Posted on 02/05/2010 6:01:10 AM PST by NYer
.- The first openly homosexual Episcopal bishop, V. Gene Robinson, has claimed that the Bible does not address the ethics of “monogamous, lifelong” homosexual relationships. He suggested that the people of St. Paul’s times did not realize that some people were “affectionally oriented” to their own sex.
On Tuesday at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., CNSNews.com spoke to Bishop Robinson about St. Paul’s condemnation in the Book of Romans of “unnatural” relations and “indecent acts” between members of the same sex. CNSNews.com asked if St. Paul was right to say homosexual acts were against nature.
The bishop said Scripture needed to be understood “in its own context.”
“We have to understand that the notion of a homosexual sexual orientation is a notion that’s only about 125 years old,” he added.
“That is to say, St. Paul was talking about people that he understood to be heterosexual engaging in same-sex acts," said Bishop Robinson.
The concept “heterosexual” also only dates to the nineteenth century, according to the Oxford English Dictionary.
"It never occurred to anyone in ancient times that a certain minority of us would be born being affectionally oriented to people of the same sex,” the bishop told CNSNews.com “So it did seem like against their nature to be doing so.”
He also claimed that St. Paul was condemning the practice of his times, in which older men sexually used younger boys.
“So the real question when you look at Scripture is, ‘What did it mean to the person who wrote it?’” said Bishop Robinson. “‘What did it mean for the audience to whom it was written?’ And only then can we ask, ‘Is it eternally binding?’ And in this case, I would say, the things that St. Paul was against, I’m against, too.”
He said the question today should be the rightfulness of “faithful, monogamous, lifelong-intentioned relationships between people of the same sex.’”
According to the Episcopal bishop, the Bible “simply does not address that.”
Robinson, who was married and has two daughters, divorced his wife and is now involved in a homosexual relationship. His ordination heightened conflict between the Episcopal Church and the global Anglican Communion of which it is a part.
Bishop Robinson delivered the invocation at the presidential inaugural’s opening ceremonies at the Lincoln Memorial on Jan. 18, 2009.
The bishop’s interpretation of Scripture is shared by some homosexual activists but not adhered to by most Christians. Homosexual tendencies are described as “objectively disordered” by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, while homosexual acts are “contrary to the natural law” and can “under no circumstances” be approved.
Biblical scholar and Anglican Bishop of Durham N.T. Wright has also criticized some Episcopalians’ theology for treating chastity as “optional.”
“Jewish, Christian and Muslim teachers have always insisted that lifelong man-plus-woman marriage is the proper context for sexual intercourse,” he explained in the London Times.
“This is not (as is frequently suggested) an arbitrary rule, dualistic in overtone and killjoy in intention. It is a deep structural reflection of the belief in a creator God who has entered into covenant both with his creation and with his people.”
This understanding is “the uniform teaching of the whole Bible, of Jesus himself, and of the entire Christian tradition,” he wrote.
Uhhhh.
Puhlease!!! St. Paul was a Roman Jew. Society, back then, was replete with homosexuality. Check out the frescoes from Pompeii ... I would post a link except it is too scandalous.
Bishop Gene Robinson claims Bible does not address ‘monogamous’ same-sex relationships.
Your right Gene it does not, but it does condemn “same-sex” relationships in several places and also warns us about “wolves in sheeps clothing” false prophets like yourself. Maybe you should read II Peter 2 and contemplate it.
It sounds like he broke his marriage vows and is now proclaiming his own righteousness with his homosexual union because this time it's a lifetime commitment (unlike his first marriage). Hypocrisy, anyone?
The soul of Gene Robinson is in great jeopardy. We need to pray for him.
Yeah, yeah, yeah... Let’s (once again)try to spin the Bible to suit OUR personal objectives, tastes, desires, wants...
Pardon the blasphemy, but oh, for God's sake ...
Paul probably understood the origin and meaning of the term “sodomite”
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
This guy is nuts. Such a hard time they have dealing with Scripture. He looks like he should be a member of NAMBLA. There is nothing new under the sun, buddy.
A lot of old money, east coast elites and RINO’s are on the lefty side of Episcopalians.
You are 100% right as this says so:
http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=2Peter+2
You took the words right out of my mouth about praying for him. I am going to start doing so.
He’s vile.
From the Didache
"You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born" (Didache 2:2 A.D. 70]).
I am not a Christian but Leviticus is quite clear. What is condemned is Gay sex, whether in a long time relationship or a one night stand. The bishop should reread it.
Fools at work again.
Bible talks about marriage and family at length. For many reasons. They are at the core of the existence and continuity of both family and faith. Without progeny there is no continuity of family nor faith. Both entities die. So it is both in the faiths interest and the families interest to promote values which promote healthy family relationships.
Homosexual unions are just that and do not have the same meaning, purpose nor objectives of the traditional marriage of man and woman and need to be treated as that.
NO!
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.
Romans 1:27-28
...and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.