Cobb

I like this take so much I blogged it at:

http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/000376.html

well put, dude. or should i say, AMEN!

Well put. If only the people who needed to hear this were reading it...if only the simple obviousness of it would get through their heads. In the meantime, if I run into any of those misguided souls in the blogosphere, I'll have to give them a link to this entry.

The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints, so anyone wrestling with sexual temptation but trying to live a holy life is welcome. The question is whether homosexual sex - or indeed heterosexual fornication or adultery - can ever be pleasing to God. The Scriptures and 3000 years of Judaeo-Christian tradition reveal that this is not possible. In St Paul's own words, those who indulge in these acts unrepentantly cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. I am sorry to see the Anglican Church abandoning the teaching of Holy Scripture. At the so-called Reformation it criticised the Catholic Church for allegedly covering up the true meaning of the Scriptures. Now some Episcopalians are deserting Scripture as the guide for their lives and behaviour.

Thank you for your posting. I affirm the decision of the Episcopal Church to act in the spirit of the Gospels instead of the letter of the law found in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the New Testiment Epistles. I believe that the present objections are not really about the Bible or God at all, although the bottom line of those who object escapes me. It cannot possibly be hatred or prejudice of which they are unwilling to free themselves? Folks this is the new civil rights movement, the one we must deal with. Some will suffer, some will die, but we cannot escape the fact that this issue's time has come. I believe that is where God stands in all of this, because God is all about freeing ourselves from hatred and prejudice.

Robinson chooses live in a sexual relationship that is against the teachings of Holy Scripture. He justifies this by saying that portion of scripture is not to be obeyed but there may be others that should be. This leads one to naturally conclude that scripture is the truth that the reader wishes to see or accept and reject. To some, Jonah was not swallowed by a fish. If that is true then others will feel free to state that Christ didn't really turn water into wine. That being the case then we must accept that for others it is equally true that the blind must have had some temporary afliction that was easily removed in their miraculous cure. If we accept these denegrations of scripture, then we must be willing to accept that Christ may not have really died on the cross, and if that is so the resurrection could possibly be a folk tale and if that is true ... where does the surity of our salvation lie ??? See the problem, take away one feather at a time, and soon the bird cant fly. The Episcopal church was hijacked by liberal god-killers in the early 1970's and has landed squarely where it deserves , and by the way , where God planned , that he might use it as an example of how not to think and lead one's life for the benefit of those of us who know we are sinners, try very hard for daily repentance and dont change the truth of the Bible to fit our lifestyles, but change our lifestyles to fit the commanments of our God. "If you truly love me, you will obey my commandments".

I think it's difficult to say with any certainty what God expects of his Church with regard to the sexuality of the ministry. If it were so clear then one would easily have to say either the Catholics or the Anglicans are going to hell.

I cannot put a great deal of credibility into any position which states unequivocably that gays cannot be righteous, or generally that the sins of the flesh cannot be outweighed by the virtue of the spirit.

As for Jonah, I would like to have a discussion about what it was about the Old Testament that is so appealing. More properly, what reason would God have in giving Jesus to the world and thereby dividing his faithful into two camps with regard to the means towards salvation?

I have never been one to quote the Bible extensively because, having recieved a Jesuit education, I have had most of my questions answered - at least those of a younger man. The dictates of the New Testament were sufficient for my faith.

I would also suggest that there is something wrong with religious text tself becoming sanctified. I would go as far as to say that it borders on idolatry. So we participate in the Church so as not to spin off into our own solopsist interpretations of biblical text. If God tolerates diversity in Church practices, then despite our different denominational quarrels, we are not changing the basis for paths to salvation and righteousness. In other words, Church rules are part of our own free will and a Christian sect is not likely to destroy itself in the eyes of God.

If one's sect chooses to believe that there are no gays in Heaven, that is their free choice.

The problem is not whether homosexuals are welcome in the local Episcopal church (in most instances they are welcome) but, are they willing to change, to be accepted into the Body of Christ? The Bible clearly states (even in the New Testament) that one cannot be Gay and be a Christian. One cannot read only the New Testament and discard the Old Testament because the Ten Commandments are just too difficult to follow, or choose to obey a few verses but not others and attribute the disobedience to God's creation of oneself. While it is true that "All souls are equal in the eyes of God and we are saved by His grace", it is NOT true that one does not have to do anything to obtain salvation. The call of God is clear - Repent - only then can one attain salvation. There are many priests within the Episcopal Church who are gay and celibate. Is Bishop Gene Robinson willing to repent and be celibate? Obviously not. And while we are on the subject of intolerance, how about the many Gay people who have changed to a happy and successful heterosexual or celibate life? Why does the Gay community consistently brand these people as "lying to themselves"? It appears that the individuality of a Gay Christian is defined by homosexuality and not by identifying with the Body of Christ - the emphasis is on Gay, not Christian. Are they scared to change?

I take your point. It is not clear to me, although I haven't investigated, that the Bishop considers himself gay first, or exactly 'how gay' he is.

It is clear to me that one who identifies as gay is saying something self-confident about their sexuality and I think that is better than being shameful about it. I think that it is preferable in all cases that someone be open about their orientation rather than not.

Finally, I would say that just as with heterosexual relations, I think it is fair to assume there are many moral levels. I could not consider, for example, a man who has had the same monogamous partner for 20 years to be morally inferior to a straight someone who has divorced.

I don't give free license to any type of sexual behavior. I think there are better and worse ways to express physical affection. But I am also not particularly judgemental and I don't think that is our role to be as Christians. Not about what adults like in the bedroom.

A recent survey found that the average Westerner has sex 116 times per year. Is that good or bad? In Singapore they are down around 60 times per year. Are they therefore more righteous? Such questions open a whole complex can of worms, and I believe that it is a Puritan approach, that is sectarian, which makes sexuality more important in matters of righteousness.

Again, I don't believe that the Bishop is trying to prove anything or be an advocate for gay sex. He did not elect to be a sex symbol. This was forced upon him. In other words he is being painted as gay who happens to be Christian rather than a Christian who happens to be gay.

I will look closer to his own words on the subject as well as that of his supporters and detractors.

Look here dude, I'm not even a christian, but there are some things Anyone reading the bible a few times would notice. When I heard about Robinson being elected for bishop the first thing I did was check if the bible didn't somewhere say: no man shall lie with a man as with a woman, that is abominable. And sure enough, the bible does say it somewhat after the time moses brought the jews out of egypt.

I ask you, how on earth could God so radically change his mind on this topic? most likely not because the bible repeatedly points to the eternity of God's word. Everyone knows that the bible is there partly to check on whether the spritit truely spoke to you or that you are subconsciously making something up.

You say that the anglican church is suppreme above the catholic church. I can see how a religion created by a king, who simply wanted to marry another wife without pissing the rest of Europe off too much, how that religion could be suppreme to catholicism as it was in that time. Catholic church still is a bit weird. But real christianity is something else.

I look forward to reading how this respons was spoiled on you. Perhaps it will bring me closer to GOD.

Look here dude, I'm not even a christian, but there are some things Anyone reading the bible a few times would notice. When I heard about Robinson being elected for bishop the first thing I did was check if the bible didn't somewhere say: no man shall lie with a man as with a woman, that is abominable. And sure enough, the bible does say it somewhat after the time moses brought the jews out of egypt.

I ask you, how on earth could God so radically change his mind on this topic? most likely not because the bible repeatedly points to the eternity of God's word. Everyone knows that the bible is there partly to check on whether the spritit truely spoke to you or that you are subconsciously making something up.

You say that the anglican church is suppreme above the catholic church. I can see how a religion created by a king, who simply wanted to marry another wife without pissing the rest of Europe off too much, how that religion could be suppreme to catholicism as it was in that time. Catholic church still is a bit weird. But real christianity is something else.

I look forward to reading how this respons was spoiled on you. Perhaps it will bring me closer to GOD.