|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Date: 8/25/2003 9:17:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
I would say if the leadership of the church wants to install a gay bishop, then they are well within their rights to do so. On the other hand someone who disagrees with this action should be under no obligation to support it. It goes back to my feelings on the whole Gay issue or really any (religion, sexual orientation, race, etc.) Citizens are endowed with certain rights, all citizens. However you have no gauranteed right to be: Agreed with, liked, accepted, or supported.  |
Date: 8/25/2003 9:31:00 AM
From Authorid: 13283
Gays are people too ! They need some upper representation in the church as long as they follow the rules . If they cannot be and act christlike then they should not serve . Otherwise it is okay . Razzy aka  |
Date: 8/25/2003 9:43:00 AM
From Authorid: 35531
Very well put BCAR. It is all a matter of choice and realizing the consequences that we accept in life...RM  |
Date: 8/25/2003 9:58:00 AM
From Authorid: 29532
Hey, Gay people are cool. It is no sin.  |
Date: 8/25/2003 10:06:00 AM
From Authorid: 10722
I couldn't help but laugh about it.  |
Date: 8/25/2003 11:17:00 AM
From Authorid: 53052
i think it was good and fair.. they tried to find anything to make him lose it(looked into his past and arguements about everything in his life) but they couldn't find anything that is soo wrong about him that they could take away his church... i find it liberating... there are probally more gay bishops and priests out there but they fear to come out.....  |
Date: 8/25/2003 11:55:00 AM
From Authorid: 23075
as long as he does his job.....who cares...  |
Date: 8/25/2003 12:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 43608
Gays are cool! Sorry, I just said that because I am. But If he does what he's supposed to and follows the religion then there shouldn't be a problem.  |
Date: 8/25/2003 12:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 1225
I agree entirely with BCAR. A church is by definition an exclusive order. Yu must meet certain parameters (i.e. believe what the church believes) in order to be accepted. No one can, and rightfully so, force a church to accept something or someone which they disagree with. However, is there is great disagreement within a church about a subject, then there will likely be a schism. That is what I believe is happening in the Episcopalian Church of America. You have the minorty: conservative Episcopal Parishes; and the slim majority: Moderate and Liberal Episcopal Parishes. Eventually the conservtives will become so disenfranchised with the American Episcopal Church and will split from them, either forming an independant bishopric or aligning with the African or Asian Anglican Churches. I think that since no one forced this upon the church-- there was no lawsuit, complaint, etc.-- that it is entirely OK. The Conservatives may tend not to agree.  |
Date: 8/25/2003 1:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 62222
I am of two minds of this. I don't personally see this as a bad thing, but I am concerned that the Church did this as a political statement and not out of any real concern for acknowledging the fact that homosexuals can be a part of a religious community and are just as capable of being religious leaders. I really don't think they care about that, I think they are trying to get some positve press. But I am a cynic. I think if they want an openly homosexual bishop, they are "within their rights", as BCAR mentioned. But again, I think BCAR said it best when he said that simply because you have the right, doesn't mean it will be "Agreed with, liked, accepted, or supported". I am aware that there are specific beliefs in the bible that say that homosexuality is wrong and is sinful, and I am wondering how they are expecting particular denominations to look past this, when they believe that the Bible is divine law? I am not saying this was a bad idea, but it has all the stench of "good PR". What's a better way to make us forget about past indescretions than to be involove themselves in a long drawn out campaign in which they fight for the right to be homosexual and a religious leader? Ah, there's that cynic in me......<regretfulhalo>  |
|
Date: 8/25/2003 3:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 1225
I think that they realized that since a large portion of the rules laid down by the Bible are no longer adhered to (i.e. you can't have intercourse with a women who is menstrating), that it's time to bring the church into the 21st century. At least that's my hope as to their intentions. |
Date: 8/25/2003 4:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 36967
Homosexuality is a sin, just like Pride, or Stealing, or Lying, or cursing. The Office of a bishop or Pastor, I not saying you have to be perfect, I am saying that you are to be blameless. There is a difference between blameless and perfect. A Pastor is not to have a sin to identify himself.  |
Date: 8/25/2003 5:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 54987
I am not against homosexuals in any way. What I am against is hypocracy! A gay bishop...knowing he is gay and knowing that it is against the teachings of the bible... still thinks it's OK to be a so-called 'man of God'! If you are a Christian and you believe that the Bible is the word of God... then it is not acceptable. You can't just treat your religion like a cafeteria meal. If you believe the Bible is the WORD of God then it is not up to negotiation.  |
Date: 8/25/2003 5:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
Man without God can choose to be anything he chooses to be. A man of God cannot be anything except what God tells him he should be. If a man is of God, that means he has chosen to believe in and to follow the righteousness of God. Man cannot change God's laws to suit himself. God said homesexuality is wrong in the O.T. days and He said homosexuality is wrong in the the N.T. days. God has not changed His mind. It is still wrong today and NO man can change God's laws. If there is a gay man who says he is of God, then according to God, that man is not of Him. This man not only is guilty of homosexuality according to God, he is also guilty of adultery. He divorced his wife and left his two children to live with another in a sexual way. This man may find the approval of some people but really he cannot fool God. He may as well take of his cloak and go his way. Anyone can put on a doctor's uniform and claim to be a doctor. Anyone can use the name of God and claim to be of Him, but God's Word says "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."  |
|
Date: 8/25/2003 6:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 62187
Drkptrs…. I have never found the passage that says Homosexuality is a sin. Perhaps you might refresh my memory. If you are referring to Leviticus 18.22 that does not state what you insinuate. It does not for example speak of any carnal activity. It does not label any action a perversion. The book of Leviticus is acknowledged as archaic to all but Orthodox Jews. I would venture that you do not follow the rules of conduct lined out there. For example, do you maintain a proper Kosher diet? Do you wear cloth of mixed fibers. Do you eat of different grains at the same table? These are all things specifically forbidden by the book, to which, you are referring. When did you last perform a blood sacrifice to your Lord? Leviticus prescribes that you must do that. Paul successfully argued in the early days of the church that the Levitican rules did not apply to gentiles. For example we are not required to be circumcised. We are not required to follow the dietary prescription. There is one and only one requirement to being a Christian. One must follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. You must accept the salvation given to you by his sacrifice. That is all. For all who knock will be received, thus sayith the Lord. <<<Baby Girl Sandi>>> |
Date: 8/25/2003 6:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
Koolade, WONDERFULL statement and I agree. Wow, what is this, two? three times? We have agreed? Bcar, good comment.  |
Date: 8/25/2003 9:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 34487
I'm not sure of all the specifics in this scenario although I did hear that he did take an oath of celebacy. To me, that says that he's vowed not to act upon his sexual desires, just as all other bishops. I respectful that but what I don't know about is what's in his past to cause such controversy. Was he once in gay relationships, having homosexual relations? I'm asking this because I feel and think possibly many other Christians would want to know the same thing? If he's denied his sexual desires his entire life, never acted upon them, he's doing all he can do. Even though I'm Christian, I do believe that truly homosexual people are genetically created that way. I don't feel that everyone who claims to be gay saying they are "bi-sexual" all of the sudden, are gay. Truly gay people show this from a very early age where it's impossible for it to be a "choice." If he's lived a Christian life and denied all sexual desires and acts out of his love for God and desire to be a bishop and continues this, I don't have a problem with it.  |
|
Date: 8/25/2003 9:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 34487
FB... I bet your not gonna like my above reply huh? I meant to add that I'm pretty sure that his whole point for admitting he is gay is because he has lived a homosexual lifestyle in the past, if that is true.... he has no right taking placement in a church as a bishop. I need to find out more facts on this story as to why he felt the need to be open about his homosexuality in the first place if he was going to take an oath of celebacy. If anyone knows, inform me. Thanks |
|
Date: 8/25/2003 10:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
You choose I have no problem with your statement. yes I do believe that gay is a choice, but hey, I've been wrong before. I know what God says about being gay. Now if this man is still practing being gay, he has no right to be placed as a bishop because that is clearly against what God says. NOW if he is a reformed gay, living for God that is a differnt story. |
|
Date: 8/25/2003 10:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 34487
Exactly.... I totally agree. I'd like to know the story on that issue? The news obviously doesn't seem to address it, I guess they're so busy feeding into the ratings frenzy to care. Hopefully, someone has heard something about this to shine some more light on it though. |
Date: 8/25/2003 10:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
I thought I read that he'd been in a homosexual relationship with a man for the last twenty years but I could be wrong.  |
|
Date: 8/25/2003 10:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 34487
Hmmm....that would explain all the controversy. If that's true then I don't agree with him becoming a bishop unless he's reformed his lifestyle and is denying any further desires and acts. If this is the case, then I can see the relevance to his admitting to being gay due to his prior long-term relationship. |
|
Date: 8/25/2003 10:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
sorry I was wrong "The decision to affirm Canon Robinson, who has lived with his male lover for 13 years, infuriated evangelical leaders who have warned that it will "shatter" the worldwide Church." |
|
Date: 8/25/2003 10:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 34487
20 or 13.... same to me, since it still equates a long-term relationship in my eyes. |
|
Date: 8/25/2003 10:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
I guess I will have to look it up on the internet and learn more about it. LOL and you thought I'd get angry, LOL. YOur so sweet. Base, thanks for that info. Now I've said this before and I'm going to say it again and I KNOW that so many christians are going to be soooooooo mad at me. BUT I dont think that someone that is in a gay relationship is going to go to hell. The bible tells us that its a sin, YET the bible tells us that if we ask to be forgiven for this sin up to and past four hundred and ninety? TIMES a day, that we will be forgiven. The acts of the flesh, come against the spirit all the time. WE may want to do something else in our spirit, but our flesh may do something else. Perhaps this bishop knows that it is wrong according to God, but perhaps he asks to be forgiven daily because he cant stop what the flesh is doing. In my opinion he is going to heaven, as the flesh is hard to control and this is why Jesus came, so that WE could ask to be forgiven when we mess up. NOW thats my opinion and if I'm wrong, and if some of the things I do, send me to hell, well all I can say is I tried to do right, was not always sucessfull. |
|
Date: 8/25/2003 11:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
well I'm off to bed, and will fend off all comments tomorrow. |
Date: 8/25/2003 11:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 34487
Very well said FB.... chat with you later and sweet dreams.  |
|
Date: 8/26/2003 8:33:00 AM
From Authorid: 16671
good morning and thanks you choose. |
|
Date: 8/26/2003 10:48:00 AM
From Authorid: 3125
Robinson is a 56-year-old divorced father of two who left his wife and two children about 13 years ago to be with his lover Mark Andrew. Robinson and Andrew still share the same household. Robinson is not only guilty of homosexuality but he is also guilty of adultery since he left his wife to be with a lover. |
Date: 8/26/2003 1:25:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Sorry, I havent responded to my own debate. I was unable to for a while.  |
|
Date: 8/26/2003 1:29:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
I believe that the Bible states that partaking in an act of homosexual sex (a carnal act) is a sin. I don't believe it ever said that being gay is a sin. That is where my confusion comes in. If somone is gay, that is their sexual orientation, but that does not mean that they cannot abstain from sexual activity. |
|
Date: 8/26/2003 2:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
Phydeus..The gay man left his wife for a lover. According to God, he is guilty of adultery. He and Mark Andrew are lovers. According to God, they are both guilty of being homosexuals. |
Date: 8/26/2003 8:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
wait, isnt he catholic? arent catholics not supposed to question the diocese?  |
|
Date: 8/26/2003 8:15:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
but if he took a vow of celibacy and sticks to it, who are you to accuse him of anything |
|
Date: 8/26/2003 8:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
Jestr, I'm not accusing him of anything. I don't make accusation. According to several news sites, Robinson left his wife for a male lover and the two are now living together. These are stated facts, therefore I am not accusing him. If they were not true he would deny the reports. |
|
Date: 8/26/2003 9:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 34487
Rusure, thanks for the info. I didn't know that. That is pretty nasty... I mean the guys is an adulterer on top of everything else. Why is this guy trying to be a bishop in the first place? Is he only trying to start more controversy in the church or disgrace what it means to be a bishop. I think this guy should go his own way and understand that he isn't above what criteria is expected of the position he wants to fill. |
Date: 8/26/2003 10:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
YC..I wonder if they will keep this up until they bring themselves down permnantly? Regardless, This is what God says regarding the office of a bishop..1 Tim 3 -7 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. He sure does fit God's criteria, so where does that leave him? |
|
Date: 8/26/2003 11:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 34487
Wow, he definitely is the total opposite of what a bishop should be. I don't know how he justifies his qualification for bishop when he should understand the scripture that you just quoted. This is a very bizarre situation. |
|
Date: 8/27/2003 1:29:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Wouldn't his adulterous activity be a thing of the past, or do we not forgive those things any more. As far as his current activities, you know as well as I do, if he lived alone, and did not have a lover, it wouldn't change the reactions to his being gay. |
|
Date: 8/27/2003 3:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 1225
I've read several replies which refer to 'righteous' people. I'm sure those who posted them think themselves righteous. Perhaps they should consider that they are in fact self righteous? |
|
Date: 8/27/2003 9:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 34487
As I stated above in a prior reply, if he has repented and changed his lifestyle and will no longer be continuing these acts, as a Christian I believe he should have a chance at being bishop. However, it seems that he is currently living with his lover and therefore it doesn't appear that he has changed his way of life. Proof of his commitment lies in his actions from this point on as far as I'm concerned. |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
