+VGR: Paul Was Actually Talking About Straight People Having Gay Sex

Possibly someone should clue Mr. Robinson into the fact that all homosexual acts are heterosexuals who engage in same-sex acts.

Robinson should also offer an answer to this question: “If it’s not OK for straight people to have gay sex, and if straight people and gay people should be treated equally, then why should it be OK for gay people to have gay sex?”

Hummm… I wonder how he’d spin Rom 1:26-27: “For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 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 recompense of their error which was meet.” Sounds like he’d have to condemn himself for leaving his wife.

So, if I remove the “non’s” from your above screed, then, I’m OK? 

Course, that does leave that lascivious thing…

Gene Robinson is hilarious.  He should be on SNL.  I mean, the guy is a hoot!!

WAIT!  Did Gene just throw bisexuals under the bus?

These arguments by the Current Incumbent of New Hampshire are just repetitions of the now-discredited work by people such as the late John Boswell, who first published this stuff in the ‘80s.  Most, if not all, of Boswell’s work has been found to be what is delicately called “historical isogesis”—starting with a conclusion, then bending the facts to fit it (also seen in the “Jesus Seminar”), or more comprehensibly to laypeople such as myself, “wishful thinking”.

#6 Yes. And ironically, himself with them.

Okay, so, if straight people engage in gay sex, we can say that would definitely be wrong?

Whew!  At last! We’ve finally found a moral certainty!  So I guess moral relativism is out?

Darn!

Q:  If we swapped out Steve Martin (Ruprect) for VGR, how would you be able to tell?

A:  THE SHOES!!

...I can’t help but wonder if VGR actually buys his own bull snot (BS)? 

Like I said just a minute ago with the Planned Parenthood Ad, and it applies here too: the clever work of the devil strikes again!  Mr. Robinson needs to go back to Sunday School class and this time bring a Bible.

Greg, you are exactly right in pointing out that he undercuts his own argument.  If there was no notion of homosexual sex, then how was Paul able make the distinction between gay sex and heterosexual same-sex relationships?  If the concept of homosexuals didn’t arise until 125 years ago, then Paul was obviously saying that any same-sex relationships are wrong because he didn’t know there was a distinction between gays and heterosexuals.

I keep seeing Gene Robinson one day needing to have someone fit a cork over his dinner fork, like Michael Caine did with Steve Martin in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.

Thank-you! I needed that. I laughed ‘til the tears ran down my face!

This is hilarious.
Isn’t this what Christianity is all about?  Man sins, man needs to be saved from said sin including laying with men.  If you don’t think people sin then you don’t need Jesus and as I told my priest, we’re all wasting our time.

This Sunday we’re supposed to have a pre-convention discussion about our vision of the Episcopal church’s gifts to the world.  Maybe I should just take this to read to the group?

Once again, Vicky Gene’s puts forth his Pretzel Gospel.

Mike,

I think the problem with VGR’s argument - as it always has been - is that Paul wasn’t talking about what motivates someone to engage in homosexual behavior, but the fact that it is a sin to engage in it at all.

In other words, Paul wasn’t slicing and dicing notions of “people born affectionally oriented to people of the same sex,” not because he didn’t know about them; he was simply stating the kind of sexual behavior that was off-limits to everyone, irrespective of “orientation.”

Aside from the fact that it’s absurd on its face to claim that Paul wasn’t aware of such a thing as homosexual orientation, I’d say what undercuts VGR’s argument even more is the idea that straight people would have gay sex:

If people are what they do, then how can you call someone straight when they engage in homosexual behavior? Or more to the point, What about the chaste person who claims to be attracted only to the same sex? If he doesn’t ever engage in that behavior, is he truly gay?

But if people are NOT what they do - in other words, if we’re going to differentiate people not by what color skin they have, or what their arms and legs can and cannot do - then logically we have to start making the same accommodations in the area of civil rights to people who in their minds are more attracted to group sex, or sex with animals, or even sex with children… whether they actually engage in that behavior or not.

And if we start doing that, then why should we limit civil-right accommodations to matters of sexual attraction? Why should sexual attraction get special treatment that’s not accorded to, say, one’s preference for how one’s steak is cooked? Or one’s preference for what kind of car one drives?

This is the lie - the profound incoherence - of drawing a box around people with statistically abnormal sexual attraction, and claiming that their differences on matters of sex deserve the kind of protection we accord to people on matters of race and physical disability.

Is he saying that my Baptismal Covenant does not empower me, as a straight person, to full inclusion in the ministrations of ANY bath house?  Or that my baptism into this hierarchical church doesn’t entitle me to ALL orders of participation in a B&D or S&M club?

His fear based and unaffirming theology astounds me!

Like, really???  Seriously???  Uhhhhhh…okay???  Wow…I’m underwhelmed.  What tepid bunk the Simple Country Bishop churns out.

Timothy,

Yeah, it’s like he’s saying you’re not allowed to change. Like there’s no such thing as, oh I don’t know… men who married women and had children, then left their wife for their gay lover.

Festivus (#3)

Hummm… I wonder how he’d spin Rom 1:26-27?

Actually Festivus, I’ve run in to that one before. in fact, it’s likely the spin that informed VGR’s error here as well. You see, it’s a commonly mistranslated text. ” that which is against nature” is the key. It isn’t saying that unnatural acts are sinful… it’s saying that for a man to go against his nature is sinful. So in reality it’s saying that it would be sinful for a gay man NOT to have homosexual relations.

I’ve actually had people attempt to defend this interpretation with great….hmmm… “energy.”

VGR’s error here is one that rocks the very core of our faith. Ask him to complete the following sentence: “Man is by nature _______”

Is any answer but “sinful” acceptable? Does this position not boil down to a literal justification for sin?

So in his twisted little mind, those years he was married and sleeping with his wife—he was living in sin!

Millstones.

#22
There is a difference between a statement of fact and a justification of that fact.  To say that man is by nature sinful is merely an acknowledgement of the true state of affairs with respect to humankind. 

On the other hand, to justify is to declare the righteousness of a thing.  We can state the fact of man’s sinful nature without at the same time declaring that nature to be morally righteous. (It’s not).

So…this scriptural teaching really only applies to prison populations. How convenient!

Not defending VGR’s nonsense, but in most ancient Gentile cultures straight men DID have homosexual affairs, and this was not viewed as being something out of the ordinary.
Men who engaged in sexual relations with boys, eunuchs, or other men were viewed as being normal, provided they played the masculine role in such an exchange; on the other hand, men or boys who permitted themselves to be sodomized were labelled as homos.
The Greeks in particular were notorious for this, and several of the Greek philosophers considered homosexual relationships to be a purer form of “love” than relationships betwen man and women.

As a Greek American, I take issue with the idea that somehow understanding sexual orientation is new, about 125 years old?  Does he really think that Greeks didn’t know that was going on?  What about Sparta and Lesbinos?  The Greeks make VGR look like an amateur.  It’s all about spinning the Bible and history to say what they want it to, regardless of the facts. And the dwindling numbers of people in the pews show that they’re not fooling everyone.

Please see Peter Ould’s post “Sexuality and Slavery - Part 5” via the blogroll for an erudite explanation of why VGR is dead wrong.

exspice,

To paraphrase a quote from a long-gone blog, “When VGR’s ancestors were still painting themselves blue, the Greeks had been homosexuals for centuries.”

WOW!  I would have never really known what the Holy Spirit was saying if we didn’t have some one like VGR in the apostolic succession to give us the valid interpretation.  Now we can know. Guess those Baptist redneck fundies will just have to guess and live in darkness and ignorance.

It would of course be nice if homosexual advocates had some objective method of identifying ‘natural homoesexuals.’  At least something besides “He is homosexual because he says he is.”  Self-serving statements do not an ontology define.  And what are we to make of bi-sexuality?  Is it natural for some people to desire sex with either gender?  How would we identify that condition?  Would they fall under the condemnation of ‘unnatural’ if they restrcited themselves to only one gender?  In the end this looks like a theoretical set that is in fact empty.  Anyone could claim exemption by defining his nature as an exception to the condemnation.

carl

It seems to me that being gay is quite a lot like being an alcoholic. In all both cases the person suffers from a disordered instinct—the alcoholic has an inherent and abnormal tendency toward the misuse of alcohol, and the homosexual has a disordered sexual instinct.
Are such urges inborn? In most cases the answer is yes, but that doesn’t make actual drunkenness or homosexual activity any less sinful. In either case, the person must rise above his disorder, and those that manage to do so should be applauded, not condemned.
It is just as wrong to condemn a celibate gay person for their attraction to members of the same sex as it is to condemn a recovering alcoholic for being unable to drink in moderation…
...and, those people who do condemn sober alcoholics and chaste gays merely because of their urges commit a greater sin than if they went out and committed sins of sodomy or drunkenness themselves.

Expice, read Plato.

Huh…gays only started to appear 125 years ago? He seems to be undercutting a central premise of the gay lobby: Gays have been around since the beginning of time and ignorant/bad heterosexuals have persecuted them.

“Self-serving statements do not an ontology define.  And what are we to make of bi-sexuality?  Is it natural for some people to desire sex with either gender?”

It’s called LUST, and it’s completely natural, just like anger, envy,avarice, etc.

What’s NOT natural is for a person to be ONLY attracted to members of the same sex. These people have a disordered sexual instinct. Bisexuals, on the other hand, are simply not particular about who they happen to sin with.

I have never in my entire life heard or read such unadulterated toro poo-poo.  This guy must think we are all stupid and uneducated.  I guess into every profession a few incompetent and ruthless people will come but he is beyond belief.  But then the whole priesthood in TEC has become a safe haven for these type of people.  Just think if we got them all on the same boat and towed it out to sea some radical terrorist group could use it as target practice to rid the earth of infidels. 

Father forgive me for I have flamed out against non-believers.

Huh…gays only started to appear 125 years ago? He seems to be undercutting a central premise of the gay lobby: Gays have been around since the beginning of time and ignorant/bad heterosexuals have persecuted them.

Yeah, that’s a hoot, isn’t it?
Gays have always been around, but genuine homosexuals- people who aren’t able to form normal bisexual relationships-  were referred to as sodomites or effeminates in ancient times, whereas the men who sodomized them (sometimes for money, and sometimes as part of pagan religious rituals) often had female partners as well, and were seen as regular manly men in all but Judaic culture, which rightly condemned such activity as unbefitting a people who serve a Holy God.

TheBeat:  I’m one of those “ignorant/bad heterosexuals,” and I don’t persecute homosexuals.  Just because we speak out against what the Bible clearly calls sinful behavior, that doesn’t qualify as persecution…..even though you may think otherwise.  “Love the sinner and hate the sin” is the byword here.

Cennyd, you’re right of course (and I think that TheBeat was being ironic) but it seems that “love the sinner but hate the sin” is a forgotten maxim these days.
It seems that the church has forgotten that Jesus came to save sinners, and free them from their sins - most churches today are either Saint’s Clubs or Sin Pits. Very few are Hospitals for Recovering Sinners, Saved by Grace.

So VGR was saying that Paul was saying that heterosexuals shouldn’t act like homosexuals because they would be doing something against who they really are, and it’s not a Good Thing to deny yourself anything about your True Self, because it’s all about being true to You.  Because, see, actually, there were homosexuals living as a secret underground culture that no one knew about, posing as heterosexuals but getting caught having homosexual sex and Paul, who couldn’t know anything about innate homosexual nature didn’t want people acting like this thing that hadn’t been discovered yet.  As I understand his statement.

Sorry DaveW (#24), I should have been clearer. I didn’t mean “justification” in the theological sense.

What I meant was that to believe that it’s a sin for “man to go against his nature” combined with the simply truth that man is, by nature, sinful… adds up to “for a man NOT to sin (which is his nature) is the real sin”

Ignoring the explicit circular error inherent in that notion, it’s still a license to sin.

Step back a minute folks and understand exactly what VGR is doing here.  He knows quite well that in order for the Church to bless homosexual couplings, there are certain Scripture passages which must be neutralized.  There are a few approaches that one can take to neutralize the Scriptures, and the specific response one takes will depend on how one wants to be perceived.

If you want to be perceived as a “Bible believer”, then you can’t just say something like “well, the Bible was wrong on this.”  So what you need to do instead is create the illusion that Scripture is not clear on the point.  Note that VGR does NOT need to convince anyone that he is right in his interpretation, nor is that necessarily his goal.  Rather his goal is to create the illusion that Scripture is not clear.

Thus when clued-out traditional Episcopalians get upset about TEC’s sexual agenda, they can be told “well, yes, we understand that you are uncomfortable with it.  But, you know, the Bible really is not clear on this.  Here, read this - as you can see some believe that Paul wasn’t actually referring to this at all, but to something different.  So we can’t be sure who is right, but it certainly can’t be a church-dividing issue, right?  So don’t worry and keep those pledge checks coming.”

This is what VGR is doing.  Mock him if you will, think of him as a buffoon for offering such a nonsensical explanation.  But what he is doing is very strategic and very clever.

It’s hard to show respect for our “Worthy Opponents” when they show themselves so… well, unworthy of it.  Greg was hilariously on target with his spoof, and with his more serious #18.

Kevin Babb (#7) is correct that this nonsensical argument goes back to gay advocate John Boswell, who was rightly taken to task for it by evangelical Methodist NT scholar Richard Hays way back in the mid 1980s.  And Pittsburgh Seminary’s marvelous Robert Gagnon has added further documentation driving home the refutation in his big book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (2001, 520 pages), that just demolishes this now disproven argument.  Yet VGR and his “progressive” ilk keep trotting out this lame, discredited argument.  Presumably because it has enough superficial plausibility to fool lots of ordinary folks who are predisposed to want to believe it.

Thanks also to Bill in Ottawa (#28) and carl (#31) for thier observations.  Right on.

David Handy+

It may be an attempt at strategy, but it shouldn’t be considered “clever” by anyone with at least a 7th grade education.  Even if you can’t sort out and name all the logical fallacies, the simple “smell test” will rat him out.

Those it does satisfy, are the people who want to believe it with all their heart as rationalization from the beginning, reason be damned.

Cindy T, after reading your post, this came to mind….

“One day I’ll wish upon a star,
And wind up where the clouds are far,
Behind me.

And troubles melt like lemon drops,
Way above the chimney tops,
That’s where you’ll
Find me.”

OK, jamesw (#43).

I grant your point.  VGR’s ploy has a certain tactical usefulness as propaganda, that’s why he uses it, even though his argument was disproven by scholars years over 20 years ago.

Alas, there are much more important voices in the Church that are sowing seeds of doubt about the clarity and relevance of the Scriptural condemnation of homosexual behavior, who aren’t so easily dismissed.  And the most notable of them is probably ++Rowan Williams himself.  Twenty years ago, in The Body’s Grace, (1989) he asserted (without even attempting to argue the case for it) that the biblical teaching about homosexuality was “unclear.”

That’s also nonsense and a smoke screen, of course.  But it’s the same old tactic.  Alas, the trouble is that when a lie (or false propaganda) is repeated often enough, people do tend to start believing it.

David Handy+

If there were no homosexuals before 1885 (125 years ago) and if homosexuals are “born gay”, what happened in 1884 that altered the human gene pool? Enquiring minds want to know.

As something of a student of ancient history, I am quite certain that there were men who were sexually attracted to other men and had sex with other men and women who were sexually attracted to other women and had sex with othe women. And some of them actually formed “committed same sex relationships”, although such behavior was regarded as immoral by ancient Greeks and Romans, not to mention Jews.

I seem to recall that, incredibly enough, Rowan Williams himself once used this ridiculous ahistorical interpretation of St. Paul and claimed that the concept of homosexuality was unknown at that time.  I remember being stunned that such a well-educated person had seemingly never read Plato, Sappho, and a number of other greats of the ancient world. Of course, that was surely not the case: he was just re-ordering the history of ideas as he wished and hoping other people hadn’t read too much.

I think that the Gay Gene (the only one that I know of) ought to debate Rob Gagnon on this. Seriously.

Bring some popcorn. Or some knitting.

I say bring John McCain into the debate.

I’ve heard it said that this man is a competent, intelligent, and faithful bishop who just happens to be a practicing homosexual.

Heh-heh. This statement suggests that he’s a fool.

Obfuscation and becoming the new sociological, anthropological, theological, exegetical expert on the block are all the left has remaining in its arsenal excepting ad hominem and oh, the woe is me if you don’t accept what I’m pronouncing attitude.

This is the L O N G row of dominoes the left works with.  One tile set into motion has the effect of knocking down a whole bunch of others whether or not that was the original intent.  To come to the left’s standpoint, bunches of dominoes have to fall.  Baby out with the bath water and all that.  These folks have to know at least deep down they are messing with the written revelation of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  They, Bp. Robinson now a prime example, are A-Scripturalists (the equivalent of deconstructionists - they owe a whole lot to Jacques Derrida), if I may coin a phrase.

jamesw, Bishop Robinson is only clever by half.

sub

I come late to this thread, but my immediate reaction to this extraordinary misinterpretation is “That old chestnut!”

As long ago as 1997, in an article used by Gagnon, I pointed out among other things that the ancient pagan world certainly possessed the concept of a same-sex orientation, if only because there was speculation about its origin, whether genetic or environmental. See the latest revised and expanded edition.

#50

I think that the Gay Gene (the only one that I know of) ought to debate Rob Gagnon on this. Seriously.

Bring some popcorn. Or some knitting.

Robinson already backed out of a discussion with Al Mohler, so I’d guess a full on debate with Gagnon would be out of the question. He knows his position is indefensible and is understandably unwilling to do anything other than rattle off his talking points whenever he can do so without being challenged.

Rob,
Umm…  while a great idea ! a debate between Rob Gagnon and VGR+? That would not be pretty !!  VGR+ would be “sliced and diced” so to speak.

At the recent Mere Anglicanism conference in Charleston,SC,  Dr. Rob Gagnon was one of the speakers. He said he used to debate people on that side of the issue.  He said no one has wanted to debate him in the last five years.  Perhaps they are tired of looking like fools when they debate someone who really understands the scriptures and the historical background ?  At one debate, Dr Gagnon was the second speaker. After his presentation, the first speaker still had the gaul to say I still believe that the ancient world just did not know of committed homosexual relationships. AFTER Gagnon has just shredded the notion complete with evidence from scripture and   and other ancient writers.

Dr. Gagnon’s talk really opened my mind to what the scriptures and the ancient world knew of same sex acts.  For a lot more info- Dr Gagnon’s website: robgagnon.net

I remember being stunned that such a well-educated person had seemingly never read Plato, Sappho, and a number of other greats of the ancient world.

As long ago as 1997, in an article used by Gagnon, I pointed out among other things that the ancient pagan world certainly possessed the concept of a same-sex orientation, if only because there was speculation about its origin, whether genetic or environmental. See the latest revised and expanded edition.

Obviously there is a great failure among some to read authors ancient or modern.

But then, Plato, Sappho, a number of other greats of the ancient world and Gagnon are not on the approved reading list for The Listening Process. Of course, reading such might challenge the reader to actually think, if one were capable of such. It’s much easier to check one’s brain in at the door and mouth the latest “talking points” from “Integrity[sic]”.

(It is my impression that British university education isn’t what it was 100 years ago, when graduates had widely read ancient authors in the original Greek and Latin.)

Erotes, attributed by some to Lucian, is a clearer picture of classical ideas of sexuality then even Plato.  The entire work can be found online easily, but some quick quotes:

They did not enjoy this happy mean for which I congratulate you, and which lets you collect double pay, since you, sleepless shepherd, ‘First guard the cattle, and then the sheep.’ The first of these gentlemen found his delight in boys, and compared feminine Aphrodite to the pit of doom; the second, unstained by male love, was crazy about women.

I discerned in the arrangements of each household the proof of their tastes. The Athenian was surrounded by beautiful boys…  Charícles, in comparison, was surrounded by a veritable orchestra of female dancers and musicians, and his house was filled with women as if at a feast of Demeter… There you had, as I have said, clear indications of their respective inclinations.

It also includes a part where one person promotes a chaste, philosophic love of boys, reminicent of the more idealistic interpetations of Plato, yet his friend rebukes him as pretentions and goes about describing how to seduce a boy.

goldndog you are right..I was being ironic.

I am amazed that VGR has taken this position. Does this represent a shift in his thinking? Has anyone from the gay lobby corrected him?

...homosexual sexual orientation is a notion that’s only about 125 years old,

and

It never occurred to anyone in ancient times that a certain minority of us would be born being affectionally oriented to people of the same sex.

You know… he may well have made some (inadvertently) serious points here. Did he really say that “homosexual sexual orientation” is merely “a notion”, and a new one at that: one that had never even occurred to the writers inspired by God?

And doesn’t he recognize that there’s a vast difference between “homosexual sexual orientation”, which has to do with physical sexual activity, and “being affectionally oriented to people of the same sex”? The latter could just as easily describe most (heterosexual) football fans, who enjoy sharing together in the thrill of winning the Super Bowl and who are primarily male.

For someone we’re told is reasonably intelligent, it’s a pretty sloppy use of language…

You know, all the hullabaloo over gay bishops, women bishops, etc, etc, ad nauseum could have been avoided, if the Church had continued to follow Paul’s directive that Bishops and Deacons (and presumably elders as well) should be HUSBANDS of one WIFE, ruling their children and their own houses well, and had rememebered that Jesus’s endorsement of becoming “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” was given only for “he who is able to receive it” and was not an endorsement of mandatory celibacy for all religious persons.

“affectionally oriented to people of the same sex”
this is the phrase that concerns me the most.  Once again, the parse is on.  Since I am affectionally oriented” to people of both genders - what does that make me?  Of course, to be “affectionally oriented” means to me that I love both men and women - it doesn’t mean that I am either lesbian or bi - far from it.  Every time I think I’ve heard the ultimate in “Episcospeak” they come up with one more fudgy phrase.  Please VGR the word is “homeosexual” - you should know that better than anyone.  BTW - VGR lives in Weare, NH.  Ques:  how do we know the toothbrush was invented in Weare?  Ans:  because if it had been invented anywhere else, it would have been the teethbrush!

I keep returning to “God’s creative intent”.  Anything other than God’s intent & desire is then by definition sin.  God does not create people homosexual anymore than He creates people with missing legs or arms, blindness, holes in their heart…or any other malady.  They are a result of man’s disobedience and fallen nature.  Our part of the Baptismal Covenant requires us to stop and turn around from our sinful nature & desires and to walk in a new life in accordance with God’s creative intent and desire.

The Devil is in the details I guess.  Classic deconstructionism?

Bishop VGR is twisting Holy Scripture and distruction by the Almighty could follow!
2 Peter 3:14-18 (NKJV)
14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;
15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked;
18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.

[1]
[1] The New King James Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1982

“There is a broad, ugly ditch of thinking that I cannot jump across” (With apologies to Gotthold Lessing).

Did you see Gene Robinson on the Rachel Maddow show right after the Prayer Breakfast?  He railed against those who sponsor the Prayer Breakfast, going red in the face and showing his teeth in anger as he blamed conservative Christians for the attitude against homosexuality in Uganda and for the “Kill the Gays” bill, as Maddow always terms the pending legislation in Uganda. (This faction is actually claiming that Uganda would have had no such attitude if it were not for intrusions of American Christians into that country in recent years.  This is just about as big a whopper as the one about how the concept of homosexuality is only a little over a hundred years old!!) Robinson had come to this MSNBC program from his alternative prayer breakfast and I understood him to say that he hopes to help organize an annual event to replace the longstanding Prayer Breakfast in the future so that the nation’s leaders won’t have to associate with conservative bigots. This really was a very frightening, though ridiculous, program.

”...he blamed conservative Christians for the attitude against homosexuality in Uganda…

And again:  not a single word about the homosexuals murdered in the Islamic world.  This fact alone gives the lie to hais stand against the Ugandans.

I am coming to think that teo cares about the Ugandan situation only to the extent that it is a handy club with which to beat conservatives.

Bp. Robinson, PB Jefferts Schori, and the rest of the revisionist cabal have had their volume pegged at 11 since the beginning of the revisionist revolution.  Their talking points center on incessant talking to the exclusion of all else, including Scripture, tradition, reason, opposing views, et cetera.  They engage only when they can claim center stage, manhandle the microphone, spread confusion, promote their false gospels, lie through their teeth.  They have never acted like any Christian people anywhere at any time have acted.

They are adversaries of Christ.  Wolves among Christ’s sheep.  Apparently, they desire that their father be the father of lies.

In Greek comedies, homosexual men are the butt of many an offensive joke. Theylose something in English translation since the early translators were so prudish and the later translators are politically correct.

Perhaps the Gay Gene would have more success going to Saudi Arabia to tell Muslims what the Koran says about homosexual practice. Let’s start a fund to send him there on a mission trip.

VGR’s notion is specifically refuted in this article by Professor Gagnon.  Scroll down to the fifth point under Section 3 (i.e. end of page 3, beginning of page 4 in the document).