WP/AP: Gay Episcopal Bishop Says He's 'Not an Abomination'

Gay Bishop Says He's 'Not an Abomination'
By RACHEL ZOLL
The Associated Press
Wednesday, June 14, 2006

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The first openly gay Episcopal bishop said at a packed church hearing Wednesday that he is "not an abomination," as he pleaded with the denomination not to bar gays from the office of bishop, even temporarily, for the sake of Anglican unity.

If Episcopalians "see Christ in the faithful lives of our gay and lesbian members," they should have the courage to say so, no matter the potential consequences, said Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

"I am not an abomination before God," he told the Episcopal General Convention. "Please, I beg you, let's say our prayers and stand up for right."

But Bishop Robert Duncan, who leads a network of conservative Episcopal dioceses that opposed Robinson's consecration, told those at the hearing that the denomination is attempting an impossible task, "which is to hold together the conserving and progressive wings of our church."

"We've reached a moment where it is very difficult, indeed I think we've reached an impossible moment, in holding it together," said Duncan, of the Diocese of Pittsburgh....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061400282.html

I wish other religions would follow his lead.

It's so sad that this bishop has to make such a plea.

if and when he leaves MY church

i promise to outfit you in shoes more tasteful than the pope's.

I'm happy to sit in the pews

The bishop from New Hampshire, who's asking that the doors be opened wide to all who come? Or the bishop from Pennsylvania, a sinner like all humans, who has gotten inside and now wants to be the gatekeeper?

Shame on you, Mr. Duncan.

is one of the ones fomenting schism: he is bankrolling conservative groups in the Episcopal Church and other Provinces of the Anglican Communion. In particular, he is giving money to Bishop Akinola of Nigeria, who has been involved in efforts to align conservative American parishes with other Provinces. Bishop Akinola has recently proposed harsh criminal penalties in Nigeria for advocating homosexuality and for homosexual behavior.

I think he did when he speaks of eunuchs. He said that some are made that way by man, some choose to be that way,and some ARE MADE THAT WAY BY GOD. He also said that if we are guilty of breaking one of his commandments we are guilty of breaking them all - so if any church is going to eliminate gays then they would also have to do evict all divorcees, all fat people, all people who condemn others,and everyone else who has ever done anything which is contrary to God's commandments. I guess there's going to be alot of empty churches around. Fred Phelps had really better start to be nicer because if all gays are going to hell then they are also going to be his neighbors.

I think what you are talking about is Paul's words. Paul condemned homosexuality at some point, along with pretty much all sexuality. I suspect he was not really smooth with the ladies, you know? Or the gents, for that matter.

The Old Testament is pretty clear, but we ignore a good part of the Old Testament anyways. For example, we don't stone urban rape victims for not screaming anymore. We don't stone disobediant children, either.

He is speaking about those who can't procreate and those who aren't attracted to the opposite sex.

mattew 19:12

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive , let him receive .

if that's talking about gay folk -- it's coming from around the corner.

the people living then would have known the diff betwen gay folk and eunuchs -- and i don't see why christ would have refered to gay folk as eunuchs -- especially considering his relationship with john.

what would you call that person. The point that I am trying to make here is that Jesus referred to these people as born with the attribute of being a eunuch. Slaves were often emasculated so they would be of no sexual threat to ,say , the Pasha's wives. What then would you call the person born with such condition?

jesus would have known the difference between a eunuch -- even a eunuch created for sexual purposes -- and a gay person.
they were not an unknown quantity in christ's lifetime.

what the fuck -- where do you think we've been -- sniveling in corners since adam -- ?

jesus would have been aware of gay heros like alexander or achilles -- for example -- palestine at that time was a mediteranean world -- an international oriented society -- it's likely that christ spoke 3 languages -- aramaic, latin and greek.
that was not uncommon and as a trained carpenter -- he would have needed those languages.

this wasn't the fuckin back of no-where.

nt

in the twinkling of an eye and that no one knew who would go and who would left behind. In his examples, he mentions 2 women working in the field and 2 MEN IN BED as though it were an everyday occurance, but never commented further on their relationship. 14th chapter, I forget the verse.

more than just those who have had their genitals removed. He is speaking also about those who chose to live a life without sex with women and those who were created by God himself not being able to have sex with a woman.