Last summer, I listened carefully to the justification offered by those who endorsed and supported the Episcopalian departure from any wholesome ethic of human sexuality.

To be honest, I'm often left wondering what precisely he thinks is so new about sexual perversion and the attempt to rationalize it.


I'm sure he takes courage from the fuzzy-headed lesbians who applaud his brazen disregard for the Bible and the Church. I'm sure he enjoyed immensely the laying on of hands by which he was ordained.


** looks at the above statements **

I really don't want to be lumped in with that Fred Phelps group on anything.

**looks at the aboves statements again**

Sorry... too late. Perhaps a different choice of words? Remember, connotation and denotation.

Sorry it disturbs you so much. Maybe time to start a new church of your own?

church of the poison mind.

Benjamin, what you imply sounds most unchristian to me, as does what you say. You are in my prayers.

Benjamin, just wait'll you see how he administers the Eucharist!

Hint: DON'T put out your tongue.

And when he mentions "Agape" ("Love-Feast"), head for the door. Fast.

Yes, you are a homophobe.

Perhaps you would enjoy the Southern Baptists instead. They seem more in turn with your obsessions.

The Anglicans don't need your type. They're what's known as Christians.

~DOH!

The second time in as many days that the word "Baptist" has been tossed out as an insult.

Y'all are just damn lucky that MacD is a Wiccan.

The Dead Milkmen sang: "And on a pretty Sunday morning
A bunch of pretty Baptist girls
Linked their pretty hands and they sang:
Life is shit, life is shit
The world is shit, the world is shit
This is life as I know it
This is life as I know it"

Good analysis. Note: Ed Bradley interviewed Robinson, not Morley Safer.

Perhaps all hetero men look the same to Mr. C.

LOL!

Seriously, some Anglicans are Christian. Not all. Same with Baptists.

(Rolling eyes, heavenward.) Another bigot who says his bigotry is something other than that. What is it about Blogcritics that attracts so many of them?

And, when did agnostics become Wiccans?

That's right Benjamin, you are BAD. How DARE you take scriptural injunctions of the sinfulness of homosexuality over the hip modern wisdom of all the COOL people?

scriptural injunctions? cool people?

well, mebbe we shuold go back to killing people for adultery as well?

Here's the part I don't get: if at least a significant part of homosexuality is genetically based - which every single study says it is, disagreement is over how much, not if - then how can God condemn someone to hell for being what He made them?

uh oh...yer in big trouble now.

historically speak, lottsa folks have been killed for injecting logic into the discussion.

Here is the deal. God does not condemn someone to hell because they have same sex attractions. The only reason I suggest that Bishop Robinson might be headed for an abysmal eternity is because he has no basic understanding of the essential Christian message: Salvation comes through no other name that the crucified, buried and risen Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Robinson said numerous times in his interview that "we are all God's children," and "the essence of God is to love." In some respect, those statements are true. But to suggest that those statements are the essence of the Christian faith is both misleading and condemning. Granted, CBS may have cut out those portions where Robinson gave a biblically sound explanation of the gospel, but I have heard/read him in other settings, and what he said there is entirely consistent with what he has said elsewhere. And folks, if he practices what he preaches (and we have every reason to believe that he does hardy har har), then he not only preaches an inadequate gospel, but he apparently believes one too. That, by itself, is enough for the condemnation. But perhaps some folks problem is not so much that Robinson might go to Hell as much as it is the problem that anyone might go to Hell...and that is for another post.

Ben, this is the reason there are as many Protestant denominations as interpretations.

And does God really care which church you attend?

Or if you attend at all?

My advice: spend Sundays at the *park; it's free-- and you'll be closer to God than you would be sitting in a pew [sic] next to a woman wearing too much perfume.

*note: avoid Golden Gate Park at all costs.

Best of luck!
S

Well, Eric, you could argue that the Bible is flatly wrong, not the word of God. That would be consistent.

In other words, you could argue that the Bible and Christianity are simply WRONG in opposing homosexuality. I would tend to agree with you.

However, you should then be arguing against the Bible, not shooting the messenger (Benjamin). Arguments about the genetic basis of sexual proclivities are simply not the issue. Scientific, rational arguments of any kind are irrelevant, and calling Benjamin names is just irrelevant.

The Bible is obviously his premise. To argue against him here, you have to be dishonest and pretend that the Bible does NOT proscribe homosexuality, or argue against the Bible altogether.

Or you can just call Benjamin a homophobe.

The Bible is obviously his premise

well, i'd say that his interpretation of the bible is his premise.

and interpretation's are where lots of our discussion fodder come from.

the bible also says that a rapist must marry his victim...something that most folks would probably disagree with.

so if that particular decree can be called into question, why not the decree against homosexuals, gay marriage, etc?

"the bible also says that a rapist must marry his victim..."

Did Kobe Bryant just renounce his faith?


(Sorry. I had to do it before someone else did!)

Shark is really basically arguing against the Bible altogether. That's cool.

However, this is NOT just an argument over Benjamin's interpretation. You might write out a verse or two here and there, saying that that was just a specific injunction for the temple in those times, etc.

The injunction against homosexuality rings clear and consistent (for men- lesbianism is never mentioned- speaking of your groovy loopholes). You can't legitimately pretend it's not there. It just IS.

the supposed biblical injunction against homosexuality rings "clear and true" only when the bible as a whole is deemed to be inerrant and the word of god.

not all christians believe this, especially (oh my!) liberal christians.

(Scratching head.) Benjamin says:

Here is the deal. God does not condemn someone to hell because they have same sex attractions. The only reason I suggest that Bishop Robinson might be headed for an abysmal eternity is because he has no basic understanding of the essential Christian message: Salvation comes through no other name that the crucified, buried and risen Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Two problems with this:

1) If the bishop's take on scripture(s) is Benjamin's grounds for assailing him, then why post a tirade against the bishop's homosexuality?

2) Considering Benjamin's vary narrow interpretation of what is required for salvation, he could assail much of religion period, so why has he singled out a homosexual bishop for his anger? Surely, Unitarians and Quakers deserve a whack or two, too.

Benjamin's thinking demonstrates pretext and the inability many bigoted people have to face up to their bigotry. After making a statement definitely attacking homosexuality, he claims it is about the bishop's wrongheadedness in regard to scripture. A neo-Confederate Al Barger, for example, claims the Civil War was about 'state's rights' because he can't face up to his defense of slavery. (Though given the slightest chance to own people, I believe Barger would knock over anyone in line, with Shark right behind him.) Same kind of pretextual reasoning.

I, for one, would respect Benjamin more if just screeched 'I hate fags' as some others at BC have done. At least that statement would be honest instead of pretextual.

MD, please supply a link for someone stating what you have claimed here at Blogcritics. I googled, and found nothing.

BTW, Eric, I'm surprised that you didn't learn the answer to your question in all your years of Lutheranism. I'm guessing you were/are ELCA, not LCMS. No particular jibe intended, btw, as my own church is "in communion with" the ELCA.

Anyway, the argument that God couldn't or shouldn't judge someone for acting based on how He made them does not take into account the message of Scripture. Consider the writing of Paul, for example, who repeatedly emphasizes that everything we are is anathema to God, and that it is our very nature to despise Him. Some are driven to sin in one way, some in another, and so on.

All research indicates that my biological destiny is to spread my genetic recipe as generously as I can. Nobody questions this research. And yet I am still expected by most people, Christian and otherwise, to maintain faithfulness to my wife. I must overcome my natural biological inclination, as must we all. This is no more or less true for Robinson as it is for me or for anyone else.

Anyway, that's how the church worldwide has understood issues of sexual morality for the last 2000 years or so, so it all really comes down to this:
Who or what is authoritative when it comes to defining Christianity?

That's a far more complicated question than it might first appear, unfortunately.

Phillip, you are of Reformed theology aren't you...I can tell from your statements.

Mr Saleski, you are absolutely right. The viability of this position rests on accepting the Bible as the word of God. Liberal Christians can just pick and choose what parts suit them.

This seems dishonorable to me however, highly dishonest. It is extremely, as the Church Lady would say, "convenient." What, we're just going to essentially pick stuff out of the air that sounds nice to us, and pretend that we believe it to be the "word of God?" Do you believe or not?

Diva: Worry not. I am mature enough to know better than trying to put a brand on you. Like Ruby Tuesday, who could hang a name on you?

Not the exact words 'I hate fags,' the sentiment stated much more at length. The most recent remarks I read were by another one of the ultrareligious nitwits who thinks gay marriage will cause the 'good Lord' to destroy the Earth. I don't recall his name, but it was a long comment. Perhaps someone else will. Anyway, there have been several I am aware of. Benjamin is not alone.

By the way, Phillip: Do you really believe it is the bishop's interpretation of scripture(s) that is upsetting Benjamin? Or do you believe it is the image of the bishop and his lover getting it on ("har, har, har") that sets Benjamin off?

On the gays and biology issue I believe the jury is still out. Some of the supposed proof comes from gay reaseachers with a vested interest. I look forward to more objective efforts. But, I don't think it matters. A behavior that can be traced through the existence of humanity that is not harmful to society is acceptable in my opinion. If we wait to find out 'why,' homosexuals will be denied equal rights for the forseeable future.

On a related note, I have not put up the blog entry here, but in Oregon, there has been an actual increase in opposition to gay marriage now that it is happening here. That is a brain-teaser. Why would folks change their minds when something they say they favor occurs?

They would change their minds because of the WAY that is occurring. That is MY problem with it. Gays have legitimate concerns about inheritance and medical decision making, and a whole host of issues, but the pure disrespectful lawlessness of their approach quickly drains my sympathy.

Hey, I'm an ordained minister, so I should have as much right to make up my own laws for legal marriage as the mayor of Podunk, NM. Why don't I just call in the press, and start issuing marriage licenses to polygamists, brothers and sisters, men and goats, etc?

Man, this is never a pleasant discussion. Personally, i'm reading the new testament at the minute, and gaining invaluable philosophical and theological insight and blah. However, i don't for a second accept that loving relationships between same-sex partners is a sin. Any more so than i think rapists should marry the victims (as someone stated above), or that men shouldn't shave, or that women should be sent out to the wilderness for a week whilst their, ahem, weeping down under. The Bible is a resource of beautiful poetry, loving teachings and understanding of this whole human predicament. It's not a political tract, and i personally think it's a folly to look at as such. What was written 2000 years ago regarding temple laws and sacrificial customs doesn't have much bearing nowadays. Unlike all the, y'know, love thy neighbour stuff. Some folks tend to miss that bit. Fair enough. It only made up four books of the New Testament.

MacDevil: "I, for one, would respect Benjamin more if just screeched 'I hate fags'

MacDevil: Phillip, Do you really believe it is the bishop's interpretation of scripture(s) that is upsetting Benjamin? Or do you believe it is the image of the bishop and his lover getting it on (har,har,har) that sets Benjamin off?

HERE'S A QUESTION: (not for you, Diva, you're nuts and unable to communicate with other humans)

Is it possible for a person to object to a homosexual clergyman on a moral grounds based on biblical scripture WITHOUT BEING LABELED A HOMOPHOBE, BIGOT, FAG-HATER, etc?

Of course it is. It's religion. Moral instruction. Divinely inspired moral teachings by which to live one's life. The determining basis for morals and ethics.

But it's not possible to object on moral grounds without being called names, which btw, is what *bigots do. ---(*Diva!)

Nope, not today, not possible, not here in America. We don't "do" morals; they're too 'slippery', they're too dogmatic, they're too judgmental, they're too divisive. "Morals" is an obsolete word in our culture; use it in a crowd and you'll be mocked or called a bigot, 'cause by golly, we've had enough trouble in history with pricks who enforced their morals at the barrel of a gun, so we overreact and decide to ban the concept from public discourse. In the interest of peace, acceptance, and diversity. Of course.

We don't mind throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as long as we can all get along.

So man reads a book he considers his divine legacy, his spiritual guide, the underlying instruction for his personal morality; he objects to an action that transgresses what he perceives to be a written rule, and he's called a bigot.

It ain't fair.

And what I'm saying aint' popular, either.

But you know I'm right.

MacDevil has just GOT to throw this in:

"...given the slightest chance to own people [slaves!], I believe Barger would knock over anyone in line, with Shark right behind him."

And I thought I used Hyperbole!

This goes so far beyond what is acceptable in a public forum that it's almost unbelievable. I guess she was doing it long before I arrived at BC, but I'll never get used to such blantant, sick, egotistical, evil insanity.

The good news: You can almost hear the synapses cracking with an unbearable self-loathing. She's holding on to a smidgen of sanity by the thin shards of badly glued fake fingernails.

And I'll always be there with a hammer, a pair of pliers, and a verbal anvil.

Persons likely posting from psychiatric wards (don't you wonder why Shark has so much time on his hands?) aside, I believe my point is clear. There are plenty of reasons to disagree about interpretations of the scriptures, but when someone posts what Benjamin has, he is masking his real beef, with homosexuality, under a pretext of concern about scriptural interpretation.

Portland, is, of course, the place where the 'not according to the law' claim about gay marriage is being made most loudly. I have discussed it in entries here and here. The outcome will partly turn on what the Oregon statutes mean by not naming opposite gender as a requirement. (It just says males and females of at least 17.) However, I believe the state Constitution's equal protection clause will trump the statutes if they are ruled to favor the anti-gay marriage perspective. Hopefully, the constitutional issue will not need to be reached.

P.S.: The first entry about gay marriage in Oregon is also at Blogcritics.

NotsoPsychicDiva: don't you wonder why Shark has so much time on his hands?

Why don't you just ask me? I'll tell you and then you won't have to enter my email address in "word_of_mouth_connection.com" every day for two weeks.

MacFreud speaks: "...Benjamin...is masking his real beef, with homosexuality, under a pretext of concern about scriptural interpretation."

Knows all, sees all, interprets all. And who can argue with a psychic psychiatrist?

For more go to Here, Here, Here, and did she mention she blogged it over Here?

Someone please answer these pathetic pleas for attention and meter hits by clicking Here. She needs you.

Hmmm. Psycho Shark is not directing anyone to any blog entries about gay marriage and the legal ramifications he has written. Could have something to do with the fact he has not written anything of substance about that topic or anything else, I suppose.

No problem, though. I am happy to do what the Psycho Sharks of the world can't -- think, analyze and write. I urge anyone interested in the gay unions and the law to look at those two entries and others at Silver Rights. Then we will all be on the same page.

I didn't bother reading most of this because

a) I;ve had a few beers and I don't care at the moment

b) I saw the names of a few people who I really don't care about sober or tipsy and I don't care what they have to say because frankly, I think they are ka ka.

That being said:

My God can kick all of your God's asses because my God is God and not a man made God. My God doesn't tell me what to think or believe from the words printed through mortal hand (which in its nature of being mortal is not to be trusted). My God tells me what is wrong and what is right in my heart. My God created the universe and everything. My God gave me free will to do right and wrong. My God leaves the rest up to me.

There is no hell. Heaven will be just whatever is done when I am dead to continue on my soul... that be if I am made into a tree. A new human, part of a star, I don't know. If I am abhorrent to God, hes not going to waste time by making a hell for me to burn in, etc. I will just totally cease.

My God can can kick all of your Gods asses because he doesn't need to. All of your Gods are what you have decided to worship because someone else told you to. God doesn't need to be interpreted by bibles, torahs, korans, baga vidas, etc. God's word speaks directly into your heart if you will listen.

This is why I know that God doesn't care if you stick your penis in an anus or a vaginae. God doesn't care if you lick vaginae. God only cares that you do not harm anyone. That you do not destroy that which God has created. That you do not go out of your way to hurt others.

This is why I left Christianity long ago. Organized religion is the crux of man with a personal agenda. I will respect other people's right to follow it if they wish.

For myself, however... My relationship with God needs no third party intervention.

BTW... I just saw the movie "Quills" tonight. If you knwo Joachim Pheonix and wanna give me a present that will blow my mind away, tell him to show up on my door in that priest cassosk and that he needs some pierced nipples and some tattoo under that cassock and nothing else and I will will go to hell in a handbasket.

Sexy, sexy, drool, drool. I don't usually notice these things... but I notices THAT.

YUMMY! and NAUGHTY!

RAWR!

Right here is where I have a BIG problem with the Tekwh0re's statement: "My God tells me what is wrong and what is right in my heart."

Man, talk about a wild card. That's just saying that you'll make up any kind of crap that suits your emotional whim, and then say that it's the voice of God told you. A lot of evil business can easily come out of that.

See Night of the Hunter for starters.
Q: What religion is that?
Harry Powell: The one me and the good Lord worked out betwixt us.

Sure, if you have an evil heart.


But if you chose to be a lemming and thing the dude who wrote down what he thinks becasue you know for sure that THAT individual didn't make up any kind of crap that suits his emotional whim, and then say that it's the voice of God told him. Then you go right ahead my dear lemming. Try to make sure that rock doesn't smack you too hard on the ass as you leap from the cliff to your doom.

Two thoughts:

1. I wonder if Jerry Falwell wears cotton shirts and wool sweaters simultaneously.
   
   
2. Shark, for whom I am praying, writes: "We don't 'do' morals; they're too 'slippery', they're too dogmatic, they're too judgmental, they're too divisive. 'Morals' is an obsolete word in our culture; use it in a crowd and you'll be mocked or called a bigot, 'cause by golly, we've had enough trouble in history with pricks who enforced their morals at the barrel of a gun, so we overreact and decide to ban the concept from public discourse. In the interest of peace, acceptance, and diversity. Of course."
   
   Baloney. I certainly "do morals." Many people who believe in equality for all -- including GLBT people -- have high standards for morality. And many consider discriminating against a certain group of citizens under civil law to be most immoral things a human could do -- it flies in the face of "loving one's neighbor as one's own self." Maybe some don't follow your god's rules, but that doesn't mean they don't have rules they follow or that their rules are any less valid than yours.

MD, apparently you should retract your statement that ended with "screeched 'I hate fags' as some others at BC have done." You have been warned about this repeatedly, and you know that using quote marks to mark non-quotes, while possibly defensible grammatically within certain contexts, is not acceptable here or in this context.

You're smart enough to figure out a way to phrase things to get your point across without attributing quotes falsely.

missin in action

Phillip- Granted, Diva's phrase about 'I hate fags' is just dumb and not at all like anything anyone has said, but it's not so bad- at least by Diva standards- in that this non-quote is not put into any particular person's mouth. It's just a generalized (if totally fictional) statement.

Natalie,

the "we" in "we don't do morals" was a hasty (although appropriate relatively true) generalization meaning AMERICANS.

And although "we" might "do" them, "we" mock and abuse anyone who uses the term in public as being a bigot, conservative, etc.

re: And many consider discriminating against a certain group of citizens under civil law to be most immoral things a human could do...

Chill, babe. I'm on yer side. I'm all for equal rights, civil rights, civil unions, civil discussion, even civil shepard. (ex-movie star!)


WHAT I'M AGAINST: when a religious person who objects to gay clergy based on their perception of their religious texts IS CALLED NAMES like bigot, homophobe, and characterized as saying *"I hate fags" by people who are initially opposing bigotry and unfairness. (*MacDevil, who else?) PRETTY FRIGGIN' IRONIC, don't you think?

It's just not fair, which is something "we're" supposed to be defending, too. Let the religious have their moral objections WITHIN the FRAMEWORK of their own damn religion, fer chrissakes!


re: "Maybe some don't follow your god's rules, but that doesn't mean they don't have rules they follow or that their rules are any less valid than yours."

What?

I never said anything even remotely close to what you're ranting about here, but don't let that stop you.

re: God, etc. - I'm an agnostic, but continue to pray for me; I love the good vibrations!

Phillip, trying to get McD to document evidence behind her thousands of lies, smears, and insults OR TO RETRACT THEM is going to be a full time job. Bring a shovel and a lot of patience.

Best of luck!

The Ever Fair and unBigoted MacDevil speaks: I...would respect Benjamin more if he just screeched 'I hate fags'"

Al, "...this non-quote is not put into any particular person's mouth... a generalized (if totally fictional) statement..." Is a pretty down and dirty cheap shot low blow way to discuss things, but she does it all the time.

If you remember, in one short sentence, she painted a pretty visual of you and I OWNING SLAVES, which would be hilarious if it weren't so sick.

It's beyond anything I've ever witnessed in a decade of participation in various writers forums. She is very very disturbed.

But that's why we like her!

mebbee she meant love slaves.

Mmm, Brown Sugar, how come you taste so good?

What's all this then? I thought we were talking about Baptists.

Actually, the ex-movie star is probably best described as "uncivil" shepherd.

"Let the religious have their moral objections WITHIN the FRAMEWORK of their own damn religion, fer chrissakes"

Fine, so long as I can have mine within the framework of my own existence.

As far as the gay bishop goes, 'twas the US Episcopal Church's representative laity and clergy, at its general conference, that voted for Gene Robinson. The US Episcopal Church consecrated him to the bishopric Last November. Looks to me as if the religion made its decision on the matter.

Sorry, didn't realize you don't have a god. But my rant was aimed at the whole "we don't have morals" crap. Who says religions get to decide what moral standards or scriptural interpretation everyone follows?

...Who says religions get to decide what moral standards or scriptural interpretation everyone follows?


~sigh~

~Not me.

whew.

Hey Nat, I forgot to ask earlier:

What's GLBT?

naive & out of the loop,
Shark

gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender

It's also a sign commonly seen at taverns and roadhouses: "Got Light Beer Today!"

GLBT = gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender

~Oooooohhhhhhh.

Just out of curiosity, are there any sexual propensities left out of that universal abbreviation?

I'm almost afraid to ask.

~ahahah. Just a joke, Nat, just kiddin'!

Anyway, why not just say, like.. EVERYBODY?

"E"

E's welcome here.

We're open to Es.

E's admitted.

"E"

E's welcome here.

We're open to Es.

E's admitted.



AWESOME... RAVER REVIVAL!! I'll bring the GLOW STICKS!!