Gay bishop should resign for good of the church, says African archbishop

WWJD?

confused wrote:

WWJD?

Well, He certainly wouldn't exclude another Christian from sharing God's UNCONDITIONAL love with others, as these men are. So-called christians who speak out in judgement of others are guilty of a bigger sin - driving people away from God.

Just proves he isn't a Shepherd at all.A Shepherd would be concerned about the sheep.He only cares about promoting his own agenda.Does't care if he destroys the church.Instead of giving himself for the sheep he would sacrifice them for his own cause.More like a hirling than a Shepherd.Poor judgement that made him a bishop.LOL.

He should Resign without a shadow of a doubt

not confused at all wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, He certainly wouldn't exclude another Christian from sharing God's UNCONDITIONAL love with others, as these men are. So-called christians who speak out in judgement of others are guilty of a bigger sin - driving people away from God.

Yes he would and yes he will.The bible is plain on this.The word of God is what speaks out in judgement of the bishop.

"Driving them away from God"Don't kid yourself God is not in this mess.Making him a bishop is plainly spoken against in the bible.

What are the qualifications of the office of Bishop according to scripture?

1 Timothy 3:1-3 (KJV)
“This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;”

Does Gene really fit this description?

confused wrote:

WWJD?

*Shrugging* He would honor any one promoting and doing his work? Call me a little out of it, but last I checked, there were no prerequisites for one to be gay or straight to perform God's work.

whats up wrote:

Just proves he isn't a Shepherd at all.A Shepherd would be concerned about the sheep.He only cares about promoting his own agenda.Does't care if he destroys the church.Instead of giving himself for the sheep he would sacrifice them for his own cause.More like a hirling than a Shepherd.Poor judgement that made him a bishop.LOL.

Perhaps you should get off the farm and start discussing the issue.

Jesus is the Way wrote:

He should Resign without a shadow of a doubt

You should "shut up", but it seems like you never do and you just continue to ramble on with same old, religious gibberish as you always do.

By the way, why do you spend so much time in the gay threads? Just curious

whats up wrote:

<quoted text>Yes he would and yes he will.The bible is plain on this.The word of God is what speaks out in judgement of the bishop.
"Driving them away from God"Don't kid yourself God is not in this mess.Making him a bishop is plainly spoken against in the bible.

How is the bishop driving people away from God? Be specific and show detailed information while doing so. Many thanks

StevenFL wrote:

<quoted text>
How is the bishop driving people away from God? Be specific and show detailed information while doing so. Many thanks

It's in quotation marks in response to post #2. I mis-typed them instead of people.

whats up wrote:

<quoted text>It's in quotation marks in response to post #2. I mis-typed them instead of people.

Ooops. My bad. Sorry

I think so, the bible clearly doesnt agree with that sort of practice. A gay bishop wow!

StevenFL wrote:

<quoted text>
You should "shut up", but it seems like you never do and you just continue to ramble on with same old, religious gibberish as you always do.
By the way, why do you spend so much time in the gay threads? Just curious

Dear StevenFL,

This Episcopal Church forum on Topix may be simultaneously posting at multple sites. But, it is not by any means, a "gay thread." Because the issue at hand is important for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the recognition of gay people and the acceptance of their right to a Holy Blessing of their monogamous commitment, there is no justification for inferring that anyone who posts here may be a latent homosexual.

KGC

Why? the church isn't any good anyway..

Remz wrote:

I think so, the bible clearly doesnt agree with that sort of practice. A gay bishop wow!

People, the world AND the Kingdom of God did not end or become frozen in time and space or in understanding or reasonable action and growth when Jesus walked here 2000 years ago. That's when the story began.

In the Christian Way, we have fought and ended slavery and discrimination on many fronts on behalf of the weak and the oppressed. We now have women bishops and serving as good and capable leaders, even though parts of the Church still do not recognize or permit this. In the course of growing up and becoming adults in Christ, we will eventually find justification and the courage to lift up the gay population also. They are every bit as welcome to God as any one of the rest of us.

KGC

kgc wrote:

<quoted text>
People, the world AND the Kingdom of God did not end or become frozen in time and space or in understanding or reasonable action and growth when Jesus walked here 2000 years ago. That's when the story began.
In the Christian Way, we have fought and ended slavery and discrimination on many fronts on behalf of the weak and the oppressed. We now have women bishops and serving as good and capable leaders, even though parts of the Church still do not recognize or permit this. In the course of growing up and becoming adults in Christ, we will eventually find justification and the courage to lift up the gay population also. They are every bit as welcome to God as any one of the rest of us.
KGC

But the bible clearly opposes sodomy, so how will gays be welcomed eventually. Dont lie to urself

Remz wrote:

<quoted text>
But the bible clearly opposes sodomy, so how will gays be welcomed eventually. Dont lie to urself

Dear Remz,

I don't mind if you disagree with any opinion that I have expressed. However, I don't intentionally lie to either you or to myself about these matters. I am the first to admit that I do not know the answers or have a complete understanding of these issues. But, I am not naive about them either. I am fairly well-educated in scriptural study. I do not feel compelled to post any particular quotes either against or for homosexuality from the Bible. However, I do insist that all of us, as Christians, should refrain from any condemnation of any other and that we should all work toward exhibiting behavior that works in the spirit of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I believe that there are many passages in the Bible that are time and situation specific - that is, they may not have the same relevance to today's accepted understanding of reality as compared to the way they did, way back then. Other passages in scripture are truly timeless and will always be relevant to anyone who seeks a better understanding of him or herself as a living being in God.

That said, we make a fundamental mistake by attempting to characterize homosexual behavior in terms of sin. It is simply a judgment of another person's character and behavior that we are not qualified to make. You say that the Bible condemns homosexuality. I say our modern understandings of the nature and variability of human sexuality has steadily dissolved ages-old taboo and myth about our behavior as a species.

We are very frankly taking such stereotyping away and are making it quite impossible to continue to condemn our fellow humans for their adult choices made in a spirit of mutual consent, especially when such choices are in keeping with their normally developed natures.

If you want to dispute what is coming to be self-evidently normal, I would agree that that is an area of question truly lacking clarity. But, it is a heck of a lot more clear today than it was 2000 years ago when people believed that malaria was caused by "bad air" and that epileptic siezures were demonic possessions.

KGC

There is nothing in the Bible about homosexuality. It's all Christain propaganda they made up cause they were running out of abortion clinics to bomb.

Gene Robinson was elected by an overwhelming majority of his Diocese who had full disclosure and knowledge that he was/is homosexual and living with his partner.

By Canon Law, he is under no obligation at all to resign and it is not correct for other bishops to ask him to do so.

Further, the African Archbishop and Bishops under him, would do VERY well to get their own houses in order before they speak about the mote in Gene Robinson's eye. The African Diocese are rife with poverty, little to no access to food on a daily basis, the same for drinkable water, healthcare is nearly non-existant, education is difficult to come by, inter-tribal violence and hatred, and the list goes on.

It is a shame upon the entire Anglican Communion that the African Archbishop and Bishops do not invest the same energy to the problems of their flock that they do to Gene Robinson and to threatening schism. If they had devoted the same energy to their flock, perhaps things there would be greatly improved - sadly, they are not.

The shame is upon them - not upon Gene Robinson.

Eric