Homosexuality Sodom And Gomorrah?
Posted 11 June 2003 - 08:03 PM
N.H. Episcopalians Elect Gay Bishop
In a national first, New Hampshire Episcopalians on Saturday elected an openly gay man as their next bishop.
The selection of the Rev. V. Gene Robinson, 56, who was chosen over three other candidates in voting by New Hampshire clergy and lay Episcopalians, is still subject to confirmation next month by the church's national General Convention.
Bishops in the worldwide Anglican Communion, which includes the Episcopal Church in the United States, approved a resolution in 1998 calling gay sex "incompatible with Scripture."According to the Episcopal News Service, the only other bishop to publicly state that he is actively gay is Otis Charles, former bishop of Utah, who made the announcement in 1993 after retiring.
Robinson, who was married and has two grown children, now lives with his partner, Mark Andrew, in Weare and is an assistant to retiring Bishop Douglas Theuner. Friends say he remains on good terms with his ex-wife and two daughters, both of whom were at Saturday's election. On the final ballot, Robinson received 58 of 77 ballots cast by clergy and 96 of 165 lay votes.
On the Net:New Hampshire Episcopal Church: http://www.nhepiscopal.org/
Posted 11 June 2003 - 08:25 PM
It's hard to figure out what the thinking is. It's absolutely amazing.
By the way only in Barbados can you find a church having a fair and setting up a tent with ESAF and Heineken logos on them.
Posted 14 June 2003 - 08:56 AM
Posted 14 June 2003 - 02:56 PM
I had a casual look at the former Rufus Barbados' article, and got the feeling that some theologians still live in the age of sophistry. We must remember that our former bishop now lives in the USA where the charge that one is homophobic can be particularly damaging. However, I have no stomach for the acid test that he proposed for determining whether a homosexual prelate should rise further in the church. To his question: Is he having sex?, my answer is that I just don't want to know!
Posted 16 June 2003 - 07:34 AM
Posted 16 June 2003 - 09:28 AM
Posted 18 June 2003 - 06:34 PM
It is my belief that there's a possibility that not all people who fall into these categories are from a genetic imbalance. In some cases, there are factors/experiences within people's life that cause them to change because of an experience, such as child molestation and other harmful factors.
I don’t think that most of these people choose deliberately such lifestyles. None-the-less, because they live a different lifestyle than that of the norm/majority, it doesn’t mean that they should be ridiculed because they are in the minority. [Some people try to fit into the norm of society, but for some reason they were not “programmed” that way.]
When it comes to choice, no one chooses to born black, white or mixed, to be near-sighted, far-sighted or to have perfect vision. Man's inventiveness has given us the technology to use colored contact lenses to alter eye color, and laser surgery to correct vision. But it will only be man's capacity for tolerance and compassion that will permit those that are born with different gender makeup to live as comfortably in society with their fellow human beings, as those born with traits that are considered "the norm."
Hopefully, in the future, man's technology in the bio-medical field may give us the opportunity for more "genetic engineering." But is this what we really want? – a society without artists or composers, etc.? [If we go back in the early ages of history, there are all levels in every walk of life [artists, composers, etc.] that faced these challenges.]
With that said, people should learn to accept others for who they are and avoid being judgmental. I don’t believe any country would be in existence if everyone and everything were the same. The world is made up of positive and negative; we can’t have 100% of either. I believe that people should be themselves and do what they feel like doing if they are not hurting others. If and when the time comes that people feel that there is something that they could do about their lifestyle and want to do it, [whatever it maybe] so be it.
All of us have been in control of our own actions and have at one time done something negative, whether considered big or small that is not pleasing in the sight of God or man. In the bishop’s case, he probably felt that open confession is better than secret guilt. He answers to God not to man.
Posted 19 June 2003 - 12:01 PM
Did you hear about Canon Jones in Redding, Uk in the news today, he has refused to give up his male lover. As a society should we look the other way. My position is that as a society we must accept a mainstream ethical perspective. In other words, it is possible that we can have a hard line on some issue because as a society we have as a majority establish a moral minimum.
Posted 19 June 2003 - 05:22 PM
In that case I would say that you are certainly not voting with your feet :;D!
Posted 20 June 2003 - 05:42 PM
In this case, if the Bishop-to-be stands on the pulpit and preaches in favor of homosexuality, I would think that he should be disrobed. In my opinion, he should keep his personal feelings to himself, and not try to influence his beliefs, which is against God’s word. If he preaches against it, I would consider him a hypocrite [not being true to himself]. He should not be attempting to lead his flock astray.
Posted 20 June 2003 - 07:27 PM
Do you really think that is the kind of person God wants to lead to his flock as he is? And he is a hypocrite.
Posted 21 June 2003 - 07:57 AM
Posted 21 June 2003 - 04:11 PM
Don’t you think it is better for an individual to be upfront, in this case, with the parishioners, than for someone to blackmail that individual's secret lifestyle? I believe if people knew the rationale behind some of the irrational behaviors/decisions, some who were adamantly against whatever, they would most likely get a better understanding, reevaluate the situation, and have a different outlook than initially.
Posted 22 June 2003 - 11:14 AM
One must always be prepared to pay the price!
Posted 23 June 2003 - 08:34 AM
Your conclusion appears to infer that anyone, and maybe especially those in public roles, who practice a homosexual lifestyle should be discreet about it. Is that not deceit – would that not be just as bad as the fisherman having “bad” fish and failing to tell his patrons that his fish stinks? I personally feel that the “bishop-to-be” did the right thing by making his sexual preference known to his congregation, regardless of the circumstances in which he developed these feelings. The same way that his preaching was accepted and enjoyed before confession, there is no reason why his preaching should be rejected or disliked after confession. It seems to me that the majority of his parishioners are more interested in the message he brings to the pulpit than to worry about his sexual life. It doesn’t mean that the majority is right; but there are times such as this, when the majority rules, right or wrong.
How many of us care about the mail carrier? What we care about is the mail delivery. Regardless of our personal beliefs, we will not have any input into the final decision of his destiny.