Ariz. Episcopal bishop: Gay's exclusion 'insult'

[Azakia]

Now, I'd like to here the honest opinions of liberals who accept homosexuality on the following:

Genesis 2:24-25 says,“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

--->Genesis deals with the order of the world, what God created, why he created it and what he intended. It is clear right from the beginning therefore that God designed one man for one women. This verse explains what God ultimately intended when the world was PERFECT, because God made the world in perfect order. Therefore you cannot argue the righteousness of homosexuality.

Genesis 19:6-8
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

--->Homosexuality here is described as wicked. Lot even insists on offering his daughters to these men as an alternative which is sinful in itself. What sane man would do this sick thing if homosexuality was acceptable. Lot's daughters would probably be raped by multiple partners so it's clearly not the multiple men having sex that's the problem. You could also argue that since this was the Old testament, many old testament laws have become irrelevant. The fact is, the OT laws pointed to Christ, the sacrifical laws therefore become unneccessary because of Christ, the food laws become irrelevant after God put an end to them in the NT. The moral laws consisting of both the ten commandments, sexuality and laws regarding love were both sharpened by Christ Jesus and regurgitated by Paul who had a far greater understanding of the OT than most Christians alive today.

[Uncle Tom Is Dead]

What constitutes sin, from a homosexual perspective? Being straight and lusting after the opposite sex?
Faith, in all honesty, is non negotiable and so is tampering with the constitution of the church. Gay Priests or Bishops should be excommunicated, or alternatively allowed to repent after a long period of reflection and exile.
I swear we expect more from our sportsmen, politicians and minor celebrities than we do from our moral stewards, that can't be right.
Leave the church alone!

[MiddleWay]

Chad wrote:

<quoted text>
You are a total liar.
You post a picture of a pathetic man dressed as a woman.
A majority of Supreme Court Justices are current Roman Catholic, and in the past, there has been no majority of any denomination in the cumulative total.
A majority of Presidents have NOT been Whiskeypalians.
The Episcopal Church in the USA is a pariah in its world body and is not even one of the ten largest religious bodies in the USA:
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#bodies
(That same site proves you a liar on your other false claims about the Episcopal Church.)
If you knew anything about the Episcopal Church, you would know that most members of that church don't agree with a homosexual lifestyle choice and many parishes and even dioceses have already voted to get out, despite the fact that the national organization holds their property as ransom.
LOOSER!

Will, do try to contain your demon of anger.

BTW, isee that guy turned you down AGAIN. No I wonder you are on a rant...

[MiddleWay]

Azakia wrote:

Now, I'd like to here the honest opinions of liberals who accept homosexuality on the following:
Genesis 2:24-25 says,“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”
--->Genesis deals with the order of the world, what God created, why he created it and what he intended. It is clear right from the beginning therefore that God designed one man for one women. This verse explains what God ultimately intended when the world was PERFECT, because God made the world in perfect order. Therefore you cannot argue the righteousness of homosexuality.
Genesis 19:6-8
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
--->Homosexuality here is described as wicked. Lot even insists on offering his daughters to these men as an alternative which is sinful in itself. What sane man would do this sick thing if homosexuality was acceptable. Lot's daughters would probably be raped by multiple partners so it's clearly not the multiple men having sex that's the problem. You could also argue that since this was the Old testament, many old testament laws have become irrelevant. The fact is, the OT laws pointed to Christ, the sacrifical laws therefore become unneccessary because of Christ, the food laws become irrelevant after God put an end to them in the NT. The moral laws consisting of both the ten commandments, sexuality and laws regarding love were both sharpened by Christ Jesus and regurgitated by Paul who had a far greater understanding of the OT than most Christians alive today.

Let's not use Lot as a symbol of morality, after all, his daughters had sex with him...

[Rick in Kansas]

Azakia wrote:

Now, I'd like to here the honest opinions of liberals who accept homosexuality on the following:
Genesis 2:24-25 says,“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”
--->Genesis deals with the order of the world, what God created, why he created it and what he intended. It is clear right from the beginning therefore that God designed one man for one women. This verse explains what God ultimately intended when the world was PERFECT, because God made the world in perfect order. Therefore you cannot argue the righteousness of homosexuality.

Genesis deals with one opinion, one belief as to the order of the world and it is not the only version available to those who wish to have a faith in a higher power, nor is your interpretation the only one available from that story. Many of the Christian faith are of the opinion that God must love his Lesbian and Gay children, or he would not have created them as he has. They are of the opinion that they are to be welcome in His house under the same ideals of faith that apply to heterosexuals. They have even gone as far to have the opinion that the physical expression of their homosexuality is not sinful if done as an act of love with in the bounds of a commitment of marriage. While you may not be able to argue the "righteousness" of homosexuality, many others can and do.

continued on next post...

[Rick in Kansas]

Azakia wrote:

Genesis 19:6-8
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
--->Homosexuality here is described as wicked. Lot even insists on offering his daughters to these men as an alternative which is sinful in itself. What sane man would do this sick thing if homosexuality was acceptable. Lot's daughters would probably be raped by multiple partners so it's clearly not the multiple men having sex that's the problem. You could also argue that since this was the Old testament, many old testament laws have become irrelevant. The fact is, the OT laws pointed to Christ, the sacrifical laws therefore become unneccessary because of Christ, the food laws become irrelevant after God put an end to them in the NT. The moral laws consisting of both the ten commandments, sexuality and laws regarding love were both sharpened by Christ Jesus and regurgitated by Paul who had a far greater understanding of the OT than most Christians alive today.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is one of many different morals that have been pulled from it over the years. Is it strictly a condemnation of homosexuality, threatened homosexual acts, or is there something more to this story? Why did God decide to destroy these cities? The story of Genesis is by tradition, Moses written version of several thousand years of oral Jewish tradition, written for an audience that had heard these stories all their lives and had an understanding of their meaning a sense that is lost by simply reading them today. The only mention of Sodom in the written text before the decision is made by God to destroy it was that of it being a wicked place without explanation of what that wickedness was and the first and only mention of Gomorrah in scripture is of it's impending destruction (again, the stories had been related to the reader well before they read them, so this would already be part of their understanding as to what the book meant). The story of Sodom, Gomorrah and the other cities of the plain cannot be limited to the incident that occurred at Lot's house the night prior to their destruction as the decision by God to destroy them is discussed with Abraham before this event even occurs (Genesis 18:22-33). The only reason the angels were sent to visit Lot that night was as part of Abraham's plea to God to spare these places if ten righteous men could be found among them. This brings us back to the original question of what sin or sins were responsible for the fate of these places. Since Gensis doesn't explain, a reader has to look elsewhere.

continued on next post...

[Rick in Kansas]

The only detailed account by a later prophet of the OT of why these places were destroyed is from Ezekiel (16:49-50), where he mentions the sins of pride and sloth and the failure to help the poor and the needy, but no mention of homosexual acts running rampant which you would assume worth noting if that were the reason for their destruction, but he does also mention an abomination before God, but offers no detail. This takes us back to the story in chapter 19 of Genesis and what that abomination actually was. Well, it clearly wasn't rape, because if that were the case, Lot's offering up of his daughters would certainly disqualified him from being spared and throughout the OT the rape of a woman was more or less an acceptable practice. What about the threat of homosexual rape of the strangers in Lot's house? Certainly by reading the threat issued in 19:5 of letting the crowd of men surrounding the house to "know them", that can be inferred. Not quite. The prohibition of male/male sex had not yet been codified according to the faith when this event occurred, The laws of the Leviites (Leviticus) were not written until the Jews were returning to Israel by Moses and the rape of captive soldiers from the battlefield is also seen as an accepted practice in the OT. So what was the abomination to God that occurred that night if there is no real evidence against it being homosexual acts or homosexual rape if it never actually occured (and according to the story, it didn't)? According to the opinion of many, the abomination in the eye's of God is the very threat of harm to the strangers in Lot's house, regardless of its nature. The treatment of strangers living among them was traditionally regarded as a matter of utmost importance to these people and for these men in Lot's house to even be threatened with harm when they were to be treated as brothers, is seen as sufficient cause to God to destroy these wicked places. What is often taught today as a story about God's condemnation of homosexuality really has nothing to do with the subject and there certainly is no real evidence of the Sodomites were guilty of what today is called sodomy.
As for the purity codes of the Jewish faith being disregarded as the Christian faith grew, it is not based on the teachings of Jesus himself. Jesus was teaching a Jewish audience how to be better at being Jewish and that certainly included strict adherence to the laws of God as found in his faith. This disregard occurred as disciples such as Paul attempted to make the faith in the Christ more palatible to a Gentile audience who traditionally did not have such laws governing every aspect of their behavior. Paul cherry picked his teachings from his faith and suited them to a much broader audience that would have balked at the faith if it required them to be held to such strict ritual teachings as found in Leviticus.

[Azakia]

Interesting thoughts. I see a few problems with your arguments however,

"The story of Sodom, Gomorrah and the other cities of the plain cannot be limited to the incident that occurred at Lot's house the night prior to their destruction as the decision by God to destroy them is discussed with Abraham before this event even occurs (Genesis 18:22-33)."

-The incident that occurred in their house was just an example of the behaviour that went on here. Indeed there were many things going on however Lot says:

"No, my friends. Don't do this WICKED thing.", this is a direct reply to the men requesting to have sex with them in V5. This is the same WICKED that is used in Gen 13:3 when describing the city. As well as hundreds of other places throughout the Bible associated with judgement such as Noah's flood (Gen6:5). So what the sentence associated with judgement and sentence associated with homosexuality have in common is the unarguable word WICKED. There no way round this definitive logic especially not an arbitrary assumption.

"What is often taught today as a story about God's condemnation of homosexuality really has nothing to do with the subject and there certainly is no real evidence of the Sodomites were guilty of what today is called sodomy."

Why would God's judgement of homosexuality and issues of morality suddenly become irrelevant to us. This statement you have made simply confirms what I said in a previous post about liberals rejecting scripture.

It is one thing to try to weave your way around scripture and say God doesn't disaprove of homosexuality. It is another thing altogether to extrapolate and state that God approves of homosexuality simply on the absence of evidence. Are you aware of what the Church would be like if we took this attitude toward everything? Jesus is a liberator; he liberates us from sin, but a liberal is the complete opposite; it liberates sin itself.

If the Bible references homosexuality multiple times with sin with no counter verses whatsoever, then it should be obvious what God wants us to get from the Scripture. I know now that I cannot make you see the light and understand the Scripture properly, the only thing I can do is pray that the holy spirit will reveal things to you, and that you will search the scriptures fully in of themselves and understand the perfect and absolute nature of God Himself.

-Azakia

[Tory One]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

Genesis 19 describes how two angels visited Sodom and were welcomed into Lot's house......... However, God was angry at the other inhabitants of the town. He destroyed Sodom with fire and brimstone (sulfur). He presumably killed all of the men in the mob, their wives and other adults, as well as children, infants, newborns, etc. It is unclear from these few verses whether God demolished the city because the citizens:
were uncharitable and abusive to strangers
wanted to rape people
engaged in homosexual acts.
The Church has traditionally accepted the third explanation. In fact, the term sodomy which means anal intercourse is derived from the name of the city, Sodom. But the first explanation is clearly the correct one. As recorded in Matthew 10:14-15 and Luke 10:7-16, Jesus implied that the sin of the people of Sodom was to be inhospitable to strangers. In Ezekeiel 16:48-50, God states clearly that he destroyed Sodom's sins because of their pride, their excess of food while the poor and needy suffered, and worshiped many idols; sexual activity is not even mentioned. Jude disagreed with God; he wrote that Sodom's sins were sexual in nature. Various biblical translations describe the sin as fornication, going after strange flesh, sexual immorality, perverted sensuality, homosexuality, lust of every kind, immoral acts and unnatural lust; you can take your pick.
We are faced with the inescapable and rather amusing conclusion that the condemned activities in Sodom had nothing to do with sodomy.
Source: OCRT: Bible and Homosexuality
continued on next post...

He4y Rick you lying stealing piece of filth, why do you not give references to pieces you steal from other sites,
or is it just coincidence that what you wrote above appears as
The Bible does make occasional references to activities which have
been translated as homosexuality:
* Genesis 19 describes how two angels visited Sodom and were
welcomed into Lot's house. The men of the city gathered around the
house and demanded that Lot send the visitors to the mob so that
they might know the angels.[The Hebrew verb yada (to know) is
ambiguous. It appears 943 times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old
Testament). In only about a dozen of these cases does it refers to
sexual activity; it is not clear whether the mob wanted to rape
the angels or to meet with them, and perhaps attack them
physically. From the context, it is obvious that their mood was
not friendly]. Lot refused, but offered his two virgin daughters
to be heterosexually raped if that would appease the mob. The
offer was declined. God decided to destroy the city because of the
wickedness of its inhabitants. The angels urged Lot and his family
to flee and to not look back. Unfortunately, Lot's wife looked the
wrong way, so God killed her because of her curiosity.
God was apparently not critical of Lot for offering his two
daughters to be raped. However, God was angry at the other
inhabitants of the town. He destroyed Sodom with fire and
brimstone (sulfur). He presumably killed all of the men in the
mob, their wives and other adults, as well as children, infants,
newborns, etc. It is unclear from these few verses whether God
demolished the city because the citizens:
1. were uncharitable and abusive to strangers
2. wanted to rape people
3. engaged in homosexual acts."
in the web site
http://www.ncf.ca/ip/sigs/life/gay/religion/h...
typical of a thief and low life,

[Rick in Kansas]

Tory One wrote:

(nothing worth repeating)

Perhaps you should learn to read what you're quoting before you start calling people all sorts of names. You'll notce that the post that you have quoted is referenced for its source which for the first part of the two part post (you'll notice it ends with continued on next post) and reads OCRT: Bible and Homosexuality. if you had continued on to the second half of the post you'll notice that a second essay: "Same Gender Sexual Behavior and the Scriptures" written by Rev Jonathan Loppnow and Rev Paul C. Evans was also quoted and that BOTH essays were listed as having been copied from the following link

http://www.whosoever.org/bible/genesis.shtml

Since you have told a deliberate untruth regarding my posting, wouldn't that make you "the lying piece of filth"?

By the way, if you notice on the bottom of the link that you have provided, although it is not properly sourced, they also make reference to the OCRT which is the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. It is from their website (ReligiousTolerance.org) that all of my postings referencing OCRT The Bible and Homosexuality and everything on your link originated.

You can apologize any time now...

[Tory One]

I apologise

[Rick in Kansas]

Tory One wrote:

I apologise

Thank you...

[nikos]

ORTHODOX

OUTLET for

DOGMATIC

ENQUIRIES.

Discover Orthodox Christianity!

( http://www.oodegr.com/english/index.htm )

( http://www.oodegr.com/english/neo.htm )

( http://www.antiochian.org/ )

( http://www.romanity.org/cont.htm )

( http://www.antiochian.org/wordarticles )

[Gary47]

Except that they don't exclude Bishops for being "sinful". A number of bishops are divorced and remarried, which is definitely on the no-no list for moral busybodies.

Most Anglicans outside of Africa no longer see Homosexuality per se as sinful, although depending how you exercise your sexuality, it may be sinful.

Would you care to explain why Bishop Gene is the only one singled for "sin"? I smell a rotten, hypocritical decision.

Azakia wrote:

If this bishop were simply a homosexual, then there'd be no reason to exclude him from the conference. If however he openly practices homosexuality and condones it, which is the case here, then he's practically celebrating a sinful lifestyle. If a bishop was living a lifestyle of incest or adultery then they also should be excluded from the conference.
Indeed we are to love all people unconditionally but when it's written multiple times in black in white by multiple people and never once states that homosexual practice in itself (which includes both homosexual or heterosexuals practicing homosexual acts) is acceptable in anyway then by disobeying God I'd not only be putting humans before God but I wouldn't be loving homosexuals for failing to point out their sin in the first place.
Liberals twist the scriptures and make inappropriate conclusions that aren't there in order to justify homosexaulity. One only has to look at all the metaphors for marriage throughout the Bible (Israel and God, the Church and Christ in each case one is referred to as a bride and one a groom and described in feminine and masculine names elsewhere throughout the Bible) to know that in every case there is one man one women.
So the truth is liberals indirectly hate homosexuals and are willing to mislead them by angering God while conservatives love homosexuals because all good and godly Christians look out for one another and warn each other when going astray.

[Gary47]

THe operative words in your comments are:

"I think"
"I think"
"I think"

Your opinion cannot be unambiguously squared with the bible, just a traditional view which many fiathful people reject.

hookinuphubby wrote:

Rick,
your perspective on Romans 1:26-27 does not really make sense...
To say that homosexuality was a "natural" inclination for some Greeks at the time is not a solid argument for a favorable view upon homosexuality. If you follow that line of thought... some people have a "natural" inclination to kill themselves, some people have a "natural" inclination to cut themselves, some people have a "natural" inclination to have sex with children, some people have a "natural" inclination to kill and eat people, some people have a "natural" inclination to do any number of things that most people find "unnatural".
Looking at things from the perspective of nature... creatures of the same sex cannot reproduce offspring. The requirement of male and female are needed to produce and offspring. Some birds in nature are known to have "lesbian" relationships with other birds, and as a result produce no offspring. This is viewed by ornithologists as "abnormal" or "not natural".
Do I think homosexuals should be villainized?
No
Do I think homosexuality is a worse sin that sex out of wedlock?
No
Do I think homosexuality is contrary to God's design and the message of the Bible?
Yes

[Answers]

Gary47 wrote:

Would you care to explain why Bishop Gene is the only one singled for "sin"? I smell a rotten, hypocritical decision.
<quoted text>

Maybe it is because he is unrepentent in his sin. Just a thought.

[Answers]

Gary47 wrote:

Your opinion cannot be unambiguously squared with the bible, just a traditional view which many fiathful people reject.
<quoted text>

From Genesis to Revelation the Bible only offers marriage as a man and woman. Jesus affirmed this in Matthew and Mark.

[MiddleWay]

Answers wrote:

<quoted text>
From Genesis to Revelation the Bible only offers marriage as a man and woman. Jesus affirmed this in Matthew and Mark.

He also said divorce is WRONG, where is that bandwagon?

[Dyssonance]

Answers wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe it is because he is unrepentent in his sin. Just a thought.

Too bad it wasn't informed. HE's a good man who does well.

[Abracadaver]

Paul said that women are to be silenced if they try to teach Scripture. Jesus said that God recognizes no divorce, save for cases of adultery (and then he said that you'll find more favor in God's eyes if you forgive your spouse).

Therefore, why don't all of you hypocrite breeders who are divorced, or allow women to become ordained in your churches, or allow DIVORCED WOMEN to be ministers (as a reformed Lutheran, I've seen plenty of such), just SHUT THE F*CK UP ALREADY.

Azakia wrote:

If this bishop were simply a homosexual, then there'd be no reason to exclude him from the conference. If however he openly practices homosexuality and condones it, which is the case here, then he's practically celebrating a sinful lifestyle. If a bishop was living a lifestyle of incest or adultery then they also should be excluded from the conference.
Indeed we are to love all people unconditionally but when it's written multiple times in black in white by multiple people and never once states that homosexual practice in itself (which includes both homosexual or heterosexuals practicing homosexual acts) is acceptable in anyway then by disobeying God I'd not only be putting humans before God but I wouldn't be loving homosexuals for failing to point out their sin in the first place.
Liberals twist the scriptures and make inappropriate conclusions that aren't there in order to justify homosexaulity. One only has to look at all the metaphors for marriage throughout the Bible (Israel and God, the Church and Christ in each case one is referred to as a bride and one a groom and described in feminine and masculine names elsewhere throughout the Bible) to know that in every case there is one man one women.
So the truth is liberals indirectly hate homosexuals and are willing to mislead them by angering God while conservatives love homosexuals because all good and godly Christians look out for one another and warn each other when going astray.