Okinrus - Your fifteen minutes of infamy

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

there are also other non-traditional options

This tends toward the arbitrariness of faith. A non-traditional examination of church doctrine is exactly what's taking place with the Episcopalians. They may still decide they've made a mistake. There is no end point, no finality, to the ongoing experience. If they have faith, God will show them the way. And if God loves, and if God is remotely aware of the waning influence of His churches in society, and if God's love truly is compassion and redemption, then God has been prepared for this day since before the world was born.

He knows what He has wrought. And, despite all else, it is Good.

 

[okinrus]

Ok, but I don't consider this issue part of the faith. It's more or less how we get God based upon certain assumptions. I could see Robinson's interpretation could be true from an interfaith perspective, for all we know God was talking about orgies and temple prostitutes, but the risk involved in accepting it is just too great.

God's plan A of course is to let the entire world deteriorate and then throw it all into the pit.

 

[Tiassa]

Ain't it ironic?

God's plan A of course is to let the entire world deteriorate and then throw it all into the pit

Which is one of the reasons God is generally ineffable: That's the dumbest plan in the history of the Universe ... oh.

I could see Robinson's interpretation could be true from an interfaith perspective, for all we know God was talking about orgies and temple prostitutes, but the risk involved in accepting it is just too great.

Where is that interpretation of Robinson's? Or are you just going on the generalizations you imagine for him? That's part of the reason for this topic. As you keep referring to Robinson's interpretation and teachings, the question remains whether you know what those things are or are just speculating based on piecemeal punditry?

I'm wondering if Christians ever stop to think of something the Sufis generally like to remind us. Sufis remind that tales such as those compiled in Shah's Dervish Tales (one readily available volume I can think of)--essentially the Sufi classics like Nasrudin, Rumi, and others--cannot be taken at their surface value. An example would be the occasion that a Sufi master dismissed the patriarch Abraham for his lack of patience. Many people scoff and say, "But Abraham was never schooled by a Sufi master ...."

Unfortunately, that is so far beside the point that it actually has a countervalent demonstrative value.

The critic might point to the story and say, "But he killed a man nonetheless, this Sufi master."

That, too, is beside the point.

If you look at the Aesop-level fabulous interpretation, well, it works, but there still exists the assertion that this interpretation is superficial. I can't tell you how to interpret the story.

But part of it is the adage that God works in mysterious ways. People tend to have faith that they will be saved, but few demonstrate a faithful trust in the more subtle workings of God.

Metaphysical absurdities wander through my mind:

- Is the Devil getting stupid or just lazy?
- Is there a danger of denouncing the works of the Holy Spirit?
- Can we expect God to operate in an obviously intuitive way to human perception?
- Why does God create what is unsuitable to Him?

And so on.

I do understand your risk assessment, but I think it's founded more on faith in one's own knowledge and opinion than it is faith in God.

 

[okinrus]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...node=&contentId=A12505-2003Aug1&notFound=true

http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/081603/rel_LB0236-3.000.shtml

Ok he calls his relationship "sacramental". I mean please choose any words but those to start scandal. We can say for certain that what Robinson did was premature.

 

[Tiassa]

You know ... I'd say Bishop Robinson is more than willing to stake his soul on it ...

Bishop Robinson seems prepared to openly stake his soul on this one. Anyone else?

Asked by an opponent to explain why God created male and female sexuality if not for procreation, Robinson said, "I believe that God gave us the gift of sexuality so that we might express with our bodies the love that's in our hearts. I think that's true of marriage, and I think that's why we hold marriage to be a sacrament."

But, he added, "I just need to tell you that I experience that with my partner. In the time that we have, I can't go into all the theology around it, but what I can tell you is that in my relationship with my partner, I am able to express the deep love that's in my heart, and in his unfailing and unquestioning love of me, I experience just a little bit of the kind of never-ending, never-failing love that God has for me. So it's sacramental for me."

Such is the danger of a church which does not limit sexual expression to reproductive needs.

And as noted:

And James Bradberry, a lay deputy from southern Virginia, said that if Episcopalians "want to rely on the Bible exclusively" for their approach to same-sex relationships, then they should also be prepared to condone slavery and the submission of women.

"There are a lot of things in the Bible that we no longer do because our faith has evolved," Bradberry said.

It also occurs to me that Robinson may well be qualified to make a certain assertion: I just need to tell you that I experience that with my partner.

Who here can tell him that he's wrong about that?

The Augusta Chronicle article is a reasonable summary of the issue as I've learned it over time.

But the Rev. Walter Wink of New York's Auburn Theological Seminary, a United Methodist clergyman, disagrees with that reading of Scripture by the Rev. Gagnon, a Presbyterian.

"The Bible has no sex ethic," the Rev. Wink said. "It only knows a communal love ethic" exemplified by Jesus' command to love your neighbor as yourself, which requires Christians to understand gays' experiences.

Societies' changing codes of sexual conduct should be assessed against that standard and in light of modern knowledge, he said.

The Rev. Wink acknowledged that "a lot of churches are not going to change" for the present, but he's convinced they will eventually shed old Bible interpretations that are "life-denying and intellectually dishonest."

"In 50 years most of us will look back and say, 'Why were we so slow? Why was this so difficult?"' he said.

Bishop-elect Robinson believes biblical conservatives will "come to know that they are wrong, in this life or the next one."

"In this life or the next one" ... I keep telling you, the House of Bishops reaffirmed their faith in God with their vote.

I agree with Reverend Wink that this branch of Biblical conservatism is both life-denying and intellectually dishonest. And that's perhaps the most persuasive argument toward compassion and understanding.

Reverend Gagnon makes an important point as well: "If people can deny such a clear and specific scriptural teaching, he said, it raises questions about the point of adhering to the faith in the first place."

But that's the thing. Individual scriptural teachings--specific ones, at that--have adapted before. Whether it was the paring to four Gospels, a millennium and more of militant authoritarianism, or the liberalization of the faith into one more genuinely compassionate, the ages have seen much minor adaptation that, taken collectively, shows an evolution of the faith.

This is the next chapter. As more and more evidence arises indicating that homosexuality is a natural condition and not a random evil choice, people are bound to ask why God would create people inclined toward what God abhors, which will raise very fundamental questions among the faithful about why God bothered creating any of us who are in our natural state unsatisfactory to Him.

And that's even worse than the revenue loss Bishop Benna worried about. In addition to compassion, necessity backs Bishop Robinson's position as well.

Thank you for the articles. Very interesting.

 

[okinrus]

This is the next chapter. As more and more evidence arises indicating that homosexuality is a natural condition and not a random evil choice, people are bound to ask why God would create people inclined toward what God abhors, which will raise very fundamental questions among the faithful about why God bothered creating any of us who are in our natural state unsatisfactory to Him.

Are you using homosexual as participating in homosexual sexual acts here are you implying that it's some sort of character trait. The bible says absolutly nothing about same sex attraction or inclination to the the same sex being by within itself sinful. Even if you could prove that a small percentage of the population are born gay, then the argument is no different than hermaphrodites. The difference here is that there are a higher proportion of gays than other genetically abnormal conditions leading me to believe that good many are not really born gay. Of course being born a sinner should not contradict calvinists. Rather it would prove that God predestines into hell.

It also occurs to me that Robinson may well be qualified to make a certain assertion: I just need to tell you that I experience that with my partner.

Yes, and I'm sure heterosexuals could say the same, but comparing it to a sacrament? Isn't that a little too far?

 

[Tiassa]

"The rest is up to you, Lord!"

Rather it would prove that God predestines into hell.

There is validity to predestination theory, but ....

You've summed up the theological conundrum reasonably well. We're just on different sides of it. I see no logical reason why God would, in love, create something and compel it toward abomination. Yet as the idea of homosexuality as a natural condition gains weight and acceptance, we have to wonder what's up.

At any rate, that rambling about genetic abnormality isn't what is generally considered a wise argument to make. I can't believe I haven't gotten around to citing this little bit of information earlier:

Lest you are tempted to believe that all of this is highly unusual and well out of the ordinary, you're in for quite a surprise. Homosexual behavior is not only common, but even more common in other species than in humans. While numbers are hard to come by, there are a few that present some interesting patterns. In ostriches, male homosexuality is much more common than bisexuality, but among mule deer, bisexuality is more common than homosexuality. Among our closest living relatives, the bonobo chimpanzees, few if any are either exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. Indeed, all that have been observed are exclusively permanently bisexual. ("The Natural Crime Against Nature")

Now ... if I'm not mistaken, the homosexual ratio for humans is argued between 1% and 10%. Anybody care to update me on the latest assertion?

Click the link. There's a table of numbers that you might just find interesting.

Yes, and I'm sure heterosexuals could say the same

No, Okinrus, they cannot for the simple fact that if they are heterosexuals then they haven't lived in a homosexual relationship.

but comparing it to a sacrament? Isn't that a little too far?

Based on the prior point, I'm not sure you or I can really say.

If I accept that Episcopalians are not so stupid as to put a complete and utter liar into a position where he stands a chance of attaining the title of bishop, well ... I'm going to have to trust the guy who has the experience to know.

I'm quite sure that some, if not many of the votes that approved his elevation came after hesitation. Some of those votes came not because the voting Bishop or Deputy specifically agreed with Robinson, but because he was unable to found a proper disagreement without violating other terms of faith. In other words, Bill the Bishop from Bobtown knows that he cannot contradict Robinson's testimony because (A) he does not know, and (B) cannot presume Robinson a liar. So when Robinson says he perceives the love as Sacramental, the Bishops are faced with what, by their own rules, is a strong argument. And so they placed their faith in God. Each who voted to elevate the Bishop held the stone and said, "I shall not be the first to cast; I am not without sin."

This is the day the Lord hath made. Part of rejoicing in it is to gladly accept the challenges put before you by the Holy Spirit. It is on the faith of others in their God and their Savior that Robinson has been elevated. The strongest candidate happens to commit a grievous Old-Testament sin. What a conundrum. Do you elevate a lesser candidate? Is this situation wrought of Satan? Of the Holy Spirit? Is it a random coincidence?

And so they looked to God and said, "We've got a good candidate. The rest is up to You."

 

[okinrus]

You've summed up the theological conundrum reasonably well. We're just on different sides of it. I see no logical reason why God would, in love, create something and compel it toward abomination. Yet as the idea of homosexuality as a natural condition gains weight and acceptance, we have to wonder what's up.

Not really. I mean God created us all with other specific problems. Scientists have also found that traits of addiction are somewhat hereditary. There is no one saying that drunkness right because of the evidence that addiction is hereditary. So people could be predisposed to homosexuality prefering a more masculine female, while others prefer a more femine female.

At any rate, that rambling about genetic abnormality isn't what is generally considered a wise argument to make. I can't believe I haven't gotten around to citing this little bit of information earlier:

...yes but there is evidence that animals too may also become depraved but they certainly have less choice in the matter. God did order the Isrealites to kill any animal that anyone commited sodomy with. I think most of the evidence seems to be like male bonding. I doubt anal sex could occur in the animal kingdom because it is supposed to be painful without lubrication and the risk of disease is too great.

Now ... if I'm not mistaken, the homosexual ratio for humans is argued between 1% and 10%. Anybody care to update me on the latest assertion?

Yes around 5% or 2% but in some areas much higher.

No, Okinrus, they cannot for the simple fact that if they are heterosexuals then they haven't lived in a homosexual relationship.

No, you misunderstand. I'm sure that people who commit premarital sex could say the same thing concerning their lovers. However even if Robinson does feel this way, he's commiting scandal by saying that in a sacramental church.

Ok, I think it's that I get out of this argument because I don't see any end in site. So good bye with love!

 

[Tiassa]

Fair 'nuff

I mean God created us all with other specific problems. Scientists have also found that traits of addiction are somewhat hereditary. There is no one saying that drunkness right because of the evidence that addiction is hereditary

A couple of things:

(1) Where in the Bible is excess of liquor described as an abomination unto God, and where does the Bible call for the destruction of God's creations (e.g. people) for their excessive use of alcohol?

(2) Society has shifted from persecuting the addict (e.g. alcohol) to "assisting" the addict. Treating the disease instead of persecuting the addict. As the Drug War winds down, if you pay reasonably close attention, you'll see that this very idea of how we treat the addict is moving closer and closer to the heart of an issue from which such a vital reality has traditionally and forcefully been excluded.

yes but there is evidence that animals too may also become depraved but they certainly have less choice in the matter.

This is the start of an ironic paragraph for you. Why does God create what He abhors? And why is that creation not God's responsibility?

God did order the Isrealites to kill any animal that anyone commited sodomy with.

That seems about in line with such a nonsensical God. "You shall destroy what I have wasted My Own Time creating because it is an abomination. But it's all Good ...."

I think most of the evidence seems to be like male bonding.

Statement of the year.

I doubt anal sex could occur in the animal kingdom because it is supposed to be painful without lubrication and the risk of disease is too great.

I know for a fact that it does ... I'm currently digging around for a reference.

Yes around 5% or 2% but in some areas much higher.

In other words, we're still looking at a range that can run up to 10% homosexual. That's well enough.

No, you misunderstand. I'm sure that people who commit premarital sex could say the same thing concerning their lovers.

So now we're back to general adultery?

Robinson was speaking toward the assertion that such a bond cannot exist between same-gender partners. Premarital heterosexual sex? Duh. It may be sinful, but if it's a man and a woman committing the sin, at least they're still what closed minds think of as what nature intended.

I look over at a friend of mine; either one of us can tell you what premarital sex is like. Either one of us can tell you what extramarital sex is like in the sense that we've both slept with married people. But of us, only one of us can tell you about sex with a partner of the same gender. That's a functional reality because my friend never has.

When Bishop Robinson sat in front of the House of Bishops and said that he feels sacramental love with his partner, nobody was qualified to stand up and challenge it for the simple fact that, having no actual experience, they could only speculate.

However even if Robinson does feel this way, he's commiting scandal by saying that in a sacramental church.

Scandals require at least two parties. One to "commit scandal" and one to have a problem with it.

That's a big argument in the United States. On the one hand, Americans were told that they shouldn't worry when Reagan "committed scandal" by breaking the law to negotiate with terrorists. Americans were told that they should not worry when Reagan "committed scandal" and supported a murderous Iraqi dictator with weapons of mass destruction. But on the other hand, Americans were told to fret themselves senseless when a Democrat got a blowjob at the White House.

Scandal is all what one chooses to make of it.

Ok, I think it's that I get out of this argument because I don't see any end in site. So good bye with love!

Fair enough. I thank you for taking the time to present your case.