Why gay rights can't ignore God

"... Just as the church got it wrong about race by using scripture to justify slavery for centuries, and just as the church got it wrong using scripture to degrade and subject women to an inferior position, I pose the question that could it be that the church has also gotten it wrong about LGBT people for so long."

Here Bishop Robinson is as guilty as anyone else who misuses scripture to promote a personal agenda.

For example, Paul's writings never "justified" slavery, but acknowledged it as a long-established Roman institution in which relationships between slave and master were now being redefined in Christ (Eph. 6:5-9).

So.......I guess we're supposed to believe that your own interpretation of the Bible is somehow less than personal, are we?

The Bible is opened to subjective interpretation. Always has been. That's why there's 250 +/- Christian denominations in this country, each saying that the other 249 got it wrong.

Joe DeCaro wrote:

"... Just as the church got it wrong about race by using scripture to justify slavery for centuries, and just as the church got it wrong using scripture to degrade and subject women to an inferior position, I pose the question that could it be that the church has also gotten it wrong about LGBT people for so long."
Here Bishop Robinson is as guilty as anyone else who misuses scripture to promote a personal agenda.
For example, Paul's writings never "justified" slavery, but acknowledged it as a long-established Roman institution in which relationships between slave and master were now being redefined in Christ (Eph. 6:5-9).

This thread title is a bit misleading. Should be more like,'gays can't ignore religious nuts.'

Robinson:

"...my argument is not that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people have to be religious. But even if they are not religious, they have to pay attention to the religious arguments, because that really is what is holding us back from equal rights."

In other words, Gene, religion is an enemy and it's smart to know the tactics of one's enemy.

Other than that, it's very easy for this gay to ignore god(s).

What I can't ignore is the fact that they use their religion against those of us who don't follow their version of Deity. Being Pagan there is no qualms about GLBT folks doing anything that Straight folks do. There is no separation between orientations to make others be the "bad" guy.

SFer wrote:

So.......I guess we're supposed to believe that your own interpretation of the Bible is somehow less than personal, are we ...

No, but if you have a NT verse(s) that supports slavery and agrees w/Robinson's claims, then feel free to post it, chapter and verse.

Edio wrote:

... In other words, Gene, religion is an enemy and it's smart to know the tactics of one's enemy ...

If Robinson actually thinks that religion is an enemy, what is he really doing as a bishop in TEC?

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
If Robinson actually thinks that religion is an enemy, what is he really doing as a bishop in TEC?

Good question. I was wondering that myself! Oh, "enemy" was my word, my "translation" of Gene's statement. He'd probably disagree with me.

Everyone is going to Heaven,because we are all in Hell now.

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
No, but if you have a NT verse(s) that supports slavery and agrees w/Robinson's claims, then feel free to post it, chapter and verse.

If you really read what he said, he was stating the CHURCH used the Bible to support slavery. And they did so INCORRECTLY. The same as what's happening with gays now. They are using the Bible INCORRECTLY.
Nowhere did he state the Bible supported slavery, or supported the unequal treatment of gays.

Craig in OKC wrote:

If you really read what he said, he was stating the CHURCH used the Bible to support slavery ...

No, Robinson said the church "got it wrong about RACE" when it used "scripture to JUSTIFY slavery"

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.h...

Passages from the Christian Scriptures which Sanction Slavery

Neither Jesus nor St. Paul, nor any other Biblical figure is recorded as saying anything in opposition to the institution of slavery. Slavery was very much a part of life in Palestine and in the rest of the Roman Empire during New Testament times. Quoting Rabbi M.J. Raphall, circa 1861, "Receiving slavery as one of the conditions of society, the New Testament nowhere interferes with or contradicts the slave code of Moses; it even preserves a letter [to Philemon] written by one of the most eminent Christian teachers [St. Paul] to a slave owner on sending back to him his runaway slave." (Rabbi M.J. Raphall, "The Bible View of Slavery," delivered in New York City, 1861.)

People in debt (and their children) were still being sold into slavery in New Testament times:

*Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."

Priests still owned slaves:

*Mark 14:66: "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:"

Jesus is recorded as mentioning slaves in one of his parables. It is important to realize that the term "servant" in the King James Version of the Bible refers to slaves, not employees like a butler, cook, or maid. Here, a slave which did not follow his owner's will would be beaten with many lashes of a whip. A slave who was unaware of his owner's will, but who did not behave properly, would also be beaten, but with fewer stripes.

This would have been a marvelous opportunity for Jesus to condemn the institution of slavery and its abuse of slaves. But he is not recorded of having taken it:

*Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

***CONTINUED***

One of the favorite passages of slave-owning Christians was St. Paul's infamous instruction that slaves to obey their owners in the same way that they obey Christ:

*Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

Other passages instructing slaves and slave owners in proper behavior are:

*Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."
*1 Timothy 6:1-3 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;"

In his defense, St. Paul incorrectly expected that Jesus would return in the very near future. This might have demotivated him from speaking out against slavery or other social evils in the Roman Empire. Also he regarded slaves as persons of worth whom at least God considers of importance. St. Paul mentioned that both slaves and free persons are sons of God, and thus all part of the body of Christ and spiritually equal.

*1 Corinthians 12:13: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."
Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
*Colossians 3:11: "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."

St. Paul apparently saw no evil in the concept of one person owning another as a piece of property. In his Letter to Philemon, he had every opportunity to discuss the immorality of slave-owning, but declined to do so.

Deuteronomy 23:15-16, cited above, requires a Jew to protect a runaway slave, and to not return him/her to their owner.. However, St. Paul violated the law. While in prison, he met a runaway slave, Onesimus, the slave of a Christian. He was presumably owned by Pheliemon. Rather than give the slave sanctuary, he returned him to his owner. Paul seems to hint that he would like Pheliemon to give Onesimus his freedom, but does not actually request it. See the Letter to Philemon in the Christian Scriptures.

Rick in Kansas wrote:

Passages from the Christian Scriptures which Sanction Slavery ...

It's important to understand that the Bible did not SANCTION slavery, but accepted it as a fait accompli.
As important as it was, slavery is still a temporal state, while the NT's over-riding concern is eternal salvation.

Rick in Kansas wrote:

People in debt (and their children) were still being sold into slavery in New Testament times ...

This is not slavery but indentured servitude, and the debt would be automatically forgiven during the year of jubilee.

Rick in Kansas wrote:

... In his defense, St. Paul incorrectly expected that Jesus would return in the very near future. This might have demotivated him from speaking out against slavery or other social evils in the Roman Empire.

Recall that Paul was also a Roman citizen who had to abide by Roman law.
Further, the only "abolitionist movement" the Romans ever knew was courtesy of Spartacus, and most free citizens were unsympathetic to murder and mayhem from their (former) slaves!

Rick in Kansas wrote:

... See the Letter to Philemon in the Christian Scriptures.

Pilemon is "a model handling of a delicate situation neither infringing the rights of others nor compromising (Paul')s own convictions ... the best way to prevent evil is to apply a positive principle ...(which) ultimately did undermine slavery," i.e., thru the preaching of Wilberforce and others.

E.G. Ashby, The International Bible Commentary, p. 1498.

The point of the article that I quoted, is that since Christ himself was silent on the subject and that the few verses which mentioned slavery, were accepting of the practice, many churches in the South were more than willing to accept and even justify its continuation, including the Episcopalian. The writers of the books of the New Testament held no moral position on slavery, simply that it was a fact of their existence, neither good nor bad, moral or immoral. Some were destined to be slaves and some were destined to be masters and the "Christian" view on the matter was that masters be treat their slaves well and slaves be obedient to their masters, everything else was simply your lot in life. Although in our modern era, the Christian faith is nearly universal in the condemnation of the practice as immoral, during the 17th-19th centuries that was far from true. The reality is that "Christianity" is far from a static set of beliefs and has been ever evolving since its inception. It also does not evolve all at once, but here and there according to the beliefs of the adherents. Christianity, as with any religious belief system, it is the believers who do more to supply the meaning of the faith than any "holy books" upon which it is based. In the case of Christianity, it is the Christians who tell the Bible what to believe rather than the other way around.

I never really thought slavery was necessarily a good thing, or even profitable, but in it's time, it served it's purpose. People seem to forget, that England at one time, had debtor's prisons, and would take men from these prisons and move them to where the Queen needed service, she used these men in the state of Georgia and Australia, Georgia being a colony at that time of course. People watch too much Roots, in the 1800's, there was no Hud, food stamps, welfare, or any other government assistance programs, it was root hog or die, many people were kept fed, clothed, and sheltered well by the institution of slavery, people seem to forget, that in the south, their were sharecroppers both black and white, which in a sense, also served it's purpose. Slavery is mentioned twice I know of in the Bible, one, Genesis 9, speaking of Ham. And later, the book of Philemon, I'm sure Harriet Tubman never took time to read this, people bad mouth the south, but if you get right down to the nitty gritty, those northern factories, and the way they kept people tied to their industrial machine, was every bit as inhumane as the horror stories you heard about down south!

Joe DeCaro wrote:

"... Just as the church got it wrong about race by using scripture to justify slavery for centuries, and just as the church got it wrong using scripture to degrade and subject women to an inferior position, I pose the question that could it be that the church has also gotten it wrong about LGBT people for so long."
Here Bishop Robinson is as guilty as anyone else who misuses scripture to promote a personal agenda.
For example, Paul's writings never "justified" slavery, but acknowledged it as a long-established Roman institution in which relationships between slave and master were now being redefined in Christ (Eph. 6:5-9).

Dear Joe,

Do you think that Paul, himself, was a "slave" to the scripture that he used to make his points?

Are there any scriptural references within the Bible, New Testament, from Paul's letters that would indicate that he was free from any constraint that could be imposed by scripture?

This is an important question, Joe. I know the answer. I want to see if you and others here are willing to state the answer in terms of what Paul said about himself and his own scripturally defined limitations.

Please try to answer with a direct understanding. It will not be useful to try to make any personal defense out of Paul's declarations. I am only interested in how you see Paul regarding his own limitations.

Thanks for your replies. Upon receiving your comments, I will try to relate the perspectives given to the topic of this thread.

KGC

KGC wrote:

<quoted text>
Dear Joe,
Do you think that Paul, himself, was a "slave" to the scripture that he used to make his points?
Are there any scriptural references within the Bible, New Testament, from Paul's letters that would indicate that he was free from any constraint that could be imposed by scripture?

Didn't Paul state that though all things were possible for him, not all were profitable to him?

In fact, the entire 9th chapter of 1 Corinthians comes to mind.

This is Hell wrote:

Everyone is going to Heaven,because we are all in Hell now.

Sure you just keep believing that dumbass!!

There is no where in the Bible that upholds homosexuality, fact is, it's twice called an 'abomination" Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13! "Abomination" means exceeding hatred! Leviticus 20:13'If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.'