Gay Bishop Out of Anglican Summit

The first openly gay Episcopal bishop announced he will have no official role in a meeting this summer of world Anglican leaders, saying restrictions that organizers wanted to place on his involvement had ...

[Reality]

BooHoo - "it caused me considerable pain"

I'm sure having a gay bishop has caused considerable pain to the rest of the Eipiscopal Church and a large portion of the congregations since it's causing the entire church to run contrary to the teachings of what the church is supposed to believe, the Bible.

[Dan]

Reality wrote:

BooHoo - "it caused me considerable pain"
I'm sure having a gay bishop has caused considerable pain to the rest of the Eipiscopal Church and a large portion of the congregations since it's causing the entire church to run contrary to the teachings of what the church is supposed to believe, the Bible.

I don't wish to bring offense; I'm not TEC and don't know ifi you are, but from what I've been able to determine via other boards on this subject, there is no way around this for TEC members who may oppose ordination of homosexuals. It's done.

[Kuni Lemmel]

Never compromise with evil, for evil is the winner. Robinson is in 'considerable' pain. In a pig's eye. He's not in enough pain to give up what the Anglican church defines as perversion. All he has to do is leave, and then no pain. That he wants to stay, proves his disdain for the Anglicans and that he wants to force his way on the Anglicans. He dosn't want to meet their higher standard, but his says they MUST meet his lower standard. Liars lie. Robbers rob. Perverts pervert. Stand your ground, Anglicans.

[Dan]

Kuni Lemmel wrote:

Never compromise with evil, for evil is the winner. Robinson is in 'considerable' pain. In a pig's eye. He's not in enough pain to give up what the Anglican church defines as perversion. All he has to do is leave, and then no pain. That he wants to stay, proves his disdain for the Anglicans and that he wants to force his way on the Anglicans. He dosn't want to meet their higher standard, but his says they MUST meet his lower standard. Liars lie. Robbers rob. Perverts pervert. Stand your ground, Anglicans.

What ground? The TEC has allowed his ordination.

[JBF]

Associated Press wrote:

<quoted text>

[Archbishop] Williams also didn't invite Bishop Martyn Minns, who leads a network of conservative breakaway Episcopal parishes in the U.S., that have aligned with the like-minded Anglican Church of Nigeria.

The article http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/...

--------

It's a shame that some US Episcopalian parishes chose to become a sect under the notorious Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola.

Archbishop Peter Akinola spearheaded legislation in Nigeria to make it a crime for ANYONE to associates with a gay person, punishable by FIVE YEARS IN PRISON. Any known or suspected gay man or lesbian would be subject to arrest at almost any time, as well as any heterosexual who associates with with a gay person.

And now there is evidence that that Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola is a mass murder of muslims in Nigeria.

--------

The Arch-Butcher of Nigeria
By Wayne Besen
Published March 3, 2008
http://www.waynebesen.com/2008/03/arch-butche...

God's Country
BY ELIZA GRISWOLD
Published March 2008
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/nigeria...

[bustabunny]

Kuni, you got that right! If people of any flava just wanted to go their own way, they could. But the hommes they just wanna tear down what they can't have and don't wanna be. Dan, sprechen Sie einen sehr großen Stapel von EL torro poo poo. Plus, erhielten Sie Scheiße für Gehirne. Get a [straight]life.

[Catherine]

It is fascinating to me that Rowan Williams could offer the dignity of a Christian blessing to the non-Christian marriage of two viciously cruel and cynical adulterers, Camilla Parker Bowles and Prince Charles, and could suggest that the viciously sexist Sharia law should become part of UK law, but that he cannot invite one gay bishop to his "Christian" gathering. Hm.

[Fran]

GOD loves gays....his hear is breaking though because of their flauting and even pride of their sin.

[Philip]

JBF wrote:

<quoted text>
It's a shame that some US Episcopalian parishes chose to become a sect under the notorious Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola.
Archbishop Peter Akinola spearheaded legislation in Nigeria to make it a crime for ANYONE to associates with a gay person, punishable by FIVE YEARS IN PRISON. Any known or suspected gay man or lesbian would be subject to arrest at almost any time, as well as any heterosexual who associates with with a gay person.
And now there is evidence that that Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola is a mass murder of muslims in Nigeria.
--------
The Arch-Butcher of Nigeria
By Wayne Besen
Published March 3, 2008
http://www.waynebesen.com/2008/03/arch-butche...
God's Country
BY ELIZA GRISWOLD
Published March 2008
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/nigeria...

Akinola and those who associate with him have a great deal to answer for! As has been said Akinola and any who claim affiliation with his perverted view of mankind and the church should be marginalized! He cannot be a man who claims the faith when he condones and seemingly celebrates a way that champions violence!

[bookguybaltmd]

Reality wrote:

BooHoo - "it caused me considerable pain"
I'm sure having a gay bishop has caused considerable pain to the rest of the Eipiscopal Church and a large portion of the congregations since it's causing the entire church to run contrary to the teachings of what the church is supposed to believe, the Bible.

Show one place in the bible where there is something about homosexuality. There is none. If your bible uses the word, it is a false translation.

[bookguybaltmd]

bustabunny wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's proof that you need not even be a moron to make it through an east coast school. Shutup bookguy, you're and idiot.

So just show ONE place where there is a legitimate instance of what you claim in the bible. It does not exist.

[Luigi]

Bookguy, you're very disingenuous.
I told you at the other article, there
is no word "homosexual-(ity)" in
the Bible. But the concept IS ! & you
KNOW IT! You've just bought into
the highly emotional translation
of idealogues projecting their own
interests.I feel very sorry for you.
You're so hard pressed to prove your
homosexuality as a good, that you will cling on to any rationalist
argument for vindication. To be
reasonable, you need to acknowledge
the "Law & Order" bombarding your
"senses".Seeing them "incarnate"
would do you & other bad philosophers
a world of good. After all, you recognize the rules & laws of language, every one of them outside of how you "feel" about them!

[bookguybaltmd]

Luigi wrote:

Bookguy, you're very disingenuous.
I told you at the other article, there
is no word "homosexual-(ity)" in
the Bible. But the concept IS !

You need to show me even one place. I REFUSE to let you hijak scripture to your own short term political purposes. If you are going to cite biblical text as condemnation than I INSIST that you sit down, read the bible with me, and show me where it says what you claim. The plain text of scripture is very clear in having no condemnation of long-term, loving Homosexual relationships.

If you think there is such a reference or even a concept that condemns long-term loving and monogamous Homosexual relationships, you need to show it to me.

[Luigi]

Bookguy, this is monotonous.
There is no word "homosexual" in
Scripture, let alone ANY PRO-
"loving & monogamous homosexual
relationships" that you can show as plain as your statements! You can
throw "interpretation" around, if
you will, and look at it from many sides until it fits "your" needs,
but you will have to show the ancient practice of a loving buggery
to be not just "Biblical", but historically accurate by CREDIBLE
historians, not ones w/ agendas, like Marshall Kirk & Hunter Madsen
in their "After the Ball; How America will conquer its fear & hatred of gays in the 90's" book,
not to mention other popular authors
famous for their "queer" rendering
of past facts! No, sir, the burden of proof falls squarely upon your shoulders. Proof should be blunt,
not "interpretive". Commomsense
knowledge takes care of the rest.

[bookguybaltmd]

Luigi wrote:

There is no word "homosexual" in Scripture,...! You can throw "interpretation" around, if you will, and look at it from many sides until it fits "your" needs, but you will have to show...proof. Proof should be blunt, not "interpretive". Commomsense knowledge takes care of the rest.

Thanks for the concession on the absence of the word 'homosexual' in the bible. And also of your implication that there is no "blunt" condemnation of that in the bible.

If YOU are going to claim biblical source for your beliefs, YOU need to pony-up with the citations. They simply do not exist!

It's clear that the main sense of the bible and especially the new testament are in support of loving relationships: no further proof is required for the basis of my argument. None would doubt that the bible and especially Jesus are in full support of loving relationships.

If, on the other hand, YOU require blunt and non-interpretive proof it is you that needs to produce it. If those are your standards, then YOU need to follow them.

Those are not my standards; I think the bible is very clear on support for loving relationships. For me, it's not necessary to take the 'literal word'(especially not of the old testament) to be a good and faihful christian; but if the literal word and a 'blunt' proof are your standards, it is you that needs to prove that there is somewhere in the bible a citation that proves your case.

By your own standards, "Proof should be blunt, not "interpretive"'. So produce your blunt and non-interpretive proof that will go against everything else that Christ told us about loving our fellow man and his encouragement of our support for loving relationships.

Just as a by-the-way: it's interesting that you and others assume I have a personal interest in the discussion. I do have personal experience in that I know (and love) people to whom the discussion applies, but I am actually more objective (in a direct personal sense) about the issue than, it seems, you and others give me credit for.

I do, however, INSIST that if your standard in biblical interpretation is literalness and that you say that the bible condemns homosexuality (that condemnation being a clear and radical exception to the rest of Christ's message), then you MUST produce the text that supports that argument.

I don't agree with your standard, but I am willing to accept your standard for the basis of engagement and discussion. If you are going to use that standard, your citations need to be blunt and they need to not be 'interpretive.' The problem is, as we have shown before, there is nothing in the bible that fits that standard.

[bookguybaltmd]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't wish to bring offense; I'm not TEC and don't know ifi you are, but from what I've been able to determine via other boards on this subject, there is no way around this for TEC members who may oppose ordination of homosexuals. It's done.

Dan is quite right on this one. It's a done deal.

As the Episcopal Church House of Bishops recently pointed out:

"Even though we did not 'all' support the consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire, we acknowledge that he is a canonically elected and consecrated bishop in this church. We regret that he alone among bishops ministering within the territorial boundaries of their dioceses and provinces, did not receive an invitation to attend the Lambeth Conference."

In other words, like it or not, like HIM or not, like his relationship of not: he's still a Bishop. He was properly elected by a very large margin AND properly ordained by not just the required three, but by 47 bishops (including TWO primates!) all of whom were active and in the line of apostolic succession.

If you are a catholic, there is an historic doctrine that applies here. There was once something called the Donatist Heresy which has long ago been clarified by the church (back in the 400s, I believe). This heresy held that a priest of bishop had to be personally pure for his or her spiritual authority to be effective. The church long ago held that, as long as the priest or bishop was properly ordained, the spiritual health of the particular priest or Bishop does not affect the validity of the sacraments he or she administers.

In other words, even if you think Robinson's "lifestyle" is sinful (I would argue otherwise), he is still a Bishop in the church and should be able to represent his diocese at Lambeth. Anything else is an incomplete conference and a disenfranchisement of the people of New Hampshire. In that sense, at least, the deliberations at Lambeth will be incomplete (and in some sense invalid) without him.

In that sense, at least, Robinson's pain is not just one of personal rejection, but also of the disenfranchisement of the people he represents AND of the church he (and, presumably, we all) love falling back into the old Donatist heresy. This is, it seems to me, a legitimate source of pain.

Now, mind you.... I think it's also clear that cross-geographical boundaries or not (and the inappropriateness of this is clear to me), like it or not (and I don't), agree with it or not (and I don't), Martyn Minns is also a duly appointed missionary Bishop of the a diocese in Nigeria (though only ordained by two Bishops, as I understand it). Clearly, as an appointed Bishop and not one who was elected by any diocese, Minns’ authority has far less legitimacy than does Robinson. Nonetheless, he, too, is clearly a bishop in the apostolic succession; and he, too, should be invited to Lambeth.

My own personal opinion is that they should both be invited and then made to sit right next to each other for the entire two weeks (shackled together if necessary).

[Luigi]

"in support of loving relationships.." is quite right, but
no "sense" of homosexual rel.
As for "my standards", I have none.
I am not a "relativist".
Your "interpretation" of me exposes
you as a "rationalist", never really getting anywhere, but more wind than Nature! Your credibility is shot!
There is no argument w/you.
You won't even be able to explain
why St. Paul equates lust w/man with
mankind,woman w/womankind, & then
goes on to tell married MEM & WOMEN
to come back together BEFORE they fall into TEMPTATION! Notice, prayerful separaton, but not for too long. But when man lies w/man, & woman w/woman, it's a no-go!
Better yet, it's a no-no!!!!!!!
And by the way, it is YOU who hijack
Scripture, YOU who looks for "literal" condemnation(it's there, but you have been de-"sensitized" to the "senses" of Scripture.
Martin Luther himself regretted what he started by calling everyone that believed in their Spirit-filled
interpretive skills "clowns".
So please quit bitchin' & running
around in rationalist circles.
Get to your MAIN EVIDENCE, & then prove your line of continuity to the Apostles & Jesus. I tell you,
I've already done that research,
and the only bona-fide lines you
will EVER be able to pinpoint, are
the gnosti-manichaean line of descent.

[KGC]

Dear Luigi,

Luigi wrote:

"in support of loving relationships.." is quite right, but
no "sense" of homosexual rel.
As for "my standards", I have none.
I am not a "relativist".
Your "interpretation" of me exposes
you as a "rationalist", never really getting anywhere, but more wind than Nature! Your credibility is shot!
There is no argument w/you.
You won't even be able to explain
why St. Paul equates lust w/man with
mankind,woman w/womankind, & then
goes on to tell married MEM & WOMEN
to come back together BEFORE they fall into TEMPTATION! Notice, prayerful separaton, but not for too long. But when man lies w/man, & woman w/woman, it's a no-go!
Better yet, it's a no-no!!!!!!!
And by the way, it is YOU who hijack
Scripture, YOU who looks for "literal" condemnation(it's there, but you have been de-"sensitized" to the "senses" of Scripture.
Martin Luther himself regretted what he started by calling everyone that believed in their Spirit-filled
interpretive skills "clowns".
So please quit bitchin' & running
around in rationalist circles.
Get to your MAIN EVIDENCE, & then prove your line of continuity to the Apostles & Jesus. I tell you,
I've already done that research,
and the only bona-fide lines you
will EVER be able to pinpoint, are
the gnosti-manichaean line of descent.

You know, all of this kind of either supporting or condemning debate is really academic. I supose we have to go through it, because we, as Episcopalians, have placed great authority in Scripture. So, we have to investigate the ability of Scripture to provide direction. I think it is best used kind of like a sea anchor, trailed in a running sea to keep the boat stabilized during overpowering situations. And we are in one of those overpowering situations, now.

There is legitimate ground to stand on from both perspectives. However, only one perspective accommodates the full expression of a human being without prejudice and this perspective allows for homosexual unions.

Since we are being forced by an overpowering running sea to sail into new territory, how are we supposed to believe and behave? Medical, genetic and psychological information is being revealed at an incredible rate, all of which is pointing to a very singular fact. That is, that the inclination to be homosexual is much more complex than a result of a simple adult choice about pleasurable carnal behaviors.

You have to figure that we do not yet fully understand these things. Then, one must allow that Scripture, although very important to our understanding, has to be interpreted in light of new revelation, no matter how such revelation appears to contradict our previously held and Scripture-supported veiws.

Lastly, if we acknowledge that there is a margin of error in our understanding, then you have to err on the forgiving and accepting side.

So, after all of that, I say that the best course of action is to allow the blessing of Homosexual unions.

KGC

[Luigi]

My Dear KGC,
Thank you for taking the time to
respond. You'll never know how much I
appreciate it.
I humbly disagree w/ you. And since
it's too much to go into, here,
it's ably stated in the Catechism of
the Catholic Church. Also, look into
"Homosexuality and Hope;
Statement of the Catholic Medical Association. It's a small booklet of 47 pgs. everyone should read today.
Medicine, exactly like Scripture, is
good for the soul.
With much love & honor,
Luigi

[Kuni Lemmel]

"Liars lie. Robbers rob. Perverts pervert." Just read the above to see that this is true.

Don't want to be a liar? Don't lie.
Don't want to be a robber? Don't rob.
Don't want to be a pervert? You see where this goes? A is A. You can say it ain't. You can BELIEVE it ain't. But it won't change. A is A.

But what about variations on A ... making it NOT A. Jeesh! Get a clue.