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

Judged:

1

1

1

hookinuphubby wrote:

Rick,
your I don't agree with your position on what Paul was saying. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.
Concerning the natural order of things, and we'll go with pedophilia as an example, it is not something that is picked up or learned from other people. While it is true that some people were molested as kids and turn into molesters, this is not the case for everyone. Due to the huge sex tourism industry, and the number of sex slaves (many of them children), I would say that the number of pedophiles is probably close to equal, if not more than the number of homosexuals. Some of those numbers overlap, but I would say that the majority of homosexuals are obviously not pedophiles. That being said, pedophilia, like homosexuality (notice I did not say they were the same or necessarily interrelated) genetic and environmental stimulus that bring them out. Here is a segment from a recent article....
"There is increasing evidence that problems in certain areas of the brain may contribute to feelings of sexual attraction towards children.
In a few cases, patients with a brain tumor in a particular part of the brain have developed such feelings, only for them to go away when the tumor was removed.
The Yale study used functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), a technique which allows the activity within the brain to be recorded as the patient is thinking.
They found that when known patients with pedophilia feelings were asked to look at adult pornography, a part of the brain called the hypothalamus, which is known to be involved in arousal and hormone release, was less active than in other volunteers.
More generally, the more extreme the pedophilia behavior was rated, the lower the activation in a part of the brain called the "frontal cortex"."
So, following your theory, if these are the "natural" inclinations of men (or women), then we can in no way frown upon them... that's just the way they are.

Rick in Kansas wrote:

In summary:
homosexual activity in the temple by male prostitutes is clearly prohibited by the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament).
homosexual activity in general may have been prohibited at the time by the Holiness Code, but that code is no longer binding on Christians today.
St. Paul considered at least some male and female homosexual acts to be forbidden, but it is unclear precisely which acts are included. He may have been referring to temple prostitution, or to people who are not innately gay, lesbian or bisexual engaging in homosexual acts. One should note that Paul also condemned women preaching (1 Cor 14:34) or wearing gold or pearls (1 Tim 2:11). He also accepted and did not condemn the institution of slavery. Some Christians feel that his writings are not a useful guide for ethics and morals in the 20th Century.
Jesus made many hundreds of statements regarding belief and behaviour. However He never mentioned homosexuality.
There are two Biblical same-sex relationships (one between two women, the other two men) reported in the Bible in a positive light. They appear to have progressed well beyond friendship. They were likely homosexual affairs, although not necessarily sexually active relationships:
+ Ruth 1:16, 2:10-11 between Ruth and Naomi
+ 1 Samuel 18:1-4, 1 Samuel 20:41-42 and 2 Samuel 1:25-26 between David and Jonathan.(Some translations of the Bible distort the original Hebrew text, particularly of 1 Samuel 20)
It is the subject of endless debate whether St. Paul's prohibition of at least some homosexual acts was:
+ for the people in the vicinity of the Mediterranean during the 1st Century CE, or
+ for all people, forever.
One can argue that the ancient Israelites were surrounded by warlike tribes. Their fertility was very important if the group was to survive. The early Christian church was also surrounded by enemies. Homosexuals tend to have few children; thus their presence would be met with opposition. At the end of the 20th Century, conditions are the exact opposite; we are threatened by our excessive fertility. Perhaps Paul's criticism of homosexuality is no longer valid, like his various prohibitions against women's behaviour.
Source: OCRT: Bible and Homosexuality
continued on next post...

Judged:

1

1

the light has come wrote:

From my view point and this is not an insult because this one man is responsible for the great divide in the Anglican and Episcopalian church. The last Lambeth Conference oppose ordaining homosexual to be bishops. Roberson knowing went against his own church teaching. He may feel he is right but if he love the church he would have seen the harm he has caused. Breaking the rules of an orginzation knowing carries a penatly. A person may argue that they have a right to break the law but when the police stop you there is a price to pay.

Judged:

1

MiddleWay wrote:

<quoted text>
He also said divorce is WRONG, where is that bandwagon?

Dyssonance wrote:

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

Judged:

1

Gary47 wrote:

You are so wrong.
Bishop Gene was elected by the people of New Hampshire who knew him and his partner.
The divide comes from those who make a big deal out of something that has nothing remotely to do with core Christan beliefs.
<quoted text>

Judged:

1

Answers wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you call him good?
Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

Judged:

1

Gary47 wrote:

You are so wrong.
Bishop Gene was elected by the people of New Hampshire who knew him and his partner.
The divide comes from those who make a big deal out of something that has nothing remotely to do with core Christan beliefs.
<quoted text>

Answers wrote:

<quoted text>
So I guess Gene fits into that category as well.

the light has come wrote:

<quoted text>Regardless of how you see it, if Roberson did not agree with the the church he suppose to represent, he should have gotten out of it and start his own church.If he wanted to stay in the church he should went about trying to get the rules change.The way I see it, this is about the organization and not about how someone see Christian belief.