In the midst of all the fascination with the Bishop's nether regions, one should remember that no matter what the particulars, the main reason he is not qualified to serve in any capacity in the church is because he has broken at least two sets of very public vows.

Bingo. Jim's hit the nail square on the head. If he's broken his marriage vows - the most solemn promises that most people make in their lifetimes - AND his ordination vows, how can he possibly be trusted with the even heavier responsibility of a diocese? I don't care what turns him on. I do care that he's an oathbreaker and untrustworthy.

Perhaps the African missionaries will be able to make some headway with him when they arrive.

RDB

Perhaps, but they will have to worry about the African liberals fretting about whether they are imposing their values on us.

Sad but not surprising. We suffer the diseases of the rich and priviledged.

I notice that Rev Robinson is completely unlike that paragon of virtue, the founder of the Anglican Church, King Henry VIII.

The rock and founder of the Christian Church was labeled Satan by Christ himself ("Get behind me, Satan!"). He then denied Christ three times.

God uses sinners in surprising ways. Nearing death King Henry VIII admitted he was a sinner. This puts him above Robinson in at least one respect.

Yes, Jeff, Henry VIII is an adored and fondly remembered model for all Christians. How can religionists withstand devastatingly cogent, relevant arguments like that?

Robinson doesn't believe he is a sinner?

Jeff:

Obviously not, else he'd stop sinning.

The bible presents an existential pickle for the believer at this point. It clearly states that the saved will stop sinning-- yet goes on to state that the saved continue to sin.

Robinson probably feels conviction in some areas of his life, but obviously has no desire whatsoever to stop performing homosexual acts. The schism is partly over character and self-discipline, but mainly over epistemology.

Or it may be that he feels homosexuality is an inherent part of God's plan and is, therefore, morally equivalent to hetersexuality.

In which case his homosexuality is no more a matter of sin than his critic's hetersexuality is.

Maybe it's just a matter of my ignorance, but I thought all humans, by definition, are sinners.

But maybe only the ones questioning orthodoxy are sinners. That must be it.

Jeff:

No, no, you have it right. Modern liberal Christianity holds that, seeing as we are all sinners, what the heck! We can't say whose sin is worse, so party on Dude.

Jeff:

Are you arguing against freedom of association? That's not very rational.

No, of course you're not. You simply dislike the fact that Christianity has an open membership drive, but imposes stricter standards on its leadership.

WHY you dislike that is beyond me. It seems eminently rational.

Let's say the American Association of Atheists admitted orthodox Christians (I suspect they do, I've no idea). Let's then say that one of those people ascended to the presidency of that organization. Would he or she be held to any standard in the doctrines he or she promulgated, upon pain of losing office?

If not, then I have no respect for such an organization (it wouldn't last long anyhow).

Jeff: The answer to your question is: Robinson is not sinning, according to the Unified Church of Robinson. According to the Anglican Communion, he is. Regardless of the objective truth of either side, as Judd implies, one would expect Mr. Robinson to conform to the society in which one claims membership, or suffer the consequences.

At a time when AIDS is ravaging Africa, for any Christian Church to sanctify the gay lifesytle is absolutely inexcusable. Islam may destroy us simply because they'll be the last ones standing.

To RDB,

Well done!

Sin is a problematical concept.

If you really believed a thing were wrong to do, you would not do it, right? Not if you were sane.

Given a choice, no one deliberately chooses the wrong answer.

So if people "sin," it must be because, although they profess to believe in a hierarchy of A-good, B-sinful; really they believe B to be good because given a choice, that's the choice they make instead of A.

Chris, Judd:

Good points.

However, just because something is in the Bible does not make it correct. There is plenty in there that was once sinful, but is no more. Usury, say.

If at one time something was thought to be a choice, and therefore open to moral analysis, but later is discovered to be part of God's plan, it just might behoove the organization to take another look at whether certain passages are in fact God's word. Or, one of 500 or so "commandments" taken from a conclave of Jewish elders around 500 BC.

It is possible the former might still be true. However, if the latter is, then all the African Bishop is doing is propogating bigotry.

Harry:

Of course you'd sin anyway--it's attractive and we're Fallen. That's the point about sin--it requires reason for us even to recognize that we shouldn't and free will for us to stop ourselves or repent after and try to make amends.

Jeff:

Not only is usry sinful, it's illegal.

OJ:

The biblical reference to usury was interest in any amount exceeding 0%.

That doesn't work, Orrin.

If we believed it was wrong -- presumably we believe this because we can recognize right from wrong -- then we wouldn't do it.

If we just define sin as something someone forbade that we subscribe to willynilly -- like eating lobster -- then free will is out the window.

And sin is gone again.

The concept of sin is logically insupportable, although the concept of evil is not.

Harry:

That is only a promising approach if each person defines himself as his own personal god and font of truth, in which case evil becomes a matter of personal opinion. How do you define what evil is?I hope you aren't going to say those things no sane person would do, which would make evil disappear altogether of define it as a form of mental illness. Surely you would not say that all sane people would agree on this, or that a democratic majority defines what evil is?

The concept of evil breaks down pretty fast without sin.

Jeff:

That's for your brethern, not for the public at large. You charge your brothers interest?

Harry:

I yield to you if you've never done anything in your life that you knew to be wrong.

Thanks, Peter. After thinking about what Harry had said I was going to put something similar to what you did. If anything we choose to do is de facto not sinful then there is indeed no such thing as evil. Which is where Harry and Jeff';s secular naturalism inevitably leads.

I've done things I was told were wrong. And I've made mistakes, usually because I was ignorant of the consequences.

But, looking back, the sins I committed were, obviously, what I considered for the best, or I wouldn't have done them.

If I'd thought there was a better course of action, I'd have done that. Duh.

My point is that actions that people stand up on Sunday and claim they believe to be wrong are not in their hearts really wrong. Very few people, for example, take the Fifth Commandment at all seriously, and even fewer are honest enough to admit it.

You, for example, have many times encouraged the murder of Ba`athists by Shiites. Obviously because you consider that the best course of action.

I don't disagree with you. I'd like to see them dead, too. I just don't delude myself about what my moral code consists of.

Harry:

You thought every action you've ever taken in your life was the morally right thing to do at the time you did it? That's monstrous.

OJ:

What Harry is saying is that in his life he has never gone out with malice aforethought to make a moral mistake.

Which is a lot different than concluding after the fact that one has done just that.

For most people nearly all the time, that is true. Unlike Harry, I did a couple things when I was younger that weren't moral, and I knew ahead of time they weren't.

But it has been decades since I've made a decision I knew in advance to be morally wrong.

Nothing monstrous about that.

BTW, the Church explicitly prohibited interest of any kind to anyone until about 1200. And while I don't have a dictionary with me to confirm it, it seems that implicitly equating brethern with biological brother is not a sound use of language or logic. And it certainly pays no attention to history.

Wow, no wonder you guys are atheists--you are gods. Of course, no wonder you don't believe in morality, since anything either of you do is, apparently by definition, good.