Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson is saying that homosexual acts are sinful unless…you really can’t help it and really really really want to do it.
CNS reports:
In a section of his New Testament letter to the Romans (1:22-27) dealing with God’s admonitions against same-sex relations, St. Paul was actually writing about heterosexuals who engage in same-sex acts and not homosexuals, said the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal church.
“We have to understand that the notion of a homosexual sexual orientation is a notion that’s only about 125 years old,” Bishop Robinson told CNSNews.com. “That is to say, St. Paul was talking about people that he understood to be heterosexual engaging in same-sex acts. 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.”
That make sense?
So he’s saying that Paul was just too blockheaded to understand that if a heterosexual engages in homosexual activity it’s a sin because he’s not a homosexual but if you engage in homosexual activity because you’re a homosexual it’s all cool. Got that?
I love how people who don’t like what the Bible says always act as if the people who wrote it were neanderthals who could barely scrape their thoughts onto the side of a cave wall and couldn’t possibly have any insight into humanity like us brights in the 21st century. Because, you know, truth has an expiration date.
So in short, the very evolved Bishop Robinson is all about the Bible except those parts where he knows better.
This is the part where I thank God I’m a Catholic.
HT Pewsitter
February 4, 2010 at 11:42 pm
My Episcopal mother is turning over in her grave…
~Siobhan
February 5, 2010 at 12:09 am
Don't be too quick to rejoice, Matthew. There are plenty of Catholics who would agree to that logic. At least add the caveat that you're a Catholic trying to conform youself to the Church (which is how I usually refer to myself…I'm not "ardent" or "faithful" or "orthodox" or anything else other than "trying", "struggling", "learning").
It's amazing how often modern philosophers/pundits assume stupidity on the part of people 2000 years ago. I'd argue that the highly educated people of the mid 1st century (e.g., Paul, Luke) could run circles around most of the current brainiacs. St. Paul was confronted with the truth shown to him by Jesus, and surely had to examine everything he believed. Modern day people, all too often, just find creative ways to justify what they already believe (or "feel" to be true).
February 5, 2010 at 12:17 am
"It's a sin for everyone else but me and people like me." There but for the grace of God go I…
February 5, 2010 at 1:22 am
Wait. I thought the gays have always argued that homosexuality has always been with us. The Greeks having man-on-boy sex, etc. So which is it? Ancient or only 125 years old?
February 5, 2010 at 1:32 am
Seems to me that the "right" Reverend seems to forget the whole "inspired by God," thing. It seems to me, God knows just about everything… no, wait… everything.
Sorry, Gene, God trumps your pained rationalization.
February 5, 2010 at 1:37 am
This is what happens when you interpret the Bible all by your lonesome. I think, therefore I am right.
Are we suppose to subject our faith to feelings?
Do people really take this man seriously?
February 5, 2010 at 1:55 am
Wasn't he married and has kids?
Was he sinning when he had sex with his wife but he was "really" Gay? or
Was he sinning when he wasn't sure he was gay but engaging in homosexual sex? or
Was he sinning when he definitely gay but still having sex with his wife and his gay friends? or
Was he sinning when he definitely gay and having gay sex but didn't tell anyone he was gay?
See where this leads.
February 5, 2010 at 1:59 am
You know. I would agree with Bishop Robinson to a point. Saying that Paul was writing to heterosexuals and condemning their choice of engaging in homosexual acts is, as we all agree, illogical (considering the nature of inspired works, etc.). And of course a decision like that is probably worse than a homosexual engaging in such acts because the heterosexual is totally engaged in that defiance. However, I am of the opinion that there are some people who are born with an inherent attraction to certain temptations. Some of these people could be homosexual, alcoholics, drug addicts, etc. But just because you are more prone to certain weakness, this does not excuse the sin. In fact, allows for, especially with homosexuality, the opportunity to do more for others through self-denial and redemptive suffering.
Consider this, if a homosexual is "born" in that fashion then their cross may be very heavy on several levels. But they have an opportunity to live a consecrated life because they can never marry, have children, be a religious (in some cases), etc. So instead of fearing the fact that following the instructions of God would leave them "alone" it would be the faithful person who would recognize that God chose them to bear a special cross and they ave an opportunity in this.
Also, God is not the creator of our defects. We have defects first, through original sin and second because of the evils we commit against each other. Lack of environmental stewardship can lead to polluted rivers and that could lead to birth defects, etc. Homosexuality, if it happens at birth, is actually an abnormality. The root cause of that abnormality may or may not be discovered with thorough research. But that is why we hate the sin and not the sinner.
We are all responsible for our reactions towards our particular weaknesses.
February 5, 2010 at 2:02 am
Gene Robinson ought to explain on what grounds he considers himself to be a Divinely guaranteed authority to interpret for us the 'true' meaning of St. Paul's words. He places St. Paul in the unbreakable bubble of historical context—very well, if you want to play that way, then if such a claim is true, St. Paul is locked into his historical context, then Gene Robinson must also be locked into his historical context, and how should anyone therefore believe that Robinson speaks the actual truth in full knowledge of what St. Paul 'meant'?
This is the ends left only to those who ignored G.K. Chesterton's warning against commiting the Suicide of Thought.
February 5, 2010 at 7:02 am
Does anyone take anything Robinson says seriously? You have to know what the enemy is up to but there has to be a super special reward for reading the dreck the pour man comes up with. Pray for him!
February 5, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Wait. I thought the gays have always argued that homosexuality has always been with us. The Greeks having man-on-boy sex, etc
They don't mention the Greeks that often. Not surprising considering their overall treatment of women would make our hair curl and that even if a man engaged in the practice, there was an expectation that he eventually get married to a woman. Get that? Even one of the most permissive societies on that subject still wasn't so foolish to think that marriage was something other than man and women. They didn't even have fundamentalist Christians around to help them get that right!
February 5, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Why would someone have gay sex unless they were undoubtedly "affectionally oriented to people of the same sex"? Does he think St Paul thought that men were having gay sex and didn't want to? Why do it unless it's something you want to do?? Straight men having gay sex………because???? I think this is one of the most illogical and inane statements ever.
February 5, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Since supposing is the predominant mode of His Excellency's thought, allow me to suppose for all of us that when Christ comes in Majesty the only souls placed on His left will be the souls who believe in a difference between good and evil and who are in a state of mortal sin, while those who are in a state of mortal sin but who do not believe in a difference between good and evil can flitter their way over to Christ's right hand and board the A Train to Heaven.
I suppose that must be right. After all what did St John know back in the day? Clearly his The Apocolypse was drafted prior to our times.
February 5, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Has anyone here beside myself earnestly hope for a civil war against these sodomites I can no longer tolerate the assault on Truth, How long oh Lord how long, please show us your wrath soon
February 6, 2010 at 12:46 pm
following that argument, stealing is a sin only if you're not a thief.
February 6, 2010 at 4:11 pm
"This is the part where I thank God I'm a Catholic"
It always comes back to Authority. Me too, Matt. I've thanked the Lord more than once for giving the Keys to Peter & making sure that the Church still existed until I came on the scene…totally inspite of herself!!
February 6, 2010 at 6:31 pm
I love obsessing about and casting stones at homosexuals. It helps comfort me in my own sins of heterosexual impurities and lust. It's easier to focus on the sins of others than my own. This is wonderful! Let's have more postings about homosexuality!
February 7, 2010 at 1:44 am
I see no stones cast at anybody but the logic-chopping Robinson.
We all sin, but we all don't try to normalize our sinful activities and justify them by reinterpreting the Bible.
February 7, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Bishop Vicky Gene is wrong about the ancient world, too. The Greeks–from whose context St Paul is speaking–*did* think that a few people were born unable to feel attraction for the opposite sex, but they thought it was a very tiny minority, and they also thought that those people were defective and were acting "against nature."
A good book to straighten out misconceptions about ancient Greek attitudes to sexuality is Bruce Thornton's _Eros: the myth of Greek sexuality_. Don't leave it lying around where children can find it (it's pretty explicit), but it's very instructive and dispels modern, self-serving myths about ancient sexuality quite effectively.