come Samhain. I can't imagine where that idea entered the discussion. So by what date in the future or past is the healing to have taken place to your satisfaction in order to appease your doubts about the workings of the Holy Spirit? Christ, man ... a little faith never killed a soul. Quite the contrary, as I hear it explained. Are we back to this point again? Why don't you make a list of the Dramatis personae of the Robinson appointment and tell us all about each of their consciences, their priorities, and their faith? If Mary Magdalene was standing before you, it seems you would dare cast the stone. Do you really dare presume the ways and workings of God? Thematically speaking, it seems faith is the one thing you don't want to allow for consideration. Perhaps you should consider the merits of atheism. Yes, but I didn't assert obedience to direct revelation. I asserted trust and faith. And you seem to have a serious problem with faith. "Could"? You seem to be justifying your lack of trust in the Holy Spirit with your judgment of the propriety of other people's faith, as well as the judgment of other people. I'm speaking of faith as pertains to Christianity and you're attempting to invoke logic? Well what makes your point valid if the source material you use to make it is not valid? Why do you run around in circles like that? I mean, is Ignatius only valid when and in the context you choose? So do you think the bishopric would approve of someone condemning the decisions of the bishops? Especially on the ground that their personal faith motivates their usurpation of established church faith? You know ... I always wondered what the "J" stood for in those WWJD bracelets. Thank you for clearing that up. Well, only if you have no sense of metaphor. But then ... that would explain your take on the Bible. Okinrus, get this through your filthy bigoted skull: murder hurts people; love does not. What the hell is your problem, boy? You who don't throw stones would equate love to murder just because you don't like what it looks like? You should. Talk about some crazy bible stuff. And they were ... slightly influential. Then how dare you claim to judge him? I mean, his appointment seems to strike you as unacceptable. Yes, just like Kramer and Sprenger. As I said before, you ought to start a topic about those teachings. That would be a much more useful discussion than your present course. I mean, you need to understand on this occasion that I'm not going to go out and bother looking them up myself because (A) If his position was truly outlandish, a congress of bishops would have been unable to push through such a controversial candidate. Robinson, in order to win approval, had to address these issues in a manner satisfying to sober and literate people. (B) I do not need Bishop Robinson's teachings to offer me a route to understanding the benefits that come with his appointment. I think this is a step in the right direction, and insofar as I can determine from a lifetime's experience dealing with Christianity and its bigotries, I think Robinson's appointment is a reinvestment in faith for all of the reasons I've reiterated to the point of cliche in this topic. Try separating two ideas for a moment. - How can I object to your opinion as a human being? You're as entitled to it as the next guy is to his. - To the other, though, you are a Christian, and in professing that faith you accept certain limitations of conduct in defense of your integrity of faith. As a human being, you're doing fine. I've met enough people in the world that I don't worry about your degree of homophobia except in the argumentative where such homophobia attempts to aggrandize itself for propaganda value. You've a right to these ideas, but I will growl and snarl and stuff them back in the shoebox from time to time because that aggrandization is what gives an otherwise benign condemnation practical and effective weight in the Universe. As a sinner, you're doing great. With such a heavy investment in the presumption of the worst in people you're giving a steady stream of faith that will give Jesus extra joy to forgive for the sheer magnitude of its failure. But as a Christian ... please understand, Okinrus, it's not that Christians are the worst people in the world or anything, though some make it easy to make the assertion. And while I have no doubt about the strength of your convictions, I can also tell you squarely that the manner in which you have presented yourself in this discussion is an excellent example of why rational people are becoming more and more wary of Christianity and Christians. Regardless of sect, Christianity is becoming less and less relevant to modern ethical considerations. As if the opinions making the most significant representations of Christianity in the culture weren't dangerous and bizarre enough, the foundations of this strange diversity of faiths becomes ever more tenuous. Quite simply, Nature no longer supports a Christian world-view. Specifically, Nature never did. However the relationship between humanity and Nature's other expressions is such that Nature no longer tolerates a Christian world-view. The single biggest reason for this is that canon and doctrine, the two things which should most directly influence faith, take a back seat to desire. We know you're human, too. And I'm sorry that being human isn't enough for you. Maybe in a reincarnating Universe, I could understand that. But when all the Universe points toward your life or mine being a one-shot deal, I choose to celebrate my humanity instead of pray against it. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why does this matter? I have to explitly ask you what you mean by faith. Is this faith that your right and I'm wrong? or is it faith that what God says in the bible is right? There is a very BIG difference between saying that prostitution is wrong and murdering others. Ignatius is valid. You are misinterpreting what Ignatius said. Ignatius obviously places God above the bishop. So if a direction or teaching contradicts God's then there is no reason to believe it. You critisize me for being insincere but then expect me to believe something that you don't even believe.
The interpretation that Robinson gives could just as well apply to bestiality because the bibical proof is similar. Robinson's interpretation is weak and is grasping at straws. I'm suprised that you keep bringing in this faith argument. Shouldn't I have faith in my own Church that teaches that homosexual acts are wrong? Ok, so it seems that my interpretation is more alligned with Scripture. Let's say that there was a 95% chance that Robinson is correct. Would you really jump off a clift with those kind of odds? Robinson must not see the clift or is irrational because of his desire. Either way in aspects of morals, it is too dangerous of a risk to take.
Okinrus It matters because you seem to have a problem with faith. As I pointed out quite a while ago in this topic, the House of Bishops put their faith with God insofar as they chose not to throw stones. How could they presume to judge what only God can know--the truest of reasons in Bishop Robinson's heart? Faith, Okinrus, means trusting in God's eternal justice instead of seeking to effect your own. It means many other things, but in this case how can sinners deny a man an office if that denial is on the basis of sin? Why spontaneously abandon the religious metaphor that otherwise has been suitable throughout merely to find yourself an oppositional position? Typically I just respond to such points of yours by saying, "And?" There is a great difference between believing homosexuality is wrong and advocating judgment. For the House of Bishops the man's sins were quite apparently insufficient grounds to refuse him office: they may believe his conduct and sentiments wrong, but were his position radically removed from a proper Episcopalian faith, the House of Bishops would have found his sins untenable within doctrinal bounds. If Canon Robinson could demonstrate himself an able scholar of Bible, doctrine, and faith, and if Canon Robinson could be demonstrated to be a compassionate servant of God, his sins alone do not suffice as grounds for judgment and denial. God's teaching ... do you mean Leviticus and such? Or do you mean Jesus? To whom does you faith aspire? IHVH-as-God? Jesus? Paul? Well, when your argument comes down to what you want to believe--e.g. " It's my own idea"--what am I supposed to think? I see no evidence whatsoever that your sentiments are the result of rational consideration, but rather that what you call rational consideration is a limitation of your sentiments. Don't let the faith of your desires get in the way of the reality of your faith. And all I expect of you, Okinrus is a little faith, a little bit of compassion, and perhaps, if you absolutely must judge people, a small dose of forgiveness. I am sorry that your Christian faith prescribes against these things. Says you. Let's see these interpretations and your sources. I want to know who's spoon-feeding you. Because for all you characterize Robinson, you have yet to demonstrate any knowledge of those aspects of the man you characterize. That's pretty sick, Okinrus. Furthermore, who gave you the hammer and nails? Look at your hateful characterizations of homosexuality, comparing it to murder and bestiality. I would very much appreciate it if you could substantiate those comparisons. Otherwise, I really want to know what your fucking malfunction is? Yes, it is the obligation of the Christian to be selfish, judgmental, and pretentious. After all, it's what Jesus would do. Seriously ... what the hell is your problem, boy? You're on. Spotlight's all to you, Okinrus. Please be so kind, Okinrus as to substantiate your claims that homosexuality is akin to murder and bestiality. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: Okinrus Just a little hint, here, okinrus--wasn't it Jesus who said, "Love one another as I have loved you", and "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me?" The bigger question I have to ask you is why are you so homophobic? Why do you fear this homosexual bishop? Could his image be destroying your fantasy of Xianity?
Okinrus, do you care explain to us in what ways exactly is the church currently unified that a gay bishop would cause a split up? I personally thought the church idea within itself is all about splitting up, secularizing, and forming groups that disagree with other groups, if we are about unifying, then we could have just considered our earth to be our mother church and all the living to be free members, and saved ourselves a lot of ugly concrete and brick buildings.
Bishop Robinson, meet Paula Jones "Bishop Robinson's Ambush: The Anatomy of a Smear" (Minneapolis Star-Tribune) This is essentially what it took to oppose Robinson's appointment , and an unsuccessful effort at that. I hadn't realized that the last-minute allegations of impropriety came from the same corner that went after Clinton. It's amazing what people will do in defense of their own narrow version of morality.
I have a question. Tiassa you wrote 'Jesus knows damn well what Bishop Robinson is going through', but I wasn't aware that Jesus was openly gay, or even gay for that matter, unless I misread what you wrote. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Mucker I'll let an article speak the point: - McKinley, Brian E. When Christ was Gay There's actually an even wilder, more direct accusation that was touched on once upon a time at Sciforums--I'm not even trying to find that thread--that has to do with a weird episode shortly before Jesus' arrest, and I think also has ties to apocryphal gospels, but McKinley should be enough for now. I pause here to mention that this point reconciles with instruction given me by both Lutherans and Jesuits. Or perhaps I should just take the simpler route: Jesus Christ knows what is in a man's heart; there is nothing that is hidden from God. Either way, though. Really. 'Jesus knows damn well what Bishop Robinson is going through.' It's a dramatic little assertion, isn't it ...? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not quite Mucker Actually it's not. He has theological grounds for his argument. And the religious right provides him a plethora of practical evidence. And it is aimed at the political argument, which makes a slight difference.
