Gay bishop: Bible silent on gays

Apr 7, 2011 Full story: Star-Gazette.COM 71

The crowd of about 300 listens to Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese New Hampshire Gene Robinson late Wednesday afternoon in Sage Chapel at Cornell University.

Full Story
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Since: Jul 09

Fort Myers, FL

#1 Apr 7, 2011
I so love this man.

Since: Mar 07

Washington DC

#2 Apr 7, 2011
I had the honor of singing in the Gay Mens Chorus of Washington when he conducted us last year. We were lucky to have time to meet and converse with him. He's an amazingly strong, dedicated, and spiritual person. And incredibly friendly and charming to boot.

What struck me more were the comments attached to the article. Even after the explination that the translations were wrong, so many still put them out their as undisputable fact. Maybe in Bible v1.0, but not in Bible v17.2 (or so) of where we are. There's probably very little that even resembles the original text. And that's not to mention the insistence of pulling out the Leviticus crap and using it as a weapon while conveniently not mentioning the eating shellfish, selling your daughter into slavery, and wearing mix fiber fabric bans...

What a bunch of maroons.

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

#3 Apr 7, 2011
The Bible is slient on gays, but the words of "Jesus" (whether or net he was a real person) are pretty condeming of hypocrites. Unfortunately, most of "Jesus"'s followers seem to have a particular attachment to the latter vice.

Since: Nov 08

Oakland, CA

#4 Apr 7, 2011
If you read the comments at the actual site, you see that there will always be some who think that hate or at least judgement does have a sound basis in the Bible. I do not care nor have I ever cared. Until this country becomes a theocracy, it does not matter how people quote their conflicting religious interpretations of some antiquated prose. I have the right to be who I am and do not require the approval nor disapproval of the Christian pro-gay or anti-gay to practice my equal rights.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#5 Apr 7, 2011
I am certain the Bishop is a fine person, but it is sad that the he is mistaken. Most hate crimes perpetrated on gay victims have not been based on religion, but historically on tyrant regimes; China, Cuba, Germany, etc.

Furthermore, he fails to see the intolerance in his statements. His tolerance requires people to "embrace" his way. I don't think this is true tolerance, this is acceptance. If he were demonstrating tolerance, he would be tolerant of people who believe the Bible to be God's word, and their belief that it clearly condemns homo sex as well as many other heterosexual acts. God does not call his creation (us) an abomination, God loves everyone, and is patient, waiting for them to turn to Him, but certainly, He condemns our sinful acts and calls those acts, an abomination.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#6 Apr 7, 2011
JohnInToronto wrote:
The Bible is slient on gays, but the words of "Jesus" (whether or net he was a real person) are pretty condeming of hypocrites. Unfortunately, most of "Jesus"'s followers seem to have a particular attachment to the latter vice.
John, the Bible is NOT silent on homosexual sex and any other kind of sex. Why would you immediately label "most" followers of Christ "hypocrites"? There were a lot of sins that Jesus did not address because they were already known to be sins.

Jesus corrected many religious hypocrites, as you stated, but He didn't address the out and proud gay couples. Why? Because there were no out and proud gay couples in New Testament times. Perhaps Jesus said more about homosexuality in his silence than anything else. There was nothing to correct. Homosexuality was considered a sin according to scripture and still was during Jesus' time. Would Jesus have LOVED the homosexual? ABSOLUTELY. Enough to die for them, in fact He did. But let us not confuse love with acceptance.

1 Corinthians 6:11

“II Samuel 1:26”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#7 Apr 7, 2011
Western1 wrote:
I am certain the Bishop is a fine person, but it is sad that the he is mistaken. Most hate crimes perpetrated on gay victims have not been based on religion, but historically on tyrant regimes; China, Cuba, Germany, etc.
Furthermore, he fails to see the intolerance in his statements. His tolerance requires people to "embrace" his way. I don't think this is true tolerance, this is acceptance. If he were demonstrating tolerance, he would be tolerant of people who believe the Bible to be God's word, and their belief that it clearly condemns homo sex as well as many other heterosexual acts. God does not call his creation (us) an abomination, God loves everyone, and is patient, waiting for them to turn to Him, but certainly, He condemns our sinful acts and calls those acts, an abomination.
NOWHERE in the Bible does it condemn same sex loving and committed couples or the sex that they have as a result of that love. You have been deceived.

Furthermore, the Bishop is tolerant of those that disagree with his interpretations of the Bible. He simply believes that they should not use the Bible to discriminate against others. There is no reason to be tolerant of those who are intolerant.

“II Samuel 1:26”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#8 Apr 7, 2011
Western1 wrote:
<quoted text>
John, the Bible is NOT silent on homosexual sex and any other kind of sex. Why would you immediately label "most" followers of Christ "hypocrites"? There were a lot of sins that Jesus did not address because they were already known to be sins.
Jesus corrected many religious hypocrites, as you stated, but He didn't address the out and proud gay couples. Why? Because there were no out and proud gay couples in New Testament times. Perhaps Jesus said more about homosexuality in his silence than anything else. There was nothing to correct. Homosexuality was considered a sin according to scripture and still was during Jesus' time. Would Jesus have LOVED the homosexual? ABSOLUTELY. Enough to die for them, in fact He did. But let us not confuse love with acceptance.
1 Corinthians 6:11
Jesus was not silent on homosexuality. He spoke out in favor of it in Matthew 19:12.

Since: Jun 09

Saint Louis, MO

#9 Apr 7, 2011
Western1 wrote:
I am certain the Bishop is a fine person, but it is sad that the he is mistaken. Most hate crimes perpetrated on gay victims have not been based on religion, but historically on tyrant regimes; China, Cuba, Germany, etc.
There is still anti-gay sentiment in the christian churches though, there is no denying that. Some countries are much less accepting of gays than America, but christianity is much less accepting of gays than non-religious folks. It's apples to pears, mate.
Furthermore, he fails to see the intolerance in his statements. His tolerance requires people to "embrace" his way. I don't think this is true tolerance, this is acceptance. If he were demonstrating tolerance, he would be tolerant of people who believe the Bible to be God's word, and their belief that it clearly condemns homo sex as well as many other heterosexual acts. God does not call his creation (us) an abomination, God loves everyone, and is patient, waiting for them to turn to Him, but certainly, He condemns our sinful acts and calls those acts, an abomination.
Sorry, but you're wrong there. The difference between tollerance and acceptance is undeniable, but I challenge you... Why can't you accept homosexuals for who they are? You say that your god condems homo sex. Well, he also condems judging other people. He also says that "he who is without sin should cast the first stone". He is also big on forgiveness and acceptance. So even if we all operate under the premise that your bible is true and that your god is the one true god and is all that he says he is... you are in no way involved with the judgement of another. Your bias towards certain sin is unacceptable and unrighteous. If you are against sin and for saving people, then you should be against all sin, and then the focus should go to proximity, and you should worry about your own sin and those in your community (church).
However, your bible is not necessarily the truth. Just as you believe that your own religion is supreme and that all others are less true, so does everyone have that opinion. Therefore, you should not attempt to force your religion onto others, because you would not accept their religion (or lack thereof) forced onto you. Forcing a non-christian to live the way that your god says to is equally as reprehensible as forcing you to give up your religion and renounce your god.

So what needs to happen here, is that you need to worry about yourself and your church, and leave everyone else alone. And yes, to the point of not only tollerating their differences, but also accepting them as member of this non-theocratic country.

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#10 Apr 7, 2011
And our enemies seem to have forgotten the commandment that Christians are obliged to obey, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
JohnInToronto wrote:
The Bible is slient on gays, but the words of "Jesus" (whether or net he was a real person) are pretty condeming of hypocrites. Unfortunately, most of "Jesus"'s followers seem to have a particular attachment to the latter vice.

Since: Jun 09

Saint Louis, MO

#11 Apr 7, 2011
Western1 wrote:
<quoted text>
John, the Bible is NOT silent on homosexual sex and any other kind of sex. Why would you immediately label "most" followers of Christ "hypocrites"? There were a lot of sins that Jesus did not address because they were already known to be sins.
Jesus corrected many religious hypocrites, as you stated, but He didn't address the out and proud gay couples. Why? Because there were no out and proud gay couples in New Testament times. Perhaps Jesus said more about homosexuality in his silence than anything else. There was nothing to correct. Homosexuality was considered a sin according to scripture and still was during Jesus' time. Would Jesus have LOVED the homosexual? ABSOLUTELY. Enough to die for them, in fact He did. But let us not confuse love with acceptance.
1 Corinthians 6:11
You really believe that there were no openly gay people in the first century? Go do some research about the first century (hint: look into the Roman army).

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#12 Apr 7, 2011
AquariusNSF wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus was not silent on homosexuality. He spoke out in favor of it in Matthew 19:12.
He also said of a homosexual, via the Roman Centurion, "Never have I seen faith greater than this."

Yup, that really sounds like a condemnation to me.

“II Samuel 1:26”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#13 Apr 7, 2011
McMike wrote:
<quoted text>
He also said of a homosexual, via the Roman Centurion, "Never have I seen faith greater than this."
Yup, that really sounds like a condemnation to me.
Yes ... exactly.
Sheldon

Alexandria, VA

#14 Apr 7, 2011
I get the impression some people both here and in the comments at the Star Gazette site are confusing or conflating same sex attraction with same sex behavior. Not being a theologian, I can agree with the bishop that the Bible is silent on homosexuality. Indeed, Robinson acknowledges the condemnation of same sex behavior. There's no way to get around the prohibition of not lying with a man as with a woman. But he then goes on to place this in the context of the Bible treating women as lower than men and that any man who would lower himself to the status of a woman was violating divine law. Or maybe he was saying that divine law separated the roles of men and women sexually and that somehow these distinctions, as with divine acceptance of slavery, were wiped out or modified.

I don't have enough information to know exactly what he's getting at. But taking what's reported here at face value, he seems to be saying what Roman Catholic and Orthodox theologians have settled on: homosexuality (same sex orientation/attraction)in and of itself are not condemned, but acting on it is. Which doesn't quite make sense, as Christians believe sin is committed by thought, word as well as deed. Then there's the fact that Robinson is legally married to another man, so we can assume he doesn't teach celibacy for homosexuals.

Somehow I doubt he laid out a systematic theological explanation in his lecture. Maybe he will get around to writing a book, so we all can be clear on exactly what he's saying.

“The Buybull is innerrrent.”

Since: Jun 08

Annapolis, MD

#15 Apr 7, 2011
Western1 wrote:
I am certain the Bishop is a fine person...he fails to see the intolerance in his statements. His tolerance requires people to "embrace" his way.
Hey lying, buybull banging, fundie nutcase, neither the Bishop nor anyone else ever said you uber xstain talibangelicals can't marry, adopt or serve openly.

We know who the bigots are, Cletus - it's about rights, not being "nice." Okay, you pos?
Beau

Germany

#16 Apr 7, 2011
Robinson is a liar, as anyone who has actually read the Bible well knows.

Since: Mar 07

United States

#17 Apr 8, 2011
Western1 wrote:
<quoted text>
John, the Bible is NOT silent on homosexual sex and any other kind of sex. Why would you immediately label "most" followers of Christ "hypocrites"? There were a lot of sins that Jesus did not address because they were already known to be sins.
Jesus corrected many religious hypocrites, as you stated, but He didn't address the out and proud gay couples. Why? Because there were no out and proud gay couples in New Testament times. Perhaps Jesus said more about homosexuality in his silence than anything else. There was nothing to correct. Homosexuality was considered a sin according to scripture and still was during Jesus' time. Would Jesus have LOVED the homosexual? ABSOLUTELY. Enough to die for them, in fact He did. But let us not confuse love with acceptance.
1 Corinthians 6:11
Creating someone who can be nothing but attracted to the same gender, and then condemning them for be how they were created is insane, and Jesus was not insane.

Why would you believe God is so unbalanced, and why would you follow such a god?

Since: Mar 07

United States

#18 Apr 8, 2011
Beau wrote:
Robinson is a liar, as anyone who has actually read the Bible well knows.
I doubt you have read it.

Since: Mar 07

United States

#19 Apr 8, 2011
Sheldon wrote:
I get the impression some people both here and in the comments at the Star Gazette site are confusing or conflating same sex attraction with same sex behavior. Not being a theologian, I can agree with the bishop that the Bible is silent on homosexuality. Indeed, Robinson acknowledges the condemnation of same sex behavior. There's no way to get around the prohibition of not lying with a man as with a woman. But he then goes on to place this in the context of the Bible treating women as lower than men and that any man who would lower himself to the status of a woman was violating divine law. Or maybe he was saying that divine law separated the roles of men and women sexually and that somehow these distinctions, as with divine acceptance of slavery, were wiped out or modified.
I don't have enough information to know exactly what he's getting at. But taking what's reported here at face value, he seems to be saying what Roman Catholic and Orthodox theologians have settled on: homosexuality (same sex orientation/attraction)in and of itself are not condemned, but acting on it is. Which doesn't quite make sense, as Christians believe sin is committed by thought, word as well as deed. Then there's the fact that Robinson is legally married to another man, so we can assume he doesn't teach celibacy for homosexuals.
Somehow I doubt he laid out a systematic theological explanation in his lecture. Maybe he will get around to writing a book, so we all can be clear on exactly what he's saying.
So, you believe that God created gay people, endowed then with the exact same need for companionship, love, and the need for family that he gives straight folks, and then, for fun, condemns them for actually acting on any of those desires, while, at the same time, blessing straight folks for the same thing?

And this seems right to you?

Gay folks are no more called to celibacy than straight folks are--most normal healthy people are NOT.

If your interpretation od a few verses tells you otherwise, then you should rethink your views.

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

#20 Apr 8, 2011
Sheldon wrote:
There's no way to get around the prohibition of not lying with a man as with a woman.
Not for Orthodox Jews. But you Christians have a very simple way - it's called the New Covenent. Paul tells you the Mosaic laws, circumcision, etc. no long apply to you. Read Romans and Corinthians.

Paul's own comments on homosexuality are in rather odd language and are not all that clear. "Jesus" of course, said nothing about it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Kelly Clarkson doesn't mind if her daughter is gay 3 min Rick Perry s Closet 12
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 7 min Rick Perry s Closet 15,667
Is Jeb Bush 'evolving' on same-sex marriage and... 9 min Rick Perry s Closet 151
Lesbian Couple's Gay Pride Flag Burned By Neighbor 9 min Pattysboi 20
Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 14 min NorCal Native 1,109
I'm gay. And I want my kid to be gay, too 15 min Rosa_Winkel 139
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 16 min GayleWood 57,919
Biggest Gay Lies (May '14) 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 3,231
More from around the web