Total visitors right now: 149

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Gene Robinson: “It is a sin to treat me this way”

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 • 8:38 am



I can’t decide if Gene Robinson should be made an honorary member of Herman’s Hermits (second verse same as the first) or just be named Crybaby of the Decade.  Sure does a lot of book tours for someone who wants to just be a simple country bishop.  Can’t you just hear the heavy sigh?

Robinson is in London to promote his new book, In The Eye of the Storm. It is a spiritual memoir aimed, he says, at showing that he is more than “a one issue guy”.

The last of its five sections, however, sets a course for the Lambeth Conference and beyond. It is, in one way, Robinson having his say, even though he’s not going to be at the event itself.

Or, at least not at the gatherings of the bishops. “I’m going to be there, in the market place,” he says, “making myself available to anyone who wants to talk.”

He won’t, as many Anglicans seem to hope, be allowing the whole issue to go away. It is in this refusal to be silent that I finally begin to see in this otherwise gentle and genial prelate that flash of steely resolve that drives all implacable dissenters forward.

“Jesus never says anything about homosexuality,” he says, the light tone in his nasal voice suddenly darkening, “but he says a lot about treating every person with dignity and respect. All the biblical appeals for a particular attitude to homosexuality can never quote Jesus.”

What, though, of Old Testament condemnations of “men who lay with men”?

“The Church isn’t the same yesterday, today and tomorrow,” he says.

“Only God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Church has always been changing. The Holy Spirit is leading us into truth. And I believe we have learnt that about people of colour, about women, about those who are disabled and now about lesbian and gay people.”

He would, I can see, be impressive in a pulpit. Perhaps it was his oratory that caused the Anglican electors of New Hampshire to vote decisively for him in 2003, and his fellow American bishops to give him their backing.

But, whatever their motives, their decision has had the effect of bringing to a head Anglicanism’s muddled attitude to sexuality.

“As Anglicans we agree about so many things,” Robinson concedes. “We are not arguing over the divinity of Christ, the Trinity or the Resurrection. We are arguing about a non-essential thing.”

We are not arguing over the divinity of Christ, the Trinity or the Resurrection.  Wow!  Talk about being in denial.
The entire article can be read here.


91 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

I was thinking that perhaps Bishop Robinson and Pastor Wright should just go on tour together.

bb

[1] Posted by BabyBlue on 04-29-2008 at 08:57 AM • top

Er, we certainly do not have the same definition of sin, or of the authority of the Scriptures (and the Church.)

[2] Posted by jedinovice on 04-29-2008 at 08:59 AM • top

“Jesus never says anything about homosexuality”

Good lord, deliver me from this idiocy.

Calm blue ocean… calm blue ocean… calm blue ocean…

Jesus never said anything about child porn or meth use either, bishop. Does that mean the church must bless them and develop liturgies for them?

Calm blue ocean… calm blue ocean… calm blue ocean…

[3] Posted by Greg Griffith on 04-29-2008 at 09:03 AM • top

Only God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Church has always been changing.

Notice that a) he can’t quote Hebrews 13 correctly; and b) he does not argue whether change in the church is a good thing: he just implicitly assumes it.

As for the last two sentences of his quoted here: it would be hard to find a statement with which I disagree more.
Only God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Church has always been changing.

[4] Posted by Boring Bloke on 04-29-2008 at 09:04 AM • top

You are correct, Boring Bloke. 

Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them.

[5] Posted by JackieB on 04-29-2008 at 09:10 AM • top

>Jesus never said anything about child porn or meth use either, bishop. Does that mean the church must bless them and develop liturgies for them?

If it further the gay agenda, for the likes of the super-liberals, sure!

Breaking up a Church hasn’t stopped the liberals, nor considerations of free speech, no actual scientific research.  As far as child porn goes, only look towards the Man-Boy alliance.  Certainly devestation has already been shown to be a price the Liberals are happy to play for their pan-sexual agenda.

[6] Posted by jedinovice on 04-29-2008 at 09:19 AM • top

“As Anglicans we agree about so many things,” Robinson concedes. “We are not arguing over the divinity of Christ, the Trinity or the Resurrection...”

Gene?  We are arguing over those things.  Didn’t you say that you don’t believe the Creeds, Gene?

[7] Posted by st. anonymous on 04-29-2008 at 09:21 AM • top

“We are not arguing over the divinity of Christ, the Trinity or the Resurrection. We are arguing about a non-essential thing.”
If this is a “non-essential thing” then why are you willing to split the Church over it?  You obviously do not believe that it is “non-essential” or you would not be forcing your views on everyone who will listen to you and you would not have accepted ordination after you heard that it would cause schism.

He may be impressive in the pulpit but so was Arius and Marcion and so is Jeremiah Wright.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

[8] Posted by Philip Snyder on 04-29-2008 at 09:22 AM • top

We are not arguing over the divinity of Christ, the Trinity or the Resurrection.

Aren’t we? We have priests announcing on Easter morning that the Resurrection never occurred. TEC seems to have become unitarian with an absolute minimalist concept of Christ - as regards the PB anyway. We’re just arguing about little things….

[9] Posted by oscewicee on 04-29-2008 at 09:22 AM • top

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me

Ooops, not enough, need a little more: 

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me

What, not nauseous yet?  Ok: 

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me  

And on, and on…

[10] Posted by Passing By on 04-29-2008 at 09:23 AM • top

Actually, +Gene should be treated with dignity and respect.  Where we differ is that Gene leaves off the accountability and repentance part of Jesus’ treatment of us.

[11] Posted by Daniel on 04-29-2008 at 09:40 AM • top

Wow ... an article of quotes ... Peter Stanford seems to do nothing but add warm fuzzy descriptors in a rambling postmodern diatribe of feeling ... however the one gem in this dripping pity-me ploy was ‘I have a lot of sympathy for Archbishop Williams.’

He is that conceited? I bet ++Williams gives doesn’t give a hoot if +Robinson sympathizes or not. There are plenty of people who do not have my sympathy, worse yet my respect, I’ve noted it does not seem to effect them in the slightest (well, maybe one, but there serious issues of needing the fear of God not man in that one).

Then Gene pulls out the ultimate post-modernist crime, ‘I was hurt,’ not ‘this is wrong because,’ but ‘you hurt me.’ Ugh, I wonder what this generation will do when life really gets rough and answers are needed that’s deeper than sentimentality?

[12] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 04-29-2008 at 09:42 AM • top

I’ve never actually seen a textbook case of pathological narcissism in my life but good grief, this might just be my first.  Like you said Greg #3, silence isn’t license for celebration.
Ohh, that the Lord would baptize the TEC rank and file with Common Sense….
God’s Peace,
Andy

[13] Posted by aterry on 04-29-2008 at 09:48 AM • top

I’ve had just about enough of Gene’s whining, moaning, and straw-manning.  Is this really the best the homosexual-sympathetic Loon Left can do as a spokesperson for their position?  If so, the intellectual vaccuum of the movement remains striking.
Let’s just call a spade what it is: a spade.  Gene Robinson is a selfish, snivelling, alcoholic, bi-sexual divorcee’ with no theological or biblical force behind his leadership or his message.  Does anyone in TEC realize that they have allowed this man to devastate a once great and proud religious theological tradition?

Shameful.

-Jim+

[14] Posted by FrJim on 04-29-2008 at 09:50 AM • top

He is more than “a one issue guy”.

True that.  There is also his support for abortion and Planned Parenthoood (Jesus having never said anything about killing babies).

Is “Jesus never said anything about X” the stupidest theological comment anyone could possibly make?  There should be a canon that removes any Bishop from his post if he ever says something that stupid.

[15] Posted by DietofWorms on 04-29-2008 at 10:06 AM • top

I have a former brother-in-law (an Episcopal priest) who chose to divorce his wife and 3 kids and move with his gay lover to San Fransico 15 years ago.  So none of this is new to me.

People make sinful choices.  Most of the time these choices hurt other people. 

In this case, as the duly-appointed representative of “all that is gay in the Epicopal church” Gene is in the spotlight.  By his own choosing. 

So, Gene, no offense, but SHUT THE HECK UP!! You knew darn well what you were in for when you signed up for this.  Why on earth do you think you have a book tour?  If you hadn’t made this choice no one would give a rats butt about anything you have to say.  DUH.

I pray that a miracle would happen in your life that shows you the true nature of God - that despite the sin in your life God loves you and is your Father and wants you to be free of the bonds of alcholism and homosexuality.  I pray that today you will repent and turn from your sin and that you would hand these addictions over to Jesus.  Amen.

[16] Posted by B. Hunter on 04-29-2008 at 10:07 AM • top

Father Jim
The great and proud theological tradition once observed by TEC was devastated long before Gene Robinson became a bishop.  He was able to become a bishop precisely because that tradition had already been trashed.  Within the context of what TEC has become, Gene Robinson is a right honorable and worthy representative.

[17] Posted by DaveG on 04-29-2008 at 10:09 AM • top

It seems that for Gene, sin is in the eye of the beholder.  All hail Gene, the ultimate authority of what is sin!

[18] Posted by Harry Edmon on 04-29-2008 at 10:10 AM • top

Sigh. He continues to bait us. On one point, at least, he’s quite right. Jesus treated the woman at the well with dignity and respect. Furthermore, I don’t recall that Jesus ever called anyone derogatory names. We need to be very careful.

1. One has to assume that he knows what Scripture and Tradition say about the matter.
2. It seems that he has made a series of personal choices. A Free Will Episcopalian might observe that’s his right as a human being. One of the ancient laws (albeit not from God) is, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.” It appears that he has chosen to follow that law, at least in some aspects of his life.
3. From a position of authority, he’s teaching others a doctrine that’s contrary to Scripture and Tradition. Furthermore, this is a doctrine that Scripture and Tradition indicate would interfere with salvation. Whether these teachings are heretical, is a determination to be made by others at a higher pay grade.
4. He resists the idea that he might be wrong, that he might have received a false revelation, but he does have the support of some other bishops.

If he’s so certain about what he says, let him debate Rob Gagnon. Afterwards, he can repent, recant, resign and retire.

[19] Posted by Ralph on 04-29-2008 at 10:26 AM • top

Want more? I linked to the NPR interview with Terri Gross.
It’s a very fine whine. It’s egolicious!

[20] Posted by PollyPrim on 04-29-2008 at 10:29 AM • top

>Furthermore, I don’t recall that Jesus ever called anyone derogatory names.

“You brood of vipers!”
“Hypocrites.”
“Whitewashed tombs.”
“Sons of Satan.”

Jesus was extremely harsh on those who were in religious authority who led God’s children astray.  Sure, it helped cost him his life, mind you.

[21] Posted by jedinovice on 04-29-2008 at 10:31 AM • top

It’s the “Help, help!  I’m being oppressed!” Tour!

[22] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 04-29-2008 at 10:32 AM • top

It’s the violence inherent in the system.

[23] Posted by Harry Edmon on 04-29-2008 at 10:33 AM • top

By the way, it’s “repressed”, not “oppressed”.

[24] Posted by Harry Edmon on 04-29-2008 at 10:35 AM • top

Where is the Standing Committee of New Hampshire in all of this?  The I-won’t-be-the-gay-bishop-I’m-just-a-simple-country-bishop seems to ALWAYS be on a book tour or speaking tour or in England.  How many Sundays is he available for actual episcopal ministry?  Shouldn’t the people who elected him to be their bishop be reining him in a bit?  Remember the argument for consents: “the good people of NH want him, and nothing is being forced on the rest of the Church, so who can complain?”

[25] Posted by Connecticutian on 04-29-2008 at 10:41 AM • top

It’s a sin to ignore the clear teaching of Scripture on homosexuality.  It’s a worse sin to encourage it.  Is it the worst sin to bless it?  God decides.

However the word pictures he had Paul draw in Romans 1 are very explicit: do NOT lie with a man as with a woman.
Not even if he’s a June Bride or allegedly a ‘bishop’ or even should the whole world run after his errors and the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC’s errors.  Not even if the ABC endorses them in writing and by refusal to act against them.

[26] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 04-29-2008 at 10:54 AM • top

“‘Jesus never says anything about homosexuality,’ he says, the light tone in his nasal voice suddenly darkening,...‘All the biblical appeals for a particular attitude to homosexuality can never quote Jesus.’”

Oh? 

Check out Matt 15:19 (“For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.”) and Mark 7:21 - passages in which Jesus preaches against porneia - which includes SS behavior.  Of course, this is in the context of his affirmation of biblical marriage.

“We are arguing about a non-essential thing.”

Heh.  I suspect that it is hardly a “non-essential thing” for VGR and his reappraising revolutionaries.  They do not seem willing to consider the possibility of turning around the revolution.  Instead, they seem willing to sue, lie about the Bible, disrupt mission, break fellowship, divide churches, disrupt Lambeth,... well, you get the point.

wink 

So - if he is unable to be honest about how important and essential the revolution is to him, then what else…

[27] Posted by tired on 04-29-2008 at 10:55 AM • top

So there IS such a thing as sin after all!  I was beginning to think that the only sin left was self-denial.

[28] Posted by DaveW on 04-29-2008 at 10:59 AM • top

>I suspect that it is hardly a “non-essential thing” for VGR and his reappraising revolutionaries.

No. VGR is right. It’s not an essential issue. it’s not even an important issue.  To the TEc, and the political liberals who have taken over the ‘Church’ nothing of historic Christianity is important.  It’s all repressive superstitious rubbish.

What is important is doing away with it all in favour of inclusiveness and global action on Climate Change.  Oh, and voting for the democrats/New Labour.  And abortion.  Now that’s important!

[29] Posted by jedinovice on 04-29-2008 at 11:05 AM • top

“Tired” (#27), as Bp Skip Adams (CNY) might tell you - cf the flat earth thread - science has helped us to see the light.  Science now tells us that we ought not constrain our sexual desires, for that would be repression, and would not be loving ourselves.  Therefore, science teaches the theologian that it is this very repression of sexual impulses that is sinful, and thus the definition of “sexual immorality” as it was meant by that Nazarene guru.

(Of course, I do not believe any of what I just wrote.  It’s just satire.  Or parody.  Or tragedy.)

[30] Posted by Connecticutian on 04-29-2008 at 11:05 AM • top

I’ve always found the whitwashed tombs intriguing from a term of denigration point of view.  Turns out that it was not uncommon for residents of the area to take refuge in the many caves in the area during inclement weather.  However, some caves were used as tombs.  To enable the avoidance of such tomb caves and ritual impurity prohibiting participation in the feasts and Temple services, such cave tombs were white-washed on the exterior to allow one to not choose a contaminated and contaminating place to weather the weather.

I do not think that to an observant Pharisee or Sadducee you get much more vile an epitaph than “white washed tomb” with its clear meanings of defiled and contaminating by mere existence.  Thus such an individual in their person was unsanctifiable, permanently and physically in the wrong and corruptive of others by mere presence.  Jesus clearly did not graduate from the Dale Carnegie school of relationship.  Nor did His Father.  “Ye shall be holy for I am holy.”

Truth telling by Jesus would undoubtedly get him inhibited and/or deposed and/or declared out-of-communion with ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC for saying it.  But after GC2009, maybe the stocks? or the gibbet, again?

[31] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 04-29-2008 at 11:13 AM • top

Hey Gene -
Let’s play the quiet game - you start.

[32] Posted by Already left on 04-29-2008 at 11:21 AM • top

[29] With respect, we may be talking about different things.  It is essential to the revolutionaries that the AC have a gay bishop.  And I agree with you that to them, the substance of historic Christianity is unimportant. 

However, the credibility and cachet the history provides, now that may be a different topic…

wink

[33] Posted by tired on 04-29-2008 at 11:26 AM • top

“tired” has it absolutely right—Jesus did speak against homosexuality in Matthew 15:19.  “Porneia” means any sexual activity outside of the bonds of marriage, including homosexual activity.  So many people do not know this—we need to get the word out!

[34] Posted by Hindustaaniwalla Hatterr on 04-29-2008 at 12:10 PM • top

“The Church isn’t the same yesterday, today and tomorrow,” [Robinson] says.

But God Incarnate is <a target=“_blank”>the same yesterday today and forever</a> and the Bible is the Word of God.  Or at least it was until Robbie decided that he didn’t want to feel guilty anymore about what he did in his off-hours and took it upon himself to decide what sins Christ died for.

[35] Posted by Christopher Johnson on 04-29-2008 at 12:21 PM • top

I agree with all who say this is just a symtom of what TEC has become. Also, to quote “And I believe we have learnt that about people of colour, about women, about those who are disabled and now about lesbian and gay people.” See how they try to tie unrelated things together to justify their stance? People of color… you have no control over this… being a woman… you have no control over this… being disabled… you have no control over this… being lesbian or gay… a concious and willful choice.

[36] Posted by Gordy on 04-29-2008 at 12:28 PM • top

“And I believe we have learnt that about people of colour, about women, about those who are disabled and now about lesbian and gay people.”

...learnt?

Did he actually do “British-Speak”, or did the “Telegraph” writer translate?

[37] Posted by leonL on 04-29-2008 at 12:57 PM • top

leonL - perhaps he picked up “British-Speak” whilst he was there.  :>)

[38] Posted by CarolynP on 04-29-2008 at 01:25 PM • top

Gene… you got your own underwear in a knot and it hurts when you don’t get your own way.  What you are, do and say is painful to yourself. The painful truth is all you want is attention like a 2 year old. So cry for us… it’s your own doing. Don’t blame others for your defect.

[39] Posted by Tom Dennis on 04-29-2008 at 03:12 PM • top

[38]CarloynP:
I would dearly love to beat this “British-Speak” horse for a while, but, I fear the Off-Topic-Commenatrix…

[40] Posted by leonL on 04-29-2008 at 03:47 PM • top

Is Gene talking about orthodox Anglicans or his partner?

[41] Posted by texex on 04-29-2008 at 03:48 PM • top

When I was a student at the University of Cincinnati in the 1960’s, a very conservative campus, the SDS crowd was driven crazy that they couldn’t ever get a protest or demonstration to show more than a couple dozen (out of about 30,000 students!)  We started putting up signs “Suppose they gave a Riot and nobody came?” 
Well, suppose VGR said or did something and we stopped letting it bother us?  Suppose we started ignoring the poor simple country Bishop?  I am frankly tired of his temper tantrums, let him plan his wedding and honeymoon and lets worry about important things.

[42] Posted by Soy City Priest on 04-29-2008 at 04:09 PM • top

Gene Robinson: “It is a sin to treat me this way”

Actually, the New Testament says repeatedly we are to have nothing to do with Robinson, both as a false teacher and unrepentant sinner, and he should be expelled from the Body.  I would cite the specific verses, but there are a whole bunch and I don’t have the time to look them all up right now.

Also, I get real tired of the “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality” nonsense.  He repeatedly used Sodom and Gomorrah as the example of the worst sinners when he said that “even Sodom and Gomorrah would repent if they heard my words, but you do not.”  He also used Sodom as an example of what is going to happen in the end days.

[43] Posted by Jim the Puritan on 04-29-2008 at 04:12 PM • top

Jim,

You can go the other way, too. Jesus established the standard for human sexuality and actually taught the standard was higher than the Jews understood it to be in Mosaic Law. Once a standard is established you don’t have to enumerate all the possible deviations from it.

Secret Service agents don’t train by just looking at dozens of types of counterfeit bills - they are primarily trained by knowing the minute details of real currency (i.e. they learn the standard) and then they can spot deviations that training won’t cover.

“Jesus didn’t speak about homosexuality” is a non-nonsensical argument.

[44] Posted by texex on 04-29-2008 at 04:18 PM • top

I would just mention further that the revisionist assertion that Sodom and Gomorrah were punished for “inhospitality” instead of sexual perversion is absurd.  Jesus and every Jew of his time knew exactly why Sodom and Gomorrah were punished.  This is what Jesus’ brother Jude writes:  “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”  Jude 1:7

[45] Posted by Jim the Puritan on 04-29-2008 at 04:28 PM • top

We are not arguing over the divinity of Christ, the Trinity or the Resurrection.

Excuse me, sir, but that is exactly what we are arguing about. Is Christ Lord or not? Is He resurrected, in which case He has the power to transform lives and forgive sins, or not, in which case he’s just an odd prophet, like Mohammed?
We started arguing about Creedal essentials ages ago. Three words: John. Shelby. Spong.

[46] Posted by Andrewesman on 04-29-2008 at 04:28 PM • top

I confronted one priest about this years ago by simply asking if Jesus was “true God from true God”, if he believed the creeds we said every Sunday, why wouldn’t we attribute the words “spoken through the prophets” as God’s and His Son’s? To me, suggesting Jesus had no saw on the matter is ignorance of the very things we believe. But of course, some don’t really believe it.

[47] Posted by Festivus on 04-29-2008 at 04:34 PM • top

Sorry, that should be say on the matter not saw….
Point was if we believe Jesus was as the Creed confirms Him, then Jesus had more than plenty to say about it.

[48] Posted by Festivus on 04-29-2008 at 04:38 PM • top

Gene….just be thankful that the millions of people who could be “treating you this way,” and who should be “treating you this way.” aren’t.

You’re starting to sound really needy Gene.  Come on pal, man up.

[49] Posted by The Templar on 04-29-2008 at 04:40 PM • top

We are not arguing over the divinity of Christ, the Trinity or the Resurrection.

One is tempted to suggest that had bishop Robinson got about the business of deposing his fellow bishops who deny the divinity of Christ, the Trinity and the Resurrection, we might take him more seriously.  Of course, the fact that he (in several published interviews, including the New Yorker interview of a couple years ago) has stated that he does not believe the Nicene Creed in its entirety.  Which means that the argument really IS over the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, and the Resurrection, which comprise a substantial part of the body of the Creed.
  My own position is that anyone who does not believe the Creeds is not a catholic Christian and is by definition ineligible for episcopal orders (or any Holy Orders).  I will allow that, perhaps, you can be a “follower of Christ” without believing the Creeds, but I think to be a bishop, you must be a catholic (small c).  In defense against the charge of donatism, I would say that a Donatist does not allow for the possibility of restoration of orders after repentance, while those who hold to discipline would see the restoration of orders (or other sacraments

[50] Posted by tjmcmahon on 04-29-2008 at 04:49 PM • top

oops.  wrong button.
......would see the restoration of orders (or other sacraments) after repentance.

[51] Posted by tjmcmahon on 04-29-2008 at 04:50 PM • top

amen #50

[52] Posted by ewart-touzot on 04-29-2008 at 04:51 PM • top

“Jesus never says anything about homosexuality…”

He never said anything about speed limits, either.  Can I do 60 in a 35 zone now?

And what about those mattress tags?  Jesus never said anything about not tearing off mattress tags.  Can I do that, too?

Jesus never said I had to use a spork, either.

[53] Posted by cliffg on 04-29-2008 at 05:23 PM • top

Oh, I am so tired of this argument that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. YES HE DID!!!
Point ONE: Jesus has been part of the Trinity since all eternity. Before all. Before, before.
Point Two: God is One….One…ONE God in three persons and one of those person has two natures.
Point three: ONe divine will, one substance, homoousia, inseparable.
Point four: The God of the Old Testament is the One Triune God as in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That Triune One God spoke throughout the Old Testament. This God gave all the Commandments and covenants and guess what????condemned practicing homosexuality as a sin. One God, Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit. One voice, one will. Perfect union. So because God spoke against it, that is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, One Trinity spoke against it.
Point five: Jesus was not created. He is not a separate being. He is not independent being. One in being with the Father and the Spirit.

[54] Posted by Houseownedbythedog3 on 04-29-2008 at 05:34 PM • top

“You brood of vipers!”
“Hypocrites.”
“Whitewashed tombs.”
“Sons of Satan.”

Thanks. As noted, the “whitewashed tombs” one is really subtle. I really do like that last one, though. It has a ring to it, but I’m not sure where it comes from. There’s this, which might fit:

Matt 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

[55] Posted by Ralph on 04-29-2008 at 06:09 PM • top

Jesus never said anything about global warming.  Or sporks.

[56] Posted by AndrewA on 04-29-2008 at 06:13 PM • top

# 19 & # 42
I couldn’t agree more.  Just ignore him - the damage has been done and his ‘new’ friends will find out soon enough that he is no longer news

[57] Posted by justme on 04-29-2008 at 07:21 PM • top

To post #53, cliffg:

Actually, Jesus the Christ, Never did say One Thing about homosexuals. Paul, Jude, and a few others of the New Testament era DID however say a great deal about homosexuality, yet what they were talking about was NOT what everyone who tries to condemn Gene Robinson and others is talking about.
You Need to Read CORRECT Translation, not translations that are steeped in bigoted ideals. MANY of the words translated from the Greek have Numerous meanings, depending upon How the word is being Used. If you are not willing to find out what grammar is, or have any understanding of what grammar is, then return to Kindergarten, cause they teach grammar there now-a-days.
Just like the English Language has many words with the Same Sound yet different spellings, (son & sun), Ancient Greek, which is the Language used to write the New Testament, has Numerous words that have the same spelling with numerous different meanings.
All of you Literalists Refuse to SEE reality on How the words were written and how they were used, and therefore you show ignorance in your understanding of what is actually being said. That is not being crappy, that is just honesty.
Take the story of the Roman Centurion who asked Jesus for a Healing of his slave, for instance (Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10). The way it was translated, one would think this was a common everyday slave. But the Words used to describe this slave tells a Completely Different story than we have always been led to believe. There were THREE Anciet Greek words used to describe this slave: Pais, Doulos, and Entimos.
Pais, in anciet Greek is defined as a boy or Young Man
Doulos, in ancient Greek is defined as Male Slave
Entimos, in ancient Greek is defined as a HIGHLY Honored or Highly Placed Slave.
In Anciet Rome, slaves were Never Highly placed or honored. The Only time that this would be the case would be when that slave was the “lover” of his master. “Pais Doulos” Means a Young Male Slave. Pais Doulos Entimos MEANS a young Male Slave who is Intimate with their master….......This being a Roman Centurion, who were Despised even more than the Tax Collectors of the day, came to Jesus, a Jew, whom the Roman Centurion would never consort with, and Asked the CHRIST for a healing for his Pais Doulos Entimos, and Jesus the Christ said: (Luke 7:9)“9When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, “I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel.”

Thus, A Roman Centurion Asked Jesus the CHRIST for a Healing for his “husband”(?), and was Granted that healing. Did Christ say to this Roman Centurion, what he said to Magdalene “Go and Sin no more”????  No (Matthew 8:13) “13Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! It will be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that very hour.”


Hmmm….a GAY Roman Centurion who had More FAITH in CHRIST than ANY Jew in Israel?

MeThinks Thous’ Dost Protest Too Much!!!

[58] Posted by edav38 on 04-29-2008 at 07:33 PM • top

#42, Loose Cannon:

Actually, the Sin of Sodom and Gamorrah IS NOT Homosexuality. Never has Been, Never Will Be. Sodom and Gamorrah are Mentioned NUMEROUS times throughout the scriptures, and NEVER Once does it state that Homosexuality (or any wording thereof) was their sin that got them destroyed.

Yes, you will use the argument that, “Why then did the Men of Sodom come for the Angels?”

1. Angels are neither Male nor Female. Only Humans are Male and Female (do a study of Angels, and you will find this to be true).

2. IF these Men of Sodom were Homosexuals, Why on Earth would Lot Offer His ““Daughters”” up for their sexual abuse by these men? Homosexual Men would NEVER Touch a Woman in a sexual way if they had a Choice!!!

3. HISTORICALLY, it is Known historically that in those times, whenever a STRANGER (and these Angels were Strangers to Sodom, they were Not Known), entered a town, because it was usually strangers who were sent into towns that were about to be invaded, to “case” the area and find weak spots, strangers were Often abused in one manner or another…...Thus, the men of Sodom were out to find out if these STRANGERS were the advanced party of an invasion force, And since the Bible NEVER STATES that these men of Sodom were Homosexuals, that line of thinking has No Basis in Reality!!!

4. In ALL OTHER Mentions of the Old Testament, where Sodom and Gamorrah are mentioned, it STATES that the Sin of Sodom and Gamorrah is Greed, Avarice, and UnCharitableness to strangers (being Charatible Was and Still Is the LAW of the Desert, an IS a Punishable OFFENSE in Ancient Jewish Tradition, punishment is usually equal to death).

Before you SPOUT your beliefs, Know what you are talking about. Hate is Not, Never Has been, and never will be a “Family Value”!

Yes, the Bible is to be taken as written. But, if you have no concept of what was happening in the world when it was written, then you have No Basis for knowing why it was written as it was, and thus No Way to be able to take the words as they are, and were.

[59] Posted by edav38 on 04-29-2008 at 07:57 PM • top

You learned Koine Greek in kindergarten? 
Actually, edav38, given the culture of the time, assuming that there was any erotic relationship between the two (not fully proven), it is safe to say that the centurian was not “gay” in the way that modern homosexual movement likes to depict themselves, but a paederast (especially given the use of the word pais), which last time I checked even Intergity still claims is a no-no.  Slave owning is not exactly considered a good thing either, yet are you going to use that story as an example of the positive nature of slavery?  At any rate, sinners comming to Christ, whether they be prostitutes, dishonest tax collectors, or whatever, is not exactly anything unique in the Bible.  That doesn’t make them any less sinners, or lessen the need for faith in Christ, love for God, and repentance from sins.

[60] Posted by AndrewA on 04-29-2008 at 08:09 PM • top

I wish blogs had sound…I can imagine the giggles would be infectious.  #58…are you SERIOUS?  Hee hee, give me a break!  Ah…I needed a good laugh.

[61] Posted by marney on 04-29-2008 at 08:11 PM • top

AndrewA,

Stay ignorant to the Realities all you like, the realities stand firm, even without your belief in them.

[62] Posted by edav38 on 04-29-2008 at 08:15 PM • top

Your use of the word “husband” is bull.  Even the Greeks had no concept of marriage between men, much less the Romans, who considered any free man that played a passive role in a sexual relationship to be beneath contempt.  Assuming any sexual relationship existed, it was one between slave and master, and man and underage youth, both of which qualify the relationship as being abusive.

“Homosexual men would never touch a woman”. 
First of all, they did turn down his offer.  Secondly, you treat sexual orientation like it is some sort of binary thing.  Gay or straight.  Things aren’t that simple, and for a person claiming to be an expert in ancient cultures and a defender of gay people, I would think you’d bother to educate yourself on the complexties of human sexuality through time and space. 

Trying to find out if they were an advanced party of invadors… by raping them?  That’s not even worth commenting on.

St Jude clearly identifies the sin of Sodom as sexual immorality.

The “hate” bit is also nonsense.  To paraphrase Fr Copri, it is not love to say “I’m okay, you’re okay.”  We are all sinners called to repentance.  We aren’t doing anyone any favors by trying to make someone think that their sinful behavior is blessed by God and doesn’t require repentance.

[63] Posted by AndrewA on 04-29-2008 at 08:22 PM • top

#58, what you wrote is despicable, and insulting to Christ. It’s false teaching at its worst. Who sold you on such a twisted interpretation? It’s stuff like this that’s deceiving potential Christians around the world.

Not all slaves were badly treated as you state. Look at Joseph, for example. He was given a position of Royalty and in that he was fulfilling prophecy.

The centurion in the Scriptures you state was known for his kindness and care for his servants. He even built them a synagogue so they could worship. This centurion was humbling himself before Christ due to his faith. He believed and let go of his selfishness and reached out for his servant, instead of himself. That is what amazed Christ. Centurions didn’t usually extend this much care for their slaves. This one was unique. He cared lovingly for ALL of his slaves, not just this one. Read your Luke passage again. The centurion sent “elders of the Jews” to plead his case. These elders “begged him earnestly, saying that the one for whom He should do this is deserving, for he loves our nation and built us a synagogue.” Having a synagogue to worship in was very important to the Jews. This centurion provided it for his slaves.

Jesus knew how much this centurion cared for his servants in GENERAL!!!!! It had nothing to do with a homosexual relationship between the centurion and the servant who was ill. Only a sick, evil mind would interpret it in such a vile manner. Jesus taught throughout his teachings about caring for his sheep. That still stands today. We are to care for others who are followers of Jesus. In doing so, we are also caring for Jesus. This centurion lived up to that command. Jesus was no fool. He knew exactly what was going on, and who this centurion was, and what he was about.

All I can do is pray for you, that God will call you and open your mind to his truth. Right now, you clearly are under satan’s rule.

[64] Posted by Mugsie1 on 04-29-2008 at 08:22 PM • top

Is there any medical evidence that Gene may have been dropped on his head in his early formative years?

[65] Posted by Enlightened on 04-29-2008 at 08:23 PM • top

edav, just because your argument is unconvincing doesn’t mean anyone is ignoring realities.  You sound like someone that has read the cliff notes of Spong, not anyone that has any serious knowledge about the sexual customs of ancient cultures.  At any rate, as the good Presiding Bishop likes to remind us, Anglicanism is not a Sola Scriptura denomination.  There is also 3000 plus years of unwielding Judeo-Christian tradition to consider.

[66] Posted by AndrewA on 04-29-2008 at 08:26 PM • top

Ano AndrewA, it is not despicable nor insulting to Christ, and youa re reacting to it this way because you know I am right, and are unwilling to accept that which is right.

YES, Jesus Knew the Centurion was kind to his slave, but it is Common Knowledge that Most Roman Citizens were Not kind to their slaves, and I Never said that this one was unkind….duh

[67] Posted by edav38 on 04-29-2008 at 08:26 PM • top

edav38 (#58)
The term “paisis used in Matthew’s version (Matt 8:6, 8 , & 13) of the Centurion’s servant, but in Luke’s it is “doulos” in verses 2, 3, and 10, but “pais” in 7.  In Matthew, “pais” is also used to translate “sevant” in the quotation of Isaiah 42:1 “Behold my servant (”pais”) whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased.”  (Matt 12:18 & Isaiah 42:1).  The apostolic fathers (and others) seem to think (as does Matthew) that Jesus is the servant spoken of in Isaiah 42:1.  Since this same word (”pais”) is used in both cases, are you saying that Jesus is God’s sex slave?  That same word is used in the septuagint version of Isaiah 42:1.  I think it much more likely that the word “pais” means servant, not boy and certainly not sex slave.  The three words do not occur in any version of the story in the same verse.  The closest is in Luke 7:2 where “entimos” and “doulos” occur together, but “pais” is absent.  So, it would seem that your analysis (and I am sure you got this from somewhere else) is faulty on the sexual nature of the Centurion and his slave.

As for your assertion that Jesus didn’t speak about homosexuality, that is argument from silence.  Jesus did speak against porneia which included all sex outside of marriage.  Everytime Jesus spoke about sexual relationships, he made the law more strict than was Jewish custom at the time. 

Finally, to say that Paul was not familiar with men who were attracted to men and not women as we know them today is utterly false.  Aristotle and Plato spoke of such relationships.  Paul, being a helenized Jew, would have known of such relationships.

About your question of Sodom not being the sin of homosexuality and never being the sin of homosexuality, You just said that the ancient world did not know homosexual sex like we know it.  So, which is it?  Did Lot know about men who would never have sex with women and, thus, to offer his daughters would be futile?  Or was Lot unaware of this feature of human sexuality and, thus, to offer his daughters as a way to asuage the lust of the men at the door makes sense.  In England, bishops and priests preached to Richard the Lion Heart (from Robinhood Fame) about the sins of Sodom.  He never married or produced offspring.  It seems that they were not cautioning Richard about not being hospitable to Sarecens.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

[68] Posted by Philip Snyder on 04-29-2008 at 08:39 PM • top

edav38, I don’t know why you are responding to me to answer arguments posed by Mugsie1.  At any rate, since you seem incapable of stringing together a proper sentence (stopped taking grammar lessons after kindergarten?), correctly identifying who says what in a conversation, or realizing that someone else in a conversation might have actually believe what they are saying, even if it disagrees with you, I see no reason to continue this.

Your argument can best be paraphrased as “U kno Im right but ur a bunch of haters”.  It makes me long for a good discussion with PadreWayne.  At least I can respect him.

[69] Posted by AndrewA on 04-29-2008 at 08:39 PM • top

#67, it was not Andrew A who you are replying to in this comment. It was MY comment, and I stand firmly by it. It shames you to think that I am reacting because I know you are right. In no way are you right. You are horrifically wrong. I am reacting out of disgust for what I read. I’m indignant, as Christ would be. He called the Pharisees “vipers” and more due to his disgust with their false teachings. May he forgive me for even responding to what you wrote. I should have just let it go and turned the other cheek. Christ is judging you himself. I’ll leave that up to him. I’m done with this now. I’m leaving it in Christ’s hands.

[70] Posted by Mugsie1 on 04-29-2008 at 08:41 PM • top

Doesn’t really matter if I am replying to whomever correctly or incorrectly, I “Stand Firm”, as this Blog is called, in my stances, as I know them to be correct. Believe what you like, and believe about me what you like, since none of you really know’s me, you cannot really affect me in any way. But, Mugsie, youa re the ones acting like Pharisees, Beating people over the head with the Letter of the Law, rather than dealing in the Spirit of the Law.

[71] Posted by edav38 on 04-29-2008 at 08:49 PM • top

“The Spirit of the Law,” of course, is Episcopalian for, “sins that Jesus would not condemn at all if He were alive today.”

[72] Posted by Christopher Johnson on 04-29-2008 at 08:55 PM • top

Yeah 72, I guess it is a good thing that Jesus isn’t alive today to see how much all us bigoted Christian have distorted his teachings.  Especially that bit in the Sermon on the Mount about how it is okay for two guys to get married to each other.  If it weren’t were the fine Biblical scholarship of Barack, most of us would never even know about that verse.

[73] Posted by AndrewA on 04-29-2008 at 09:01 PM • top

youa re the ones acting like Pharisees, Beating people over the head with the Letter of the Law, rather than dealing in the Spirit of the Law

That’s a mixing of categories I can’t begin to untangle.

[74] Posted by texex on 04-29-2008 at 09:02 PM • top

Anyway, seeing how, in the words of our wise, all-benevolent Presiding Bishop, sexuality is a minor, irrelevant issue that only a fringe minority wants to make a big deal out of, lets ignore Gene and his awkward apologist and go on to discussing the discussing Core Doctrine, like how we need to save Gaia from cow farts by using more sporks.

[75] Posted by AndrewA on 04-29-2008 at 09:06 PM • top

Ralph, try Matthew 23:15:
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

A little help on “sons of Satan”, if you please.  Translation and citation would be great.  I suspect a conflation of “child of hell” and “twofold” to yield “sons of hell” which would by natural association morph into “sons of Satan.”  But I can find no direct reference in the KJV on search of Satan in any Dominical utterance.

[77] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 04-29-2008 at 09:13 PM • top

Correction, “I can find no mention of ‘sons of satan’ in the KJV in any Dominical utterance.”  Jesus had a lot to say about Satan, just not this particular phrase.

[78] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 04-29-2008 at 09:17 PM • top

Time Out….could it be we’re being too academic, philosophical or legalistic about about this whole thing.  Basically what we’re all talking about is men having sex with men.  Whether it’s written, forbid or even mentioned in the Bible, does it really matter. Bottom line, ITS AN UNNATURAL SEX ACT, and that’s the point and that a man who engages in this unnatural sex act is a bishop of the church. 
He can whine and whine and we can debate this to death but at the end of the day, it all boils down to a man who prefers having sex with other men.  Whether it’s declared a sin or not, doesn’t take away from the fact that it’s unnatural, perverse and disgusting.  And what makes this whole thing so controversial is that we have a man who is traveling the Earth looking for people to tell him he’s normal.  Ain’t gonna happen Geno.

[79] Posted by The Templar on 04-29-2008 at 09:20 PM • top

edav38,

I find your “exegesis” of Matthew 8 and Luke 7 to be the worst sort of isogesis.  You are reading into those passages things that are just not there.  If you understood the Greek, you would see that Matthew uses the same word for “servant” meaning servant and not sex slave just a couple of chapters later (12:18).  The translaters of the Septuagint used that same word (pais) to translate the Hebrew word ”`ebed” or servant in Isaiah 42:1
I doubt very seriously, that the author of Matthew meant “sex slave” when he used the word “pais.”

Luke uses “pais” in several places:
1:54 - the Magnificat - “He has helped his pais Israel….
1:69 - The Song of Zecharia - “and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his pais David”
2:43 - The 12 yr old in the Temple - “and when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy (pais) Jesus stayed behing in Jerusalem….”
7:7 - Healing the Centurion’s servant - “...But say the word, and let my pais be healed.”
8:51 - Raising Jairus’ daughter - “... he permitted no one to enter with him, except Peter and John and James, and the father and mother of the child (pais).
9:42 - pais is also translated “child.”
12:45 pais is translated “servant”
15:26 pais is again translated “servant”
So, it would seem that Luke only uses pais as “sex slave” once out of eight times.  The other times it is servant or child (the two major meanings of pais.  It seems improbable that the author of Luke meant sex slave that one time, doesn’t it?

That does not mean that pais did not have some connotations among other Greek peoples at the time.  I don’t know that.  I strongly suspect, and I believe the text bears me out, that Luke and Matthew never had the sexual connotations you ascribe to them.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

[80] Posted by Philip Snyder on 04-29-2008 at 09:48 PM • top

Doesn’t really matter if I am replying to whomever correctly or incorrectly, I “Stand Firm”, as this Blog is called, in my stances, as I know them to be correct.


Oh, you must be right, then. End of argument.

Sorry mate - that kind of grandstanding doesn’t work here. Please back it up with decent exegesis, or leave while you’re still ‘correct’.

[81] Posted by Derek Smith on 04-29-2008 at 11:12 PM • top

“I’ve never actually seen a textbook case of pathological narcissism in my life but good grief, this might just be my first.”  You are so right.  I personally (and unfortunately) know VGR. I’ve sat across from him in his bullet proof office (he once proudly announced that his gay friends paid for $70,000 worth of security junk for his office - imagine how far that money could go towards the MDG’s).  As for all that security, I think he’s a legend in his own mind. I have long described him as a “self serving narcissist” - which is actually an oxymoron!  Oh, BTW - I’m also a Licensed Mental Health Counselor, so I know a little about narcissism….this one’s for Vicky Gene:  Do you want some cheese with that whine?????  As for his public speaking, it is nothing more than the “look at me Vicky Gene show”.  He does everything he can to make sure the entire focus is on himself.  The cross, Christ, etc are all just incidental trappings for his true purpose - self promotion.  To hear him tell it, you would think his favorite color was wood!

[82] Posted by no longer NH Episcopalian on 04-29-2008 at 11:56 PM • top

A troll by any other name perhaps? It seems a trifle too naif and condescending to be an actual attempt at reasoning intelligently. Certainly someone who requires much prayer to be set back upon the path of repentance and real faith. It’s perversely admirable for someone to “Stand Firm” on the shifting sand. The acrobatics required to even try to retain one’s footing on such a betraying foundation are awe-inspiring.

[83] Posted by masternav on 04-29-2008 at 11:57 PM • top

Re “edav38”: Don’t feed the troll. It seems that more frequently homosexual activists are coming on the orthodox Anglican sites with the sole purpose of disrupting them.  What he’s saying is of course nonsense that is refuted by numerous scriptures in the Bible.

The “gay centurion” construction is one of my favorites.  It is totally disproven by anyone who has a knowledge of koine, because the words do not mean what he says they mean.  The word “pais” in koine Greek generally refers to a “houseboy” (literally “boy”), not a homosexual lover.  In fact, at the time of Jesus, the two, “doulos” and “pais,” were often used interchangeably, as can be seen by the frequent use of “pais” for slave in the Septuagint.  (There is also some thought that “pais” may refer to one born into slavery, whereas “doulos” was a bondservant.)  Without meaning to get offensive to anyone (and I apologize sincerely if anyone takes it that way), similar terminology was used in the American slavery system.

I also don’t find it amazing that the centurion had such concern and/or affection for his slave.  Slavery was a fact of life in the ancient world, with many becoming slaves through conquest.  There were probably more slaves than free men in the Roman Empire.  Often slaves in ancient times could become an integral part of the household with significant powers and responsibilities.  Some examples of such slaves would be Joseph, Daniel, Aesop, and the Roman Stoic philosopher Epictetus.

[84] Posted by Jim the Puritan on 04-30-2008 at 02:10 AM • top

Dwstroudmd,

John 8:44 The father whose sons you are is the Devil; and you desire to do what gives him pleasure. *He* was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand firm in the truth—for there is no truth in him. Whenever he utters his lie, he utters it out of his own store; for he is a liar, and the father of lies.

[85] Posted by jedinovice on 04-30-2008 at 03:04 AM • top

Re “edav38”: Don’t feed the troll. It seems that more frequently homosexual activists are coming on the orthodox Anglican sites with the sole purpose of disrupting them.

Bring it on. These people need confronting - they need to see that ‘you aren’t listening’ works both ways.

[86] Posted by Derek Smith on 04-30-2008 at 04:01 AM • top

I agree with the first poster.  Robinson and Wright are cut from the same cloth, but with different agendae.  It is all about them.  If “Bishop” Robinson cared about TEC and Christian faith, he would not have stood for the post and torn TEC apart.

It seems it’s come down to “who gets the property” as more and more congregations and members go over to other Anglican congregations who know and respect our Christian teachings.  I know many members of TEC who have suffered great anguish because of actions of TEC leadership.  Bishop Schori, elected by a small majority, is another example of “Me, Me, Me”.  It’s not about who has the most property, but who can help all of us have eternal life by adhering to our Christian principles not the “whim” of the moment.

The Lambeth Conference is correct in excluding Robinson and others who treat a great religion as a platform for personal gain and justification of their own behavior.  Certainly the LGBT community has a place in the religious community and we should always remember to we are all children of God, but distortion of scripture and beliefs is beyond the pale especially by a “man of the cloth”.

[87] Posted by JWM on 04-30-2008 at 07:11 AM • top

As an addendum, on the question of “where is the NH standing committee?”, I have a couple of thoughts.  Firstly, the previous bishop, Douglas Theuner, who set in motion the wheels of the “Gene Machine” was rarely in the state.  He campaigned long and hard to become the PB - in retrospect, he probably couldn’t have done any worse than KJS.  So, NH is used to an absent bishop.  Secondly, the northeast really is the land of the “frozen” (but not sure about) “chosen”.  For those who attend church (and this is, of course, a generalization) it is much more a social function than a spiritual one.  TEC in NH is really much more about being part of the club.  A couple of years ago, a friend from Texas was going to be visiting NH and asked for the name of an orthodox parish in which to worship.  I got on the Diocesan web site and realized there are none!  Everyone marches to the tune of VGR’s pipe for social, political and/or financial reasons.  Even my former parish, which professed to be anti-VGR called a homosexual priest.  (I think that’s the only type VGR is allowing into the diocese at this point). They have ditched whatever moral courage they once thought they had for doing the “politically correct” thing…So they can be buried out of the church!  As for me, I am much more concerned about my soul than what is done with my carcass once my soul no longer needs the host.  I wonder if they (the parishioners of NH) will really rest in peace when it’s all said and done.

[88] Posted by no longer NH Episcopalian on 04-30-2008 at 07:43 AM • top

Thank you, Phillip and Andrew for confronting the Troll while I was gone.  His initial rantings were referencing a comment I made last week on another thread, rather than yesterday’s comment.  He has shown two things:
If his use of isogesis is actually from a Seminary education, we now know one of the handicaps that KJS lives under… bad education = bad theology.
Secondly, he made a statement that no homosexual man would have sex with a female…  Hmmmm then that means that VGR has not always been a homosexual since he sired children by the female that he divorced while ordained….  So Edav38 has shown us that homosexuality is not genetic or a part of an individual’s nature from birth, it can be a choice?

[89] Posted by Soy City Priest on 04-30-2008 at 07:54 AM • top

edav38, you say you know your stances to be right?  How do you know?  Are you sure?  Sure enough to risk being horribly, irreversibly and eternally wrong?  Why not take Pascal’s Wager instead?  Live as though there is a God and as though the Bible really said and meant what the interpretation of most of the 2000+ years since the NT says it means.  Humor the “Old Man” a little!  You might be as wonderfully surprised by glory as St. Paul was on the road to Damascus with arrest warrants in his hand.

Proverbs 14:12 & 16:25 There is a way which seems right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

1 Cor. 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

2 Corinthians 13:5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test?

[90] Posted by Milton on 04-30-2008 at 01:56 PM • top

Since the trolls are passing out “duhs”, I have a question for the trolls:  Ever wonder where the word sodomy came from????  DUH?????????

[91] Posted by no longer NH Episcopalian on 04-30-2008 at 07:20 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.