Bishop Gene Robinson accuses opponents of 'idolatry'

Adding that he was totally orthodox on doctrines such as the Trinity, the Resurrection and the Virgin Birth, he said: “We are fighting over something that is much less than all those. We have raised this one issue of sexuality over and above all the essentials. This is at best unhelpful — and at worst idolatry.”

[Joe DeCaro]

Orthodox Anglicans haven't raised this one issue; Robinson and his fellow Episcopalians have.

Just because one doctrine of faith is of (relatively) lesser importance than others doesn't give Robinson the license to dismiss it.

In his book, Robinson claims to be "swept to the center by God," but Robinson's inordinate love of self demands he take center stage. His need for attention has become narcissim, an idolatrous worship of one's own image.

[censoredagain]

Who wrote the tile to this anyways? Sensational Yellow Journalism at is best. Reading the full article he did not accuse anyone of Idolatry he stated it in a conditional manor that "...at worst it's idolatry". He suspects the possibility of idolatry he never accused anyone (in this situation) of idolatry.

One reason the world is in the state that it is; is because of the biased subjective inaccurate sensational reporting of the MSM and bloggers. When one controls the information they control the masses and sensational, subjective inaccurate and biased reporting are ways to control the masses.

[Abracadaver]

The article doesn't say that Bishop Robinson and his fellows have raised the issue; it says that the issue has been RAISED ABOVE all others. Bishop Robinson may have initially RAISED the issue, but it is definitely the orthodox members of Episcopalianism who have RAISED IT ABOVE all other issues.
This, of course, is their right. They're outraged and frightened, and seem to be finding no comfort in the teachings of their Savior ("What more have I asked of you, but that you LOVE EACH OTHER, as I first loved you?").
But don't respond with a knee-jerk reaction based on poor reading comprehension when someone says that your preoccupation bordering on obession with this one issue within the church borders on idolatry. Sounds to me like Bishop Robinson hit you exactly where you live, so to speak, and now you're smarting and need to find justification for your fear and loathing of others.
Was Dr. King a narcissist? How about Frederick Douglas? What about Jesus himself? Do all these other mavericks who took upon themselves the issues of social justice of their day qualify as narcissists, simply because their cause thrust them into the spotlight? Pfft. Intellectual dishonesty and a lack of critical thinking if ever there was an example of such.

Joe DeCaro wrote:

Orthodox Anglicans haven't raised this one issue; Robinson and his fellow Episcopalians have.
Just because one doctrine of faith is of (relatively) lesser importance than others doesn't give Robinson the license to dismiss it.
In his book, Robinson claims to be "swept to the center by God," but Robinson's inordinate love of self demands he take center stage. His need for attention has become narcissim, an idolatrous worship of one's own image.

[Michael Ejercito]

Joe DeCaro wrote:

Just because one doctrine of faith is of (relatively) lesser importance than others doesn't give Robinson the license to dismiss it.ssim, an idolatrous worship of one's own image.

Good point.

[Joe DeCaro]

Abracadaver wrote:

... They're outraged and frightened, and seem to be finding no comfort in the teachings of their Savior ("What more have I asked of you, but that you LOVE EACH OTHER, as I first loved you?")

First, frightened people don't post w/their real names as I have.

Second, Jesus said that if we loved Him, we would keep His commandments (John 14:15,21). How exactly has Gene Robinson loved Jesus when he can't even obey his own archbishop:

"The Bishop of New Hampshire, the Right Rev. Gene Robinson, is to defy the Archbishop of Canterbury by turning up uninvited at Canterbury for the Lambeth conference this week."

That should have been the headline for this story; Robinson was already disinvited to Lambeth, but insists on making a spectacle of himself?

To me, that's the definition of a narcisist.

[Abracadaver]

First, considering that Jesus never commanded anyone to not be homosexual, this is offtopic and irrelevant.
Second, one of Jesus' commands was to not be a hypocrite by trying to remove the speck from your brother's eye before/instead of removing the log form your own.
Third, the U.S. is a constitutional republic, not a theocratic "majority rules" democracy. The specific tennants of any religion are not to be favored over another, nor used to enshrine discrimination against a particular group whose otherwise are guaranteed equal protection under law.
Maybe you'd do better to worry about how YOU keep your God's commandments and stop worrying about everyone else. As your Creator arguably was the maker of both mind and body, but chose to place restrictions on neither, what makes you or others of your ilk more worthy to do so?

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
First, frightened people don't post w/their real names as I have.
Second, Jesus said that if we loved Him, we would keep His commandments (John 14:15,21). How exactly has Gene Robinson loved Jesus when he can't even obey his own archbishop:
"The Bishop of New Hampshire, the Right Rev. Gene Robinson, is to defy the Archbishop of Canterbury by turning up uninvited at Canterbury for the Lambeth conference this week."
That should have been the headline for this story; Robinson was already disinvited to Lambeth, but insists on making a spectacle of himself?
To me, that's the definition of a narcisist.

[Joe DeCaro]

Abracadaver wrote:

First, considering that Jesus never commanded anyone to not be homosexual, this is offtopic and irrelevant.
Second, one of Jesus' commands was to not be a hypocrite by trying to remove the speck from your brother's eye before/instead of removing the log form your own.
Third, the U.S. is a constitutional republic, not a theocratic "majority rules" democracy....
<quoted text>

What does your first three points have to do w/the fact the Rev. Gene Robinson can't obey his own religious superiors, let alone Christ? Is that because Rev. Robinson has "special rights"?

Re: "As your Creator arguably was the maker of both mind and body, but chose to place restrictions on neither ...," then what exactly are the Ten Commandments? The Ten Suggestions?

These Commandments are restrictions on both my actions (1-5) and my thoughts, i.e., "thou shalt not covet ..." They were supposed to apply to all in Judeo-Christianity, esp. our clergy, which includes Rev. Robinson.

[Sir Andrew]

Listening to so-called Christians argue about the specific idiocies of their made up religion is too silly for words.

So I will waste none of them here.

[Abracadaver]

No more special than those who choose not to enslave other humans, or treat women subserviently, or marry their late brother's widow, or to wear clothing woven from two different kinds of cloth, or cut their hair or shave their beard, etc etc ad nauseum...

Why can't you and your homophobic brothers and sisters just admit that you use scripture to justify your fear, loathing and hatred of homosexuals? Otherwise, all of the above referenced activities would still be taking place to this day. Your contradictory tome sanctions all of those ridiculous practices and calls the violation of such "abominations," also.

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
...the Rev. Gene Robinson can't obey his own religious superiors, let alone Christ? Is that because Rev. Robinson has "special rights"?

[Abracadaver]

P.S. I find it absolutely hilarious that a representative of a religion that was founded by the King of England directly REJECTING and DISOBEYING the only Christian church in existence because its definiton of marriage didn't suit him.

Never underestimate the distance a hypocrite will reach to justify themselves.

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
...They were supposed to apply to all in Judeo-Christianity, esp. our clergy, which includes Rev. Robinson."

[Joe DeCaro]

Abracadaver wrote:

P.S. I find it absolutely hilarious that a representative of a religion that was founded by the King of England directly REJECTING and DISOBEYING the only Christian church in existence because its definiton of marriage didn't suit him ...<quoted text>

What's more amusing is that Henry VIII did not found the Anglican Church, but simply broke all ties w/the Roman clergy. The C of E took its present form under Queen Elizabeth I.

[Abracadaver]

What's most amusing, and my original point, is using "obedience" to the church as an excuse to vilify Rev. Robinson. I bet you wouldn't save such a label for any other person of conscience, except those advocating for the equal treatment of LGBT persons, who so clearly make you SQUIRM.

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
What's more amusing is that Henry VIII did not found the Anglican Church, but simply broke all ties w/the Roman clergy. The C of E took its present form under Queen Elizabeth I.

[Joe DeCaro]

Abracadaver wrote:

...
Why can't you and your homophobic brothers and sisters just admit that you use scripture to justify your fear, loathing and hatred of homosexuals?...

We don't fear, loathe or hate anyone; what we do is love God's word more than we love you, while you only love those who agree w/you/your opinions.

[Joe DeCaro]

Abracadaver wrote:

What's most amusing, and my original point, is using "obedience" to the church as an excuse to vilify Rev. Robinson. I bet you wouldn't save such a label for any other person of conscience, except those advocating for the equal treatment of LGBT persons, who so clearly make you SQUIRM.
<quoted text>

This is utter nonsense, and you would lose that bet; the more you post, the more irrational are your arguments.

Re Robinson: I think CS Lewis said it best concerning those who eventualy came to disagree w/Christain doctrine. Lewis had no argument w/their new views, he just wondered why they continued to stay in a system in which they no longer believed in or respected.

[Abracadaver]

You love being "right" more than you love God's "Word," i.e. a collection of allegory written by nomads living in tents trying to make sense of their universe. Otherwise you'd address my question as to why its wrong to enslave humans, or acceptable to cut your hair or beard, or to refrain from marrying your late brother's wife. Christianity accepts today that all of these "abominations" were probably just cultural biases. But you'll CLING RELENTLESSLY to the one prohibition that strikes you in your quivering little breeder heart, because you think homosexuality is unnatural (never mind that its clearly rampant through all of creation, so if God hates homosexuality and is infallible, then he's just plain mean-spirited and juvenile...gee, sounds like your crowd!)

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
We don't fear, loathe or hate anyone; what we do is love God's word more than we love you, while you only love those who agree w/you/your opinions.

[Abracadaver]

Not surprising this would come from someone living in the South, also known as "Dumbfuckistan."

Lee wrote:

<quoted text>
Very nicely and objectively written; though the fact still remains, Robinson is wrong on the Bible and homosexuality. Unless he's repentant of his sins, he's lost.

[Joe DeCaro]

Abracadaver wrote:

.... Otherwise you'd address my question as to why its wrong to enslave humans, or acceptable to cut your hair or beard, or to refrain from marrying your late brother's wife. Christianity accepts today that all of these "abominations" were probably just cultural biases.

Sorry,'cadaver, but I was having dinner.

In brief, the bible never encouraged slavery, but accepted it as slavery was practiced world-wide in the ancient world. BTW, OT Hebrew "slaves" were really endentured servants. In the NT, St. Paul was quick to point out that (Christian) Roman slave owners and their proeprty both had the same master.

Cutting a male's beard was considered an insult in the ME, but marrying your late brother's wife -- in order to raise a son in his name -- was acceptible and called levitical marriage. I think your confusing this w/the plot of Hamlet.

[Joe DeCaro]

Lee wrote:

<quoted text>
Psychologists once believed that the homosexual's greatest curse was his narcissism, and thus the heart of his problem. They revised their beliefs after 1973 ...

Lee, these psychologists had "help" revising their beliefs thanks to constant intimidation from gay activists, resulting in changes to the DSM of Mental Disorders.

[Joe DeCaro]

Abracadaver wrote:

... But you'll CLING RELENTLESSLY to the one prohibition that strikes you in your quivering little breeder heart, because you think homosexuality is unnatural (never mind that its clearly rampant through all of creation ...<quoted text>

If homosexuality were as "rampant" as you suggest, you and I wouldn't be here arguing this!

[Gary47]

The Archbishop of Canterbury is first among equals, not the superior to other bishops (outside of the Church of England).

The ABC didn't tell Gene to not come - he just said that Gene could not preside at services in England.

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
What does your first three points have to do w/the fact the Rev. Gene Robinson can't obey his own religious superiors, let alone Christ? Is that because Rev. Robinson has "special rights"?
Re: "As your Creator arguably was the maker of both mind and body, but chose to place restrictions on neither ...," then what exactly are the Ten Commandments? The Ten Suggestions?
These Commandments are restrictions on both my actions (1-5) and my thoughts, i.e., "thou shalt not covet ..." They were supposed to apply to all in Judeo-Christianity, esp. our clergy, which includes Rev. Robinson.