Support for Bishop V. Gene Robinson

[PhiJ]

I do not believe homosexuality is a sin…is is benign…just as heterosexuality is.

Why not? I hope that the bits you said below that statement were not reasons - disobedience to God defines sin. The presence of mutal respect, love and compassion do not exclude the possibility of sin.

Of course, you could very well say ‘why?’ but there are passages which you have to be able to explain if you think it isn’t, like (quick google) the end of romans 1 and 1 cor 6:9.

 

[Publisher]

Why not? I hope that the bits you said below that statement were not reasons - disobedience to God defines sin. The presence of mutal respect, love and compassion do not exclude the possibility of sin.

Of course, you could very well say ‘why?’ but there are passages which you have to be able to explain if you think it isn’t, like (quick google) the end of romans 1 and 1 cor 6:9.

Verses taken from the context of the document in the time that they were written and which reflect the concepts of the time do not proove the case that homosexuality is a sin. A few verses…taken from it’s historical and cultural context prooves nothing.

I would urge you to continue reading into chapter 2 of Romans…do not stop at the end of the chapter…there were no such divisions when the letter was written.

 

[Rascalking]

Someone on this thread said that we should, “Bring Christianity into the 21st Century”

No thanks. I’d rather bring the 21st Century back to Christianity!

 

[Contarini]

Friend Edwin,

In the lives of those gay men and women that I know…and have read and heard their experiences…they cannot tell by the way they are treated where “love” begins from fellow Christians and where “hate” ends.

I do not believe homosexuality is a sin…is is benign…just as heterosexuality is.

Heterosexual sex can be manipulative…violent…and remove choices away from lives when sexual predators prey on children…that is sin…it does violence to hearts, bodies and minds. It is not “loving”…it is predatory and viscious.

Those relationships, both gay and straight, built on mutual respect and love and compassion. Those relationships which seek to embody grace and charity and seek each others benefit and growth as human beings and provide safety and care for one another are not sinful.

I believe you can see the difference between the two…the violence and the rape and the removing choices of innocent lives that have not had the chance to make adult choices and have those chocies “made for them by a predator” versus two adults who seek to have God in the center of their lives and decide to commit themselves to one another under His care IS what makes the difference…not the sex act in and of itself.

Equating “leniency” toward two adults who love each other and can make adult decisions with pedophilia and child exploitation just doesn’t seem to “speak from that Center of Light and Truth” to me.

Publisher,

One might think that your “Center of Light and Truth” would lead you to speak truthfully about others. I made it very clear that I was not making such an equation, and the fact that you are serving the cause of “tolerance” does not justify you in ascribing to me something I explicitly rejected.

What I am saying is simply that you cannot throw out the adage “hate the sin, love the sinner,” without either saying that sinners should be hated (surely you don’t think this) or that sin (i.e., genuinely destructive and evil behavior such as rape) should be loved (you surely don’t think this either).

Your criticism of this adage was simply misguided and illogical.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether homosexuality is sinful.
If homosexuality is not in any way sinful, then why even bring up the “hate the sin, love the sinner” adage? Why not just say “I agree when we are talking about real sin, like rape, but I don’t think homosexuality is in itself sinful at all.”
If on the other hand homosexuality is sinful, then as I said it is clearly not sinful in the way and to the degree that rape and other forms of violent or abusive sexual behavior are sinful. So clearly our attitude to it should still differ radically from our attitude to those behaviors.

I said exactly this in my prior post. Why did you accuse me of saying the opposite?

Yours truly,

Edwin Tait

 

[Publisher]

Publisher,

One might think that your “Center of Light and Truth” would lead you to speak truthfully about others. I made it very clear that I was not making such an equation, and the fact that you are serving the cause of “tolerance” does not justify you in ascribing to me something I explicitly rejected.

What I am saying is simply that you cannot throw out the adage “hate the sin, love the sinner,” without either saying that sinners should be hated (surely you don’t think this) or that sin (i.e., genuinely destructive and evil behavior such as rape) should be loved (you surely don’t think this either).

Your criticism of this adage was simply misguided and illogical.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether homosexuality is sinful.
If homosexuality is not in any way sinful, then why even bring up the “hate the sin, love the sinner” adage? Why not just say “I agree when we are talking about real sin, like rape, but I don’t think homosexuality is in itself sinful at all.”
If on the other hand homosexuality is sinful, then as I said it is clearly not sinful in the way and to the degree that rape and other forms of violent or abusive sexual behavior are sinful. So clearly our attitude to it should still differ radically from our attitude to those behaviors.

I said exactly this in my prior post. Why did you accuse me of saying the opposite?

Yours truly,

Edwin Tait

Friend Edwin,

You are right, I should not have accused YOU of not speaking out of the Center of Truth, you have been doing so for the most part.

I never stated however “… homosexuality is not in any way sinful…” It very well can be…as is heterosexuality…it would seem we both seem to fall into the trap of our own divising by attributing things to one another not specifically spoken about. For my part in this behavior, please forgive me, it was uncalled for.

I will take your advice…“I agree when we are talking about real sin, like rape, but I don’t think homosexuality is in itself sinful.” Homosexuality is sinful, as is heterosexuality when it does not operate out of a mutal respect and love. When it operates out of promicuity. When it operates out of violence and anger and rage…as is heterosexuality.

When two people of the same sex are committed in relationship, it is not a sin. The same standards of heterosexuality exist for homosexuals. Homosexuality in and of itself is not sinful. That TEC, UCC, Welcoming Methodist congregations and Friends Meetings take such relationships under their care and offer support and love is no small thing.

I have no desire to “trade quips” with you about what “I said”…then return to what “you said”…and back and forth…it serves neither of us and as I have proven true for myself, I will fall into generalizations and mis-statements that do not prove true.

Quite true, “Love the sinner and not the sin” had nothing to do whether homosexuality is a sin or not.

Peace to you Friend.

 

[Contarini]

Friend Edwin,

You are right, I should not have accused YOU of not speaking out of the Center of Truth, you have been doing so for the most part.

I wouldn’t claim that. All I claim is that I did not equate “leniency” toward homosexuality with “leniency” toward rape or other abusive forms of sexuality. I explicitly said that whether or not homosexuality is always sinful, our attitude toward it *must *differ radically from our attitude toward these other, clearly evil things. However, I apologize for assuming that I had expressed myself clearly and putting the blame on you for misunderstanding me. In a sensitive matter like this misunderstanding is very easy.

I never stated however “… homosexuality is not in any way sinful…”

I’m sorry. I didn’t attribute to you the view that “no instance of homosexuality is sinful” but the view that “homosexuality is not in itself necessarily a falling short of God’s will for our sexuality.” This is the sense in which I would claim homosexuality to be “sinful.” I do not think that a relationship between two persons of the same sex can entirely fulfill the rightful purposes of sexuality even if (which we agree that no relationship is) it were to be perfect in every other respect.

We agree (I think) that in practice heterosexuals and homosexuals both express their sexuality in sinful ways, and that it is more important to focus on those common failings than for us heterosexuals to condemn homosexuality. And we would also agree that both heterosexual and homosexual relationships can (in spite of sin) provide many examples of goodness, and that these good things should always be affirmed and celebrated.

Where we disagree is on the question of homosexuality as abstracted from the specific virtues and vices of individuals (you may think that we should never so consider it). I agree with the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered” and thus that homosexual relationships cannot function sacramentally in the way that marriage can. And I see no way as a Christian to affirm that sexuality can be legitimately expressed outside of sacramental marriage. I am thus compelled, reluctantly, to say that homosexual relationships contain an element of sin by virtue of being homosexual (while the sinfulness in heterosexual relationships is “accidental” to the fact that they are heterosexual).

To put my position in Catholic terms (though obviously orthodox Catholics disagree), I would tend to say that homosexual behavior is (in and of itself) “venially” but not “mortally” sinful. I view homosexual couples much as St. Augustine viewed married couples who had sex more often than required for procreation! This of course puts me at odds with both conservatives (who think I’m hopelessly lax) and liberals (who still think I’m homophobic). But it’s the only position my conscience will (at this point) allow me to hold. I continue to seek further light on the matter (as on all matters).

Peace to you Friend.

And to you. I apologize again for the tone of my last post.

Edwin

 

[Publisher]

And it is the position that I and others who stand with me that as Christians we can and do support homosexual relationships that are entered into with love and mutual respect and affirm them as “sacramental” as any heterosexual marriage when entered into under similar circumstances.

Homosexuality is not disordered…it is ‘different’, a minority state…but one of dignity and capable of receiving the blessing of God and His People as they care for these individuals in love and compassion.

Peace.

 

[Contarini]

And it is the position that I and others who stand with me that as Christians we can and do support homosexual relationships that are entered into with love and mutual respect and affirm them as “sacramental” as any heterosexual marriage when entered into under similar circumstances.

Homosexuality is not disordered…it is ‘different’, a minority state…but one of dignity and capable of receiving the blessing of God and His People as they care for these individuals in love and compassion.

Peace.

I respect that position and have come to see its strengths. I cannot accept it, but I can certainly understand why you and so many people of good will hold it.

Edwin

 

[PhiJ]

I was about to ask you to answer my question, but then I realised that if you see no scriptural reason as to why it is wrong, then you would see it as not wrong. And, interestingly, I was thinking vaguely along the lines of Romans 2 even though I didn’t read it when I posted before.

 

[surritter]

Homosexuality is not disordered…it is ‘different’, a minority state…but one of dignity and capable of receiving the blessing of God and His People as they care for these individuals in love and compassion.

Peace.

Sorry, but this just isn’t the case. Reread my first post (the one right after the OP). You seem to view sexuality as a meaningless attraction that simply draws two (or more?) people together for expressing love. (Oh, and by the way, sometimes babies result if it is a male and female!)

Rather, Christianity teaches that love and life are intimately tied together. So to “bless” a homosexual couple is really not doing anything for them, since they do not have the CAPACITY to exchange the full meaning of a marriage.

And regarding Romans, it is true that context, historical/cultural meanings, and other factors can be important in understanding the meaning. This is why a living authority (the successors of the Apostles) are necessary to preserve the understanding of the Bible. Otherwise, chaos such as thousands of denominations will be the result.

Look at how John Shelby Spong uses your logic of historical or cultural customs to not only legitimize homosexual practices, but to deny the resurrection of Jesus!

 

[rr1213]

I do not have a favorable impression of Episcopal Bishop Robinson. With the possible exception of Bishop Spong’s antics, Bishop Robinson’s ordination as Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire and the positions which Robinson and the Episcopal Church have advocated since, are the key reasons for the current disintegration of the Episcopal Church and the resulting “civil war” within the Anglican Communion. The sad thing is that all of this was very predictable, yet Robinson chose to put his own agenda over what even he had to know would be a very divisive and destructive ordination.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Someone on this thread said that we should, “Bring Christianity into the 21st Century”

No thanks. I’d rather bring the 21st Century back to Christianity!

Nicely-put, Rascal!! That idiotic idea that we need to shape Christ like clay into what we want him to be, a liberal feel-good Oprah entity, is all-out absurd. We need to get back to the fundamentals of right and wrong, orthodoxy, and preaching the truth in love. You hit the nail on the head.