Posted on 04/11/2005 12:44:39 PM PDT by sionnsar
New Hampshire's largest daily newspaper, The Union Leader, reports that the state's Episcopal bishop, Vicky Gene Robinson, is: "Furious for my remarks to be interperted in a way as to mean something I never said. My office is being flooded with angry messages from around the country, and from around the world, about something I never said."
Episcopal religion writer David Virtue, now on a speaking tour in Asia, reported that Robinson, whom he identified as "The homoerotic bishp," had been "implying that Jesus may have been a homosexual himself."
Bishop Robinson told The Union Leader:
"We have absolutely no indication of Jesus' sexual orientation. Absolutely none. Therefore, it would be totally inappropriate for me to speculate about it."
Yet a record of Bishop Robinson's speech to an Episcopal parish in South Hamilton, Massachusetts, that is the Christ Church web site, has the following recorded Robinson statement:
"Interestingly enough, in this day of traditional family values and so on, this man that we follow was single as far as we know; who traveled with a bunch of men, although there were lots of women around, who had a disciple who was known as 'the one whom Jesus loved'..."
I can remember at a meeting of the Religion Newswriters Association three decades ago in Atlanta, when the Rev. Troy Perry, moderator of the homosexual Metropolitan Community Church used this same reference to St. John in arguing that Jesus may well have been homosexual.
How will Bishop Robinson's fervent denial go over with the ecclesiastical sodomy lobby?
The Union Leader also reported Bishop Robinson's denunciation of London's Daily Telegraph for reporting he "was married to his homosexual partner. While they had been together 16 years, Robinson said he had never married his partner and their relationship had not been blessed."
Why not?
These two could have gone to Massachusetts and gotten homosexually hitched.
Why haven't they?
And [the] majority of Episcopal bishops (61) who approved Robinson to be consecrated bishop. How do they now describe the without-benefit-of-clergy "partnership" of Bishop Robinson and his homosexual lover?
Is it fornication--or what?
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. I guess you could say he blew it.
And now he's bending over backwards to mouth his objections.
Doesn't the writer realize that those with homosexual inclinations are exempt from any restrictions relating to sexual morality?
"Bishop Robinson told The Union Leader:
"We have absolutely no indication of Jesus' sexual orientation. Absolutely none. Therefore, it would be totally inappropriate for me to speculate about it."
Thats not what Integrity said (episco-baalian) gay rights group: http://www.integrityva.org/gay_saints.htm
Quite a conundrum for good ole Gene!
I believe it is, not just according to religious doctrine, but also secularly speaking. Hmm. Let's define fornication just for scholarship's sake...
Merriam-Webster states...
Main Entry: for·ni·ca·tion
Pronunciation: "for-n&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
: consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other --
Yep. Fornication.
AND, according to NH criminal code 645:1 fornication is a misdemeanor crime.
LOL -this is bizarre...
This character should read the Bible.
Bizarre is #8! Good call, Peanut Gallery.
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.