Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 10/31/2003 7:49:53 PM PST by UnklGene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: UnklGene
But he told The Telegraph that the Church had to modernise its views on morality

And there we go again. Leftist degenerates keep telling us that we have the problem and we must change our thoughts.

These people call us nazi's???

2 posted on 10/31/2003 7:52:25 PM PST by GeronL (Visit www.geocities.com/geronl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: UnklGene
lifelong-intentioned relationships

What a wonderful phrase this bishop-to-be has come up with! It's clinton-speak for: "We'll split as soon as either of us feels like it!"

3 posted on 10/31/2003 7:55:26 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: UnklGene
More than 6,000 people are expected to attend tomorrow's consecration, when Bishop-elect Robinson will be flanked by his ex-wife, his two daughters and his boyfriend, Mark Andrews.

Just damn! Proof positive that this 'fivesome' is really an odd number.

4 posted on 10/31/2003 7:55:57 PM PST by UnklGene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: UnklGene
So he's comparing the prince's lifelong love for this woman to his faggotry?
5 posted on 10/31/2003 7:58:28 PM PST by DLfromthedesert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ahadams2
Ping for the list?
6 posted on 10/31/2003 8:00:00 PM PST by Ryle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All
International Healing Foundation

CLICK HERE

7 posted on 10/31/2003 8:03:44 PM PST by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: UnklGene

Just another reason why this bishop-elect is unfit to head a church or shepherd souls. But then, Prince Charles is the heir to the titular title of this particular Charch, and this just goes to show that there is no such thing as a 'harmless immorality.'

11 posted on 10/31/2003 8:09:40 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: UnklGene
"We have this very odd situation in Britain with the heir to the throne cohabiting with a woman without the benefit of marriage because the Church over which Charles is going to be head when he becomes king still does not allow remarriage in church.

My first thought was that Charles criticizing Robinson was a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

But as Evelyn Waugh argues in "Brideshead Revisited," for a believing Christian, the worst kind of sexual sin is to get married illegitimately. A brief affair is less serious than that. If Robinson was unable to resist having a homosexual affair with this guy but still decided to stick with his wife and kids and broken the affair off, at least he would have been trying to do the right thing.

Contrary to what these gay-agenda people say, it's worse for a Christian believer to have a life-long homosexual relationship than it is to fall into an occasion of sin but then repent it. Better, even, to try and fail to straighten out than not to try at all.

12 posted on 10/31/2003 8:14:47 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: UnklGene
This is all very queer.
13 posted on 10/31/2003 8:15:59 PM PST by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: UnklGene
He said he did not relish the argument over his election and that it was his desire that the Anglican Communion would hold together.

Baloney. He doesn't desire it very deeply or he'd have dropped out of contention for the bishopric. As a former Episcopalian, I say with all my heart that the condoning of this abominable situation is worth a church split on the part of those who understand that homosexuality is an accursed practice, regardless of whether it is forced or consensual. Scripture even provides for it by teaching those who live in grace to separate themselves from their brethren who won't repent after two warnings.

14 posted on 10/31/2003 8:25:08 PM PST by GretchenEE (Liberals CANNOT be trusted with national security [excepting maybe Congr. Norm Dicks].)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: UnklGene
But he told The Telegraph that the Church had to modernise its views on morality

Pax to all my Anglican friends, but the English royalty is not part of the magisterium for Christian doctrine. That was how the whole Church of England thing started, with the King pronouncing himself head of the church and changing Christian doctrine and practice on marriage. Christ founded the church on apostles, not kings. Please pardon this anti-Erastian rant.

20 posted on 10/31/2003 9:00:23 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: UnklGene
What part of abomination did he not get?
23 posted on 10/31/2003 10:00:41 PM PST by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: UnklGene
How very tacky by the King of Tacky.
26 posted on 11/01/2003 6:19:22 AM PST by altura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: UnklGene
"Sodom and Gomorrah is about homosexual rape. St Paul is talking about idolators," he said, incorrectly.

The sodomite bishop is reaching for a lower common denominator by implying that two wrongs make a right - which they do not. Just because the(?!) chuch changes it's understanding of anything doesn't necessarily mean that it's correct. This man is the straw that's going to break the Anglican organization in two. He is not concerned with being a bishop, Christianity, or in repenting towards Christ; he is concerned with himself.
31 posted on 11/01/2003 6:45:09 AM PST by AD from SpringBay (We have the government we allow and deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson