This is a sad example of just how far Christian wingnuts will take their campaign against gay people, and just how personally they administer it. They always say they “hate the sin, but love the sinner,” which is, of course, one of their greatest lies, but they have no qualms doing everything they can to, for instance, make Bishop Gene Robinson’s life miserable:
CONCORD, N.H. — The first openly gay Episcopal bishop said Saturday that he will retire in 2013, due in part to the “constant strain” on him and his family from the worldwide backlash against his election seven years ago.
Bishop V. Gene Robinson, whose consecration convulsed the global Anglican fellowship, said he was announcing his retirement early so the transition would be smooth for the Diocese of New Hampshire. He assured congregants that he is healthy and sober after seeking treatment for alcoholism five years ago. He will be 65 when he steps down.
Robinson revealed his plans at the annual diocesan convention in Concord.
“The fact is, the last seven years have taken their toll on me, my family and you,” the bishop said, in prepared remarks released by the diocese. “Death threats, and the now-worldwide controversy surrounding your election of me as bishop have been a constant strain, not just on me, but on my beloved husband, Mark.”
He deserves a break. The work he’s done, just by being the pioneer, is beyond measure.
[h/t AfterElton]
Death threats. Yeah, that’s what Christians are all about, boy.
“Hate the sin, love the sinner…” Translation: “Hate the sinner and make sure (s)he knows (s)he is going to hell.”
The fact that Christ never said word one about homosexuality, and in fact even healed the Centurion’s “servant,” who if you know the original Greek was probably the man’s male lover. Without a word of condemnation.
There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that Jesus was heterosexual, and a good bit that indicates He was probably gay. The Bible makes it clear there was one special loved one in Jesus’s life, and that person was a MAN. Start with John chapters 11-13 and 18-22.
“The fact that Christ never said word one about homosexuality, and in fact even healed the Centurion’s “servant,” who if you know the original Greek was probably the man’s male lover. Without a word of condemnation.”
Of course Jesus healed the servant, because he helps those in need regardless of their personal worthiness and because he responded to the faith of the Centurion. Jesus said that he came to heal the sick and save sinners, not the righteous. It would be foolishness to project an endorsement of the Centurion’s life into Jesus’ willingness to heal and save. The Centurion knew what Jesus stood for and that he did not meet Jesus’ standard when he said “Lord, I am not worthy for you to come under my roof…but just say the word and my servant will be healed.” He exressed personal faith in Jesus.
BTW, the Centurion/servant relationship, if it was sexual at all, would be an abusive relationship and that aspect certainly would never have been endorsed by Christ.
Jesus was a good Jew and believed, observed and obeyed the Law. In fact he fulfilled it.
“There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that Jesus was heterosexual, and a good bit that indicates He was probably gay.”
Well, if he was he, and there is no reason to think he was, he lived a celibate life dedicated to God.
What is your evidence?
I could have been more clear, regardless of Jesus’ sexuality, he lived a celibate life dedicated to God and that’s the bigger point, his sexuality, whatever it was, was dedicated to God.
Hey Bob, hold on there. What makes you think that a ‘Centurion/servant’ relationship had to be ‘abusive’? Is that what you think of all gay relationships, that they are all abusive? Because if that is your opinion, you know nothing & should not be making such weird assumptions!
Bob said “Well, if he was he, and there is no reason to think he was…”
If you believe the christian stories about Jesus are true then Jesus was gay:
“The Secret Gospel of Mark is a version of Mark that was in use in Alexandria by at least the first quarter of the second century. It was unknown to the modern world until a fragment of it, barely a page in length, was uncovered in 1958.
The gospel surfaced in a fragment of an ancient letter written by Clement of Alexandria (circa 150-213 CE) A near consensus of Clementine scholars vouch for the letter’s authenticity. The Gospel was apparently similar to canonical Mark but included extra passages intended for those insiders who had a higher degree of initiation into the church.
Many scholars suggest evidences that the authors Matthew and Luke did not use what we know as the Gospel of Mark as an aide in formulating their own Gospels but used instead The Secret Gospel of Mark from which some, but not all of the esoteric passages have been removed. Here is an excerpt:
“And Jesus got angry and went with her into the garden where the tomb was.” … “Then Jesus went up and rolled away the stone…” ” He went right in where the young man was, stuck out his hand, grabbed him by the hand , and raised him up. The young man looked at Jesus, loved him, and began to beg him to be with him.” Then they left the tomb and went into the young man’s house.” … “Six days later Jesus gave him an order; and when evening had come, the young man went to him, dressed only in a linen cloth. He spent that night with him, because Jesus taught him the mystery of God’s domain.” … … “The sister of the young man whom Jesus loved was there, along with his mother and Salome, but Jesus refused to see them.”"
Priya, writes “A near consensus of Clementine scholars vouch for the letter’s authenticity.”
Authenticity means it was truly written at that time but says absolutly nothing of the letters veracity, it’s truth.
Besides, The OT and Jewish culture made it clear that sexual intercourse outside of marriage was strongly condemmed.
So, you think variuos Jesus followers would promote the idea that men could have sex with each other outside of marriage but nobody else could?
Devin writes “Hey Bob, hold on there. What makes you think that a ‘Centurion/servant’ relationship had to be ‘abusive’? ”
Because the servant is really a slave, property belonging to the Centurion. If it was a sexual relationship, which I doubt, but if it was, the power structure makes consentuality highly dubious.
Devin asks “Is that what you think of all gay relationships, that they are all abusive?”"
What universe do you live in? The subject in question is solely the Centurion/slave so I don;t have to dignify your question but since you might wonder, the answer is of course I don’t think “all gay relationships”.
In ancient Roman society, some rich patricians had their pleasure with their male slaves. But sexual relations between free men was not tolerated as well. There had to be a difference in social status. That essentially defines abuse.
No matter what the truth is concerning the story of the Centurion and his servant, it was really Christian–NOT!–to be sending Bishop Robinson death threats. It is sad to see him retire, but I understand why. So sad that all the haters consider themselves “good Christians. Isn’t that always the way?
Bob, I disagree. I don’t think the relationship necessarily had to be abusive. After all, he cared enough about the slave to seek help for him.
Devin, well of course he cared! I think he loved his slave like a son.
I think it’s funny that people argue about these Bible stories as if they were true.
lol, i know
LOL, they are.
Bob, what is your evidence that Jesus was celibate? Obviously neither of us “knows” whether He was sexually active or not. But I’m fairly clear that the Bible is telling us He was gay. To my read, it says exactly what it would say if He was out and out 100% Kinsey 6, and completely in love with and committed to His male partner. Just my impression.
Dan asks “Bob, what is your evidence that Jesus was celibate?”
Because if he were not, that would have been a point of attack from his enemies. In the Old Testament based Jewish culture, who would follow a Messiah who broke the OT Law? He would be like George Rekers.
Any Messiah would have to be sexually pure and above reproach.
If he were such a hypocrite, chances are we would never have heard of him at all.
He was *not* above reproach. He broke the law openly and repeatedly, adn explained why He was doing it. A large part of His message was that the law was being used to harm people. And He was not accepted – they killed him.
Does the Bible say “any Messiah would have to be sexually pure”? Sexual “purity” was not typical of the prophets. A man with crushed testicles would not even be allowed as a priest. A ram with crushed testicles would be unacceptable as a sacrifice.
I suspect sexual activity between men may have been treated something like the same way it is now in many cultures, particularly in the Middle East: it’s common, but people don’t talk about it.
Dan, he never broke the Law. What he *did* break was the traditions and rules set up as a hedge against breaking the Law. Traditions were religious rules set up to make it so that if you followed the rules you never got close to breaking the Law. They got to be so heavy, burdensome and complex the priests could not even keep them. Thus Jesus broke those and rightly chastised the Priests for hypocricy.
“Does the Bible say “any Messiah would have to be sexually pure”? ”
Oh, use you head…
I meant “use your head…”
My impression is that He broke the actual Law itself. Maybe you can help me understand better if I am mistaken. My understanding is that He broke the Law for example by not killing that lady caught in the act of adultery.
If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death. – Leviticus 20:10
Gotta go. Have fun!
Yes, Dan, the Law says both. Jesus’s accusers only brought the woman thus they themselves violated the terms of the Law. But as the Messiah, Jesus is demonstrating grace and ultimately he fulfills all the penalties of the Law in his death on the cross.
Bob thank you, i hope these gays listen but i know they will never pay attention instead they will want to change the bible to suite themselves……who have ear let him hear…. and to all the gays out there, somethings are WITHOUT EQUAL, i dont think i will give you an equal right, i know lots of you are just too nice BUT…………………
Me, “these gays” are people, not some group to target with a message. I am disturbed by the way you just seem lump them into a group as some kind of non-human entities.
Would you refer to Jewish people on a Jewish blog as “these jews”? I doubt that very much but that’s what you statement sounded like to me. perhaps you did not realize how you sounded.
As for “he who have ears, let him hear” please consider that God does not require of you to make harsh blanket judgements of how other people live their lives. He does requires you to listen to Him and live your own life accordingly.
Daniel wrote, “I think it’s funny that people argue about these Bible stories as if they were true.”
I think it’s funny, too . . . but unfortunately, realizing the damage done to so many lives takes some of the fun out of watching them argue.
Bob said “The OT and Jewish culture made it clear that sexual intercourse outside of marriage was strongly condemmed.”.
It amazes me how you’re willing to tell such blatant lies and think you can get away with it. Adam and Eve were never married. Sex outside of marriage was fundamental to the prototype for all heterosexual relationships.
Bob said “Yes, Dan, the Law says both. Jesus’s accusers only brought the woman thus they themselves violated the terms of the Law. But as the Messiah, Jesus is demonstrating grace and ultimately he fulfills all the penalties of the Law in his death on the cross.”.
There you go again with that mindfuck you’ve got going with yourself.
Bob translated: “Jesus broke the law but he can break any and all laws and its not lawbreaking because he committed suicide. Its just like when a man kills his family and then kills himself – he hasn’t broken any law because he “fulfilled” his penalty”.
Priya asserts “Adam and Eve were never married.”
LOL. The whole story just blossoms with the concept of marriage. Where do you think we even get the practice of the father giving away the bride- in essence presenting the bride to the groom- it’s right there in Genesis.
Gen. 2;
18.”And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19.Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20. So Adam gave manes to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. 21.And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22.
Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman,
and He brought her to the man.
23. And Adam said: This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.
24. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Adam banged his female replicant clone… eww. Since God doesn’t mention any other raw materials, only Adam’s rib, she had to be Barbie doll sized.
Priya again asserts Bob is lying; “It amazes me how you’re willing to tell such blatant lies and think you can get away with it. Adam and Eve were never married.”
So, are you asserting that what the Scriptures really teach is that any two adults can engage in sex any time they want, married or not, as long as no one gets hurt?
Can you point me to some Scriptures that teach unencumbered sexuality is just fine with God?
“Sex outside of marriage was fundamental to the prototype for all heterosexual relationships.”
Please explain what you mean.
Simply put Priya, in our wedding ceremonies we are acting out parts of the Genesis story.
This silly marriage argument is why I’m glad in the US we have a constitution and we don’t have to depend on that ridiculous old book for our laws.
Bob, what kind of ‘abusive’ centurion risks being made a laughing stock of in order to obtain healing for a servant he could replace for a few denarii? Admittedly the servant may have been in no position to refuse the centurion in one sense but it is more likely that the centurion’s motivation was underpinned by something more than a Roman soldier’s duty of care which I would say would have been flimsy in normal circumstances.
Also, interestingly, the Greek word used in this story appears in contemporary (Herodotus and Josephus) sources as something other than merely servant judging from the context.
Paul, I nor anyone else can say for sure exactly what went on between these two individuals. I said if it was sexual it was abusive because of the power inequality.
Bob, in those ancient times slaves were not NECESSARILY treated abominably like the African slaves who were brought to America. Some were treated very badly, I’m sure. But others were well-educated people who ‘sold themselves’ into servanthood so they could pay off debts & the like. Because the bible chooses to use the word slave, it is very misleading. But then much in the bible is misleading. And Adam & Eve were not married as they were having sex with their children & grandchildren. You know – go forth & multiply
Devin asserts “But then much in the bible is misleading.”
If you look at english only and interpret everything by your own current norms it does appear that way sometimes. But that is a problem with the reader not a problem with the Scripture.
God married Adam and Eve in the Genesis story. There is no evidence that Adam had relations with one of his daughters.
It’s just so good to know that Bob was actually in the Garden of Eden & was able to determine that everything in Genesis was on the up & up. Of course the fact that ancient texts were carried down orally doesn’t seem to shake his faith in his OWN interpretation.
Devin, go then and make a case that in the story, Adam and Eve were never married and try to convince me. Don’t just assert it.
Um, Adam & Eve are mythological figures, y’all.
LOL Evan spot on. It’s like arguing if all the elves that Santa Claus has our his children or not.
Just like in the Adam & Eve story, there’s a hole in the text. If Santa & Mrs. Claus were the first people at the North Pole, who did Rudolph marry blah blah blah…
#1 The story never says that Adam and Eve were married. Don’t ask somebody else to convince you, you can read. Check it for yourself.
#2 It’s a story.
#3 You are demanding that people allow YOU to control their lives in a harmful way because of a story, and you aren’t even honest about what the story says.
#4 That leads me to understand that your motivation is not integrity or truth, but the power to harmfully manipulate other people.
#5 You’re not the worst person in the world.
#6 You’re suffering because of guilt that was imposed on you.
#7 You’re gay and that’s wonderful. Get over it.
Evan interjects “Um, Adam & Eve are mythological figures, y’all.”
Irregardless Evan, the point is that in the *story* they are married by God. Mythological figures or not that is part of the story. Some here claim the story does not mean they were married by God and I do.
And I would be shocked, shocked if Bishop Robinson did not agree with me on this point.
Dan claims “The story never says that Adam and Eve were married. Don’t ask somebody else to convince you, you can read. Check it for yourself.”
Cop out Dan.
Point #1, Yes, it never actually uses the word “married” in the translation I have. You claim it’s not a marriage. Show that from the story if you can. Show me that God is not creating and then presenting Eve, in the story, as a wife. Show me there was no committment involved.
#2, It’s the meaning of the story we are debating, not it’s literalness.
#3. I am not controlling anyone by asserting that the claim made earlier that there was no marriage is wrong. It’s just my opinion.
#4. Silly. Whatever.
#5. Thanks.
#6. By all the rules of exegesis the story either has a certain meaning or it doesn’t. It’s not about me.
#7. Surely you are not asserting that Gay people must take the position that there was no first marriage in the Bible just to undermine Christian opposition are you?
What you don’t get is that what happened in Genesis *defines* the concept of a marriage in the Scripture. Why else is the story repeated and partially acted out in most Western wedding ceremonies? Explain that if you can.
And why Dan, does Moses write in verse 24, summing up the point of the story;
24. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Why Dan? Why does Moses use the word “wife” in context of summing the whole point of the story he just wrote down in the previous verses?