"Caiaphas" <Caiaphas66@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yD7Ya.24$Hy2.455@eagle.america.net...

Episcopalian Bishop-elect V. Gene Robinson is an
acknowledged homosexual and professes to believe
in Jesus Christ. In an attempt to understand how Bishop
Robinson and the Episcopalian Church justifies homo-
sexuality, what reasoning are they using?

The Old Testament has Scripture condemning homo-
sexuality and I think it was the Apostle Paul who con-
demned the practice also. But, did Christ condemn
this act? Is that the reasoning?

How about some honest debate on this subject without
insulting passions?

You mentioned Old Testament and Paul, and therein
resides the christian confusion, for some parts of the
Old Testament are still promoted by christianity, with
other parts dismissed as not part of the "new convenant".
A lot of the Paul-spin on christianity was different than
the Jesus-spin (in the gospels). With a confused phil-
osophical approach to right-and-wrong, christians may
be led in any number of different directions, from the
Old Testament and Pauline views that homosexuality
(by males being the focus, with scant mention of sex
between women) is a sin, to the New Testament Jesus
Christ views that homosexuality is a non-issue (at least
not an issue worthy of anything other than general refer-
ences to the old laws, some supportive, some not so
supportive).

After all, in the passage "be fruitful and multiply", one
must recognize that folks are fruitful (having sex) but
often don't multiply, simply due to reproductive inability,
post-menopause, the woman in the sex act not being
probable to become pregnant (at times in her cycle,
or due to birth control, or due to physical problems or
age, or due to the male using a condom or other means
to prohibit procreation [such as oral or anal sex]), or due
to a decision to termination of a pregnancy (most often,
by act of nature [or god, if one prefers]), or due to same
sex acts of fruitfulness.

I know, that's a very liberal interpretation of being fruitful,
but hey, when it comes to interpretations, therein resides
the ability for humans to perceive a passage in different
ways. They may feel that their perception is what God or
the Holy Spirit or Jesus Christ wants, or they may feel
their perception is morally right, or they may feel justified
in their perception based on any number of factors, some
of which may in be in irresoluble paradoxical areas or in
gray areas of multiple choices may be "right".

In any case, why would homosexuality (if "really" a sin)
be any different from any other sin? After all, christians
say they're not better than non-christians, they're just
"forgiven", so why not go with the flow? What's the fear
factor inherent in conservative christianity?

Why amplify homosexuality as a sin-above sins of pride,
arrogance, lying, deception, dishonesty, meanness,
anger, sloth, disbelief, irreverence, disobedience to
parents, not going to church, not tithing, not putting the
Judeo-Christian "God" above all other "gods", over-
eating, smoking, over-drinking, over-drugging, stealing,
etc. _____ (long list of perceived sins goes here)?