I got a huge swell of requests to post the transcript of the Right Reverend Bishop Gene Robinson’s prayer at the Unity event on the Sunday before the inauguration. Okay, so the swell consisted of two people. I still thought it was a good idea.
If you don’t have any background on the Right Reverend, here’s a little information:
The Rev. V. Gene Robinson, the Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop, said he and his partner want to be among the first couples in New Hampshire to unite officially under a civil unions measure soon to be signed into law. The state is set to become the nation’s fourth to offer civil unions for gay couples after legislation approved by the Senate was sent to Gov. John Lynch, who has said he will sign it. ”I think this moves us one step closer to the American promise to all its citizens of equality under the law,” Mr. Robinson, 59, told The Associated Press. ”My partner and I look forward to taking full advantage of the new law.” Mr. Robinson and his partner, Mark Andrew, have been together for 18 years.
New York Times, April 28, 2007
In fairness, I don’t know how involved the president was in the selection of the participants or the program contents. However, as President/President-elect, he gets to take responsibility for it.
Here’s a YouTube clip of the prayer he delivered at the “We Are One” pre-game celebration. It’s not as professional as Mr. Warren’s, but you can hear it clearly.
And here’s the text of the prayer:
O God of our many understandings, we pray that you will…
Bless us with tears – for a world in which over a billion people exist on less than a dollar a day, where young women from many lands are beaten and raped for wanting an education, and thousands die daily from malnutrition, malaria, and AIDS.
Bless us with anger – at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.
Bless us with discomfort – at the easy, simplistic “answers” we’ve preferred to hear from our politicians, instead of the truth, about ourselves and the world, which we need to face if we are going to rise to the challenges of the future.
Bless us with patience – and the knowledge that none of what ails us will be “fixed” anytime soon, and the understanding that our new president is a human being, not a messiah.
Bless us with humility – open to understanding that our own needs must always be balanced with those of the world.
Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance – replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences, and an understanding that in our diversity, we are stronger.
Bless us with compassion and generosity – remembering that every religion’s God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable in the human community, whether across town or across the world.
And God, we give you thanks for your child Barack, as he assumes the office of President of the United States.
Give him wisdom beyond his years, and inspire him with Lincoln’s reconciling leadership style, President Kennedy’s ability to enlist our best efforts, and Dr. King’s dream of a nation for ALL the people.
Give him a quiet heart, for our Ship of State needs a steady, calm captain in these times.
Give him stirring words, for we will need to be inspired and motivated to make the personal and common sacrifices necessary to facing the challenges ahead.
Make him color-blind, reminding him of his own words that under his leadership, there will be neither red nor blue states, but the United States.
Help him remember his own oppression as a minority, drawing on that experience of discrimination, that he might seek to change the lives of those who are still its victims.
Give him the strength to find family time and privacy, and help him remember that even though he is president, a father only gets one shot at his daughters’ childhoods.
And please, God, keep him safe. We know we ask too much of our presidents, and we’re asking FAR too much of this one. We know the risk he and his wife are taking for all of us, and we implore you, O good and great God, to keep him safe. Hold him in the palm of your hand – that he might do the work we have called him to do, that he might find joy in this impossible calling, and that in the end, he might lead us as a nation to a place of integrity, prosperity and peace.
AMEN.
So, was this a Christian prayer? Should it have been offered at an inaugural activity? Run it through the same set of filters as you did with the Rick Warren prayer. Let me know what you think.
Melvin asked, “So, was this a Christian prayer? Should it have been offered at an inaugural activity? Run it through the same set of filters as you did with the Rick Warren prayer. Let me know what you think.”
Gene Robinson “Prayer” made Rick Warren’s seem like he was reading from the Westminster Confession. In fact, a good video critique of Vicki (Yes his first name is really Vicki go google it) Gene Robinson can be found here.
Listen carefully!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJNuhBvKnc4
Kyle
And self-righteous folks on this site criticized Rick’s prayer, by going over the meadow and through the woods, just to find something heretical, or off the straight path, simply because they personally don’t like the man.
Rick’s prayer wasn’t an ecumenical, embrace all faiths and beliefs type of prayer, but this one most definitely is. Folks who call themselves believers must get off of their high horse, and false idols they’ve constructed for themselves, and judge wisely, righteously, and not foolishly and hypocritically.
(MN: But you keep presuming that you can see into people’s heart. For example, you stated
)
Seekerman
Before you make your sweeping statements, as you said on another occasion, maybe you need to make sure you’re still checking the man in the mirror.
Regardless of whether I need to check the “man in the mirror,” I do know that what I said in the previous post was the truth, and so do you…
(MN: And of course you know that I know, that you know that I know…that I - well, you get the idea. )
Go on Seekman…go over it again…you poor field negro, Malcolm would be proud of ya!!By the way, if being an Uncle Tom means that I don’t carry the same bitterness and resentment towards White brothers and Sisters like you, PRAISE GOD I AM AN UNCLE TOM FOR ETERNITY!!!
I said:
Regardless of whether I need to check the “man in the mirror,” I do know that what I said in the previous post was the truth, and so do you…
Whereas Melvin said:
And of course you know that I know, that you know that I know…that I - well, you get the idea.
My response:
What I do get, is that you don’t have a clue.
NEXT.
In order to prove that someone doesn’t like a particular person, I don’t have to be able to read into their heart, or more specifically-READ THEIR MINDS. I can just judge their feelings towards the man, by the statements that come out of their mouths, or their hands onto a keyboard (which dictates that which is in their minds)- that is generally unflattering towards Rick.
Likewise, I can discern a dislike, hater without a cause attitude from certain ones concerning Rick’s prayer, when they foolishly insist that Rick’s “Isa” reference was made, in order to doctrinally embrace the muslim’s interpretation of “Isa”, as oppose to the biblical “Isa” or Jesus.
Those who don’t personally like Rick, no matter what you, or they say, will insist that his reference to “Isa”, was the muslim interpretation of “Isa”, as opposed to the Jesus/Isa of the bible, which was evidenced (the fact that he was referring to the biblical Jesus, and not the muslim interpretation) in the context of his prayer.
Simply put, foolish, haughty, and arrogant christians will ignore the context, and the apparent evidence before them, so as to find an excuse to further besmirch Rick’s character (mind you, I’m not saying there isn’t a million and one things to criticize Rick on, I just don’t believe his prayer was one of them), thereby his prayer- simply because they don’t like where the prayer was given (Obama’s inauguration), amongst other things.
So instead of me proving to you, or anyone else, how I can read their hearts, I know I can discern where they are coming from, which is overwhelmingly supported in what certain ones will say, and how they will say it.
Oh, but I guess you’re waiting for me to post up scripture, so as to prove my point, right?
(MN: Bottom line? He can tell because he can tell. And seekerman repeats his charge without providing any supporting evidence again. )
Seekerman,
You have the Secret Discernment Decoder Ring too!
Kyle
Those that tell don’t know, and those that know, DON’T TELL.
(MN: Yeah, yeah. And those who can’t - teach. What’s your point. )
Seekerman said:
foolish, haughty, and arrogant christians will ignore the context…
I was going to say, talk about the pot calling the kettle black… but hey, maybe I shouldn’t use such a phrase ..might be deemed racist.
Mel, you won’t get anywhere with Seekerman because according to him and some others NOBODY should be challenged about Biblical compromise. Whatever he says, the end result is the same. How dare you question the integrity of Rick Warren? That is what it boils down to.
Melvin said:
Yeah, yeah. And those who can’t - teach. What’s your point
My response:
You ought not be that self-critical.
Melvin
One of the most decent things you could’ve done, was post up my reply/defense against Cush’s accusations concerning my supposed racism against white people, and my constant defense of those who compromise biblical truths-which are blatant lies. For you to keep his open falsehoods up there about me, without posting my responses/rebuttals, that challenges his false assertions/accusations and character, reveals a lot about your own character.
In other words, you may glibly say that you were protecting this thread, your readers, and/or the participants, from what I had to say, but in reality you merely protecting your boy from a righteous and well-deserved rebuke.
(MN: And I will continue to say it as long as you insist on bloviating and simply repeating yourself. After about the second or third comment, you rarely say anything new. This last one has become “It’s true. I know it’s true and you know it’s true. ” The readers deserve better than that. )
Your comment about his name is either unfair, misleading, or uninformed. “Vicki” is the name he was born with. Read the following from Wikipedia:
When Robinson was born, he was so seriously ill that the doctor was certain he would not survive. He was temporarily paralyzed from birth and his head was misshapen. So likely was Robinson’s death that the physician asked Robinson’s father Charles for a name for the baby’s birth and death certificates. Robinson’s parents were young (his mother Imogene was twenty) and they were hoping for a girl.They named the baby “Vicki Gene Robinson” for Charles’ father Victor and the baby’s mother Imogene. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Robinson#cite_note-adams-1
(MN: We already covered this. My first thought was “Why would parents do that to a child?)
God of our many understanding is meaningless if we are talking about a Christian prayer. God could be a tree, a rock or a cow.
Unfortunately any talk of tolerance will automatically exclude Christians that believe the Bible, especially when it talks about sin. Yes the other issues mentioned in this prayer are also mentioned in the Bible for the most part. However the Bible clearly talks about calling right wrong and wrong right. That will NEVER be tolerated by the likes of Robinson. That part of his prayer is hypocritical at its core, in theory and in action.
It was reported that Robinson said that it would not be overtly Christian. He achieved that well IMHO. Sorry I did not have much to say on this but the first line defined it as a generic prayer to any diety that anyone wants to pray to.
Definitely, that first line, “God of our many understanding” could be anything or anyone. Robinson prayed just as I expected him to pray. The thing is that his prayer is so generic that it can perceived to be a prayer for any religion. According to his comments I believe that was his intention.
True Pamela, this prayer was debauched to say the least. rick Warren was no better but it had some type of Christian theme to it. robinson is out of his mind and unless he repents of his homosexual lifestyle he will end up in the Lake of Fire.
The real question should be whether or not God heard/honored this prayer. Our sin, whatever it is does not let us off the hook from our calling whatever it may be. If God indeed is sovereign, God hears every prayer that is uttered. While we may be able to determine if this or any other prayer is “Christian”, God determines what to do with such praying. I cannot read anywhere in the Bible or elsewhere where God is described as being Christian. One more thought: how many Christians exist who fail to pray period?
parsonp,
I’m confused regarding the points you made. They seem to be random thoughts strung together in haste. Can you please clarify what you meant.
Kyle
My failed attempt was a query whether anyone can define what makes a prayer Christian. Or perhaps, does God hear the prayer of anyone who does not pray a Christian prayer? I don’t know what constitutes what makes a prayer Christian. Moreover, I would suggest that God does not respond to prayers based on their Christianity, else non-Christian/unsaved folks could never have their prayers heard/answered. To ask if a prayer is Christian or not begs its own question.
One would first have to define what is a Christian. The short answer is: a Christian is someone who has repented of their sins and received the gift of Salvation paid for by the blood of Jesus Christ and placing their truth in Him and Him alone. So, a Christian prayer is a prayer that, to my way of thinking, is offered by a Christian and acknowledges the Authority and Sovereignty of Jesus Christ. If one of these points is missed, it’s not Christian.
As to your answered prayer question, I’ll post Pastor John MacArthur’s response:
Question
Does God answer the prayers of unbelievers?
Answer
God is sovereign and can choose to answer any prayer He sees fit. But Scripture clearly indicates that God does not listen to or answer every prayer. In fact, Scripture gives at least fifteen reasons for unanswered prayer. God does not answer the prayer of those:
#1. Who have personal and selfish motives.
You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures (James 4:3).
#2. Who regard iniquity in their hearts.
If I regard iniquity in my heart, The Lord will not hear (Psalm 66:18).
#3. Who remain in sin.
But your iniquities have separated you from your God; And your sins have hidden His face from you, So that He will not hear (Isaiah 59:2).
Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him (John 9:31).
#4. Who offer unworthy service to God.
“You offer defiled food on My altar. But say, ‘In what way have we defiled You?’ By saying, ‘The table of the Lord is contemptible.’ And when you offer the blind as a sacrifice, Is it not evil? And when you offer the lame and sick, Is it not evil? Offer it then to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you favorably?” Says the Lord of hosts. “But now entreat God’s favor, That He may be gracious to us. While this is being done by your hands, Will He accept you favorably?” Says the Lord of hosts (Malachi 1:7-9).
#5. Who forsake God.
Thus says the Lord to this people: “Thus they have loved to wander; They have not restrained their feet. Therefore the Lord does not accept them; He will remember their iniquity now, And punish their sins.” Then the Lord said to me, “Do not pray for this people, for their good. When they fast, I will not hear their cry; and when they offer burnt offering and grain offering, I will not accept them. But I will consume them by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence (Jeremiah 14:10-12). #6. Who reject God’s call.
Because I [Wisdom] have called and you refused, I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded, Because you disdained all my counsel, And would have none of my rebuke…. Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; They will seek me diligently, but they will not find me (Proverbs 1:24-25, 28).
#7. Who will not heed God’s law.
One who turns away his ear from hearing the law, Even his prayer is an abomination (Proverbs 28:9).
“But they refused to heed, shrugged their shoulders, and stopped their ears so that they could not hear. Yes, they made their hearts like flint, refusing to hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets. Thus great wrath came from the Lord of hosts. Therefore it happened, that just as He proclaimed and they would not hear, so they called out and I would not listen,” says the Lord of hosts” (Zechariah 7:11-13).
#8. Who turn a deaf ear to the cry of the poor.
Whoever shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, Will also cry himself and not be heard. (Proverbs 21:13).
#9. Who are violent.
When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; Even though you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood (Isaiah 1:15; see also 59:2-3).
#10. Who worship idols.
Therefore thus says the Lord: “Behold, I will surely bring calamity on them which they will not be able to escape; and though they cry out to Me, I will not listen to them. Then the cities of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem will go and cry out to the gods to whom they offer incense, but they will not save them at all in the time of their trouble. For according to the number of your cities were your gods, O Judah; and according to the number of the streets of Jerusalem you have set up altars to that shameful thing, altars to burn incense to Baal. So do not pray for this people, or lift up a cry or prayer for them; for I will not hear them in the time that they cry out to Me because of their trouble.” (Jeremiah 11:11-14; see also Ezekiel 8:15-18).
#11. Who have no faith.
But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord (James 1:6-7).
#12. Who are living in hypocrisy.
Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy (Luke 12:1).
#13. Who are proud of heart.
God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble (James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5).
#14. Who are self-righteous.
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, “God, I thank You that I am not like other men-extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.” And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, “God, be merciful to me a sinner!” I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted (Luke 18:11-14).
#15. Who mistreat God’s people.
You have also given me the necks of my enemies, So that I destroyed those who hated me. They cried out, but there was none to save; Even to the Lord, but He did not answer them (Psalm 18:40-41).
You who hate good and love evil; Who strip the skin from My people, And the flesh from their bones; Who also eat the flesh of My people, Flay their skin from them, Break their bones, And chop them in pieces, Like meat for the pot, Like flesh in the caldron. Then they will cry to the Lord, But He will not hear them; He will even hide His face from them at that time, Because they have been evil in their deeds (Micah 3:2-4).
So, does God answer the prayers of unbelievers? A strict yes or no answer is difficult without qualifying the answer in various ways. However, it is noteworthy that the above mentioned principles represent some of the key characteristics of an unbeliever. Thus we can safely say that, in general, God does not answer the prayers of an unbeliever.
Ok ParsonP, please explain what do you make of this passage?
Isaiah 59:2:
” 2 But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear”
Who knows more, you or God?
The referenced passage is answered in the same chapter verses 20ff. Notwithstanding, how does this verse answer the question about whether the prayer was Christian? Last time I checked, Isaiah was not a Christian…and the same goes for God and Jesus.
parsonp, the Old testament prophets and the New Testament apostles’ message harmonized. This is because the Old testament writtings prophesied of the coming Messiah (eventhough they weren’t technically called “Christians”), yet the New Testament is the fulfillment of what was written in the Old. And who do you think gave the Prophets and the Apostles that message? And who spoke through Jesus when he came to dwell on earth?….think about it.
This “prayer” was laced with “tolerance” and was no more Christian than Saddam Hussein’s little toe! Of course, I didn’t think that Rick Warren’s prayer was all that either, despite the fact that many of my “Christian” brothers and sisters did. My real question is this: now if he is openly homosexual (I personally do not call them “gay” because that is an oxy-moron), and he is the bishop or whatever in the episcopal church, how does he teach (if he does teach) the Bible concerning the abominations to which God refers in places like Leviticus and Romans? I cannot understand how the church can embrace homosexuals as Christians, much less church leaders….but I guess that is a little off topic. Just needed to get it off my chest. To answer your question Melvin, was this a Christian prayer? This is one girl’s answer: NO!
The answer is, he doesn’t teach that stuff, Tee. He teaches “tolerance” and pushes his abominable lifestyle on everyone in his “church” while making vague references to his god/goddess. But Jesus is irrelevant to him — a Hallmark-card cherub is more spiritually significant to Robinson than the Christ whose name he wears when it’s convenient.
Did you miss my previous comment, Mel? It had some good linkage!
Question: Can a non-christian give a christian prayer?
I’d be more impressed with inaugurations if the president himself prayed at the event, instead of having professionals pray for him. Let the people hear him for themselves.
But Stan, that’s not the purpose. The professional prayers are not about God as much as they are given to put the president in good standing with the pray-er’s constituents–the gays, the blacks, the evangelicals, the Muslims, the Buddhists, etc. If the president himself prays in public, there is too great a risk that he could offend one or more of these groups, so he must subcontract the duty to the professional clergy. [[BTW, Stan, your comment was awesome. I know where you're coming from, but I couldn't resist.]]
The thing that disturbs me most about both of these prayers is the subtleties of truth in them and the fact that an unlearned set of ears can interpret them as Biblically factual. I mean, to them as well as some Christians, it would sound good. I would call it very inclusionist and universal. There are some statements of truth in both of them that could be similar to the tenets of the Christian faith, but they could also apply to Buddhists, Wiccans, and everyone else. It was not Christian SPECIFICALLY.
prayrwarrior,
Thank You. That was my main points of contentions. We need to look at the individual prayers with skepticism due to their previous statements and engagements. As for Vicki Robinson that is obvious. We don’t need much discernment with this guy. Now as with Warren I have given multiple links where he has flip flopped on the gay issue and has embraced Muslims. Therefore we NEED to at the very least question him as to “what” he means. Until I hear Warren make a cogent stand on something and openly repent or at the very least acknowledge his past engagements were in error then I am still skeptical.
Kyle
“Bless us with compassion and generosity – remembering that EVERY religion’s God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable in the human community, whether across town or across the world.”
I’m still trying to make logical sense out of this. If every religion’s God is judging us then, what God is he praying to? Much confusion.
“Help him remember his own oppression as a minority, drawing on that experience of discrimination, that he might seek to change the lives of those who are still its victims.”
Interesting remarks. But this is how they grab the ear of the Biblically ignorant. They play the tune of “Civil Rights”, which equates the struggle of a race of people to the acceptance of homosexuals. This is a very subtle and tricky tactic they use, but as Paul says “Their condemnation is just”.
Well since I was one of the two ask for this, I guess by viewing the transcipt on bishop Robinson, Carlton Pearson finally has someone else to help push his inclusive agenda. This man (Robinson) really believes what he preaches/prays. But as I have began to understand,that Liberalism is one step from Apostasy. This is much more than politics, and whether we admit it or not we the church have brought this in, on ourselves. We don’t want to hurt peoples’ feelings and make them uncomfortable by addressing the sin issue and practicing church displine as indicated by the Bible. Despite yours or my personal views on Rick Warren (I may not agree with some of his views, but when he is cornered or confronted he at least makes a stand for Christ) it should be noted that Warren called out/on Jesus, while bishop didn’t say a “mummbling word”. This man loved Lincoln, Kennedy and King more than Christ. That should say enough.
Not Christian, which is what the Believers at Antioch were called, at all. His speech was simply a prayer for God to worship man in all his sinfulness and rebellion to God’s revealed Word. God did hear him but I don’t think he would like it one little bit if God answered.
TruthofGod,
Check out my first post at the top and go to the link I provided. There you will go to a YouTube clip that tells you who Vicki is talking about regarding EVERY religion’s God.
Kyle
Man, I’m through. You guys can have this.
(MN: And God once again proves He is a God of mercy. )
-And God once again proves He is a God of mercy.
*I know. He even has mercy on those who are in error.
I don’t want homosexuals to be discriminated against. I want them to come to know Jesus. Discrimination is wrong and ungodly…people shouldn’t be mistreated for any reason. A Christian can’t condone discrimination. I believe homosexuality to be an abomination, does that mean I think a homosexual should be mistreated? Absolutely not. You all really need to find a new drum to beat. Get over yourselves!
(MN: Nita, I think you should pay attention. Who said anything about mistreating homosexuals? If any thing, it will soon be Christians being mistreated at the insistence of the homosexuals. Take a look at the laws in Canada. The Canadians would say your statement about homosexuality being an abomination could be considered hate speech. )
Nita,
I don’t see any mention of mistreating homosexuals nor are they discriminated against. They are allowed to marry just as heterosexuals are (within scriptural boundaries). The homosexual issue is that they wish to have more rights than heterosexuals in addition to insisting that the Church condone their sin; which again is another demand for more ‘rights’.
If I have an intense desire to kill someone and the law prevents me from doing so, am I being discriminated against? Why can’t I kill them? I mean, I have an intense need to act upon this desire. Who said that I cannot kill them? It is He who said that if man takes another man’s life, he will pay with his blood. God defines sin and sets the penalty (i.e. death penalty). Whereas if a person kills someone by accident the penalty is not death but imprisonment (i.e. manslaughter): Exodus 21:12-14. In both situations, God Himself determines the sin and sets the penalty which for the most part this country follows - or used to.
God states that the sin of same-sex ‘unions’ is an abomination and the penalty for such is stoning. So if we use the Bible alone to determine society’s course of law homosexuals are receiving rights that they, according to scripture, should not have. And that is that they are allowed to breathe (Note: the moral law is not set aside, though the religious and ceremonial law is).
You cannot say on one hand that homosexual behavior is an abomination and on the other seek to provide additional rights in support of their behavior. Note that I said behavior - there is no gay gene just as there is no lying gene though there are genes that determine both race and gender. Note also that there is no comment whatsoever in scripture about race, and gender is mentioned only to the extent to mandate roles within the home and the Church.
Homosexuality is not the same as being born whatever race one happens to be born to. It is a behavior and must be restrained within a civilized society. If that is discrimination, all I can say is that you’ll have to address the matter to The Judge of all the Earth.
Walksbyfah, please cite for me biblically where God states that the sin of same sex unions is an abomination. Too, if God sets the penalty for sins, who then are we to set aside the penalty, moral, religious or ceremonial. Such as statement smacks of hypocrisy and renders biblical texts as having no efficacy for living.
(MN: For starters: Lev. 18:22-23; Lev. 20:13-16; Deut. 23:17 )
Two more points, if scripture does not mention race, why is race an issue? Secondly, should fornicators be held to the same standards/penalties as homosexuals or adulterers (ie stoning)? What is the sin of the homosexual that is different from the sin of heterosexuals—biblically speaking that is?
(MN: Who made race an issue?
And no, the sin of homosexuality is a sin, same as adultery, lying, stealing and others. However, given that this is not a theocracy and the laws of the land don’t require stoning, we don’t stone homosexuals, adulterers, or others. As Christians we submit to the laws of the land we live in.
Your question would more properly be asked as it pertains to Church discipline and rule. )
I see that Melvin answered the question regarding the setting aside of penalies. I would like to address a couple of your statements. The religious and ceremonial laws, such as eating kosher, were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, which is why, though Christians are prohibited from eating blood or animals which have been strangled (a href=”http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:19-20;&version=47;”>Acts 15:19-20, we can eat pork and lobster (Hallelujah!) which the Jews could not. The same principle applies to your clothing (i.e. your wearing a rayon/cotton blend does not defile you).
The reason why I made comment about race is that Nita used the term ‘discriminate’. I was pointing out that she is applying that word improperly. It is the want of homosexual lobby to make their behavior an issue of Civil Rights. This is not to be confused with the politically correct redefinition of the term. It is is my contention that it is not an issue of Civil Rights (i.e. not hired because you’re Hispanic) but an issue of behavior. The issue of Civil Rights, historically and rightly, has never been an issue of rebellion. Rebellion is behavior. Behavior is judged by a Holy and Righteous God - skin color and gender are not. God judges sin. That you are a male or female is not a sin just as the race that He granted you is not. Man sins in word, thought, and/or deed. All sin is rebellion against God. Therefore, race and gender are not subject to judgment because they are not an act rebellion against God.
Oh, but they are - again, read the Old and then the New Testaments. In Leviticus 20 we see where the death penalty is applied:
verses 10-13
* If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
* If a man lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death
* If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death
* If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death
verses 15-16
* If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal.
* If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death
Now the New Testament collaborates the Old Testament’s penalty in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Failure to “inherit the kingdom of God” results in death.
parsonp, I hope you will take the following to heart. I encourage you, in these Last Days, to resolve to read the entire Bible every year until Christ comes from this day forward.
P.S. Your study of the Bible is not included in this time. That’s separate.
You failed to answer the query about same sex unions.but it’s okay. Have you read the bible in hebrew or greek?
(MN: And here we go folks! Another one who wants to argue that Leviticus doesn’t refer to homosexuality and the New Testament isn’t talking about it either. I’ll give you one more post to go down that road. But don’t expect a long discussion. We had this one about six months ago. It was pointless then and it will be pointless now. But you are free to make the turn.
Just don’t expect me to give anymore bandwidth to it. )
Oh, WBF… You are fantastic.
I got nothin’ else to add. Just props.
Sigh! I was waiting for this. ParsonP would you please not load this current post with your GCM drivel. (MN: He won’t. I’ve giving him one post to go down that road. ) PLEASE don’t site eating shellfish and other mosaic laws to defend your abhorrent beliefs. If you really would like to get a biblical view please visit our dear friend Pastor Foster at http://www.gcmwatch.com . Otherwise quit playing the game of the Bible says nothing about homosexuality. Spare us your pathetic empty rhetoric.
Kyle
Don’t get it twisted Kyle. I am just trying to understand your reasoning. The statement I responded to was about the Bible speaking on same sex unions. That I believe is a 21st construct just as I contend that race is a social construct. Not sure what “GCM” signifies. Notwithstanding, drivel knows drivel.
(MN: GCM = Gay Christian Movement. )
BTW, I am in agreement with your conclusions about homsexuality, abortion, etc. I am not too certain that how you got there reflects integrous readings of the Bible. No need to post…your ball and bat.
parsonp,
Last time “at bat” for me in this discussion. Your question about same sex unions makes no sense. If the act for which you would have a union is condemned by scripture (and it is), then so is the union itself condemned. The Word of God is clear - all sexual immorality is sin. All sin will be judged by a Holy, Righteous, all-knowing God.
Next, whether I have read the bible in Hebrew or Greek is irrelevant. The Bible says what it means and is 100 percent inerrant from Genesis to Revelation. The only people for whom the Bible makes sense, however, are those people in which the Spirit of God resides. Scripture says …
The fact that you are arguing and resisting what is being said indicates that most likely, your Salvation is in question. Before you get angry with my assessment or respond to another post, I encourage you to ask yourself why it is that you argue with the clear teaching of God’s Word. Then, I hope and pray that you will go make sure that yours is not a false conversion. If you do not consider yourself a Christian, then see if perhaps you have some soul-searching to do. In either case, you have a potential problem with eternal consequences. I encourage you to see to the matter immediately.
Proverbs 18:2
ParsonP,
Are you sure you shouldn’t be looking in the mirror when you quote Proverbs 18:2 ?
Kyle
Parsonp, rather than posting a Scripture referencing how you feel some folks don’t want to understand,why not simply state your stance with clarity.
I’m fairly confident in my reading comprehension skills, and yet after perusing your posts I still haven’t a clue what you’re trying to say.
GaryV,now that you are “fairly confident” in your reading comprehension skills, you might want to pursue better skills for spelling. Too, you came to your own conclusions as how to interpret the referenced verse.
(MN: Only because all you did was present a verse with no explanation. You could think it means anything. None of us know what you think this means. And unless you tell us what you think this means, your reference is simply noice.
I generally give a person a time or to to present a verse without commentary. You have used up your quota. From this point on, you must tell us what you think a particular verse means. Other wise you are simply spouting words and providing no particular meaning. In other words, you are wasting eveybody’s time. )
Duly noted. My apologies for the offense as I was unaware of the rules for engagement.
Ah yes, well perhaps the good parson hasn’t got an explanation??
BTW, properly, it should be “better spelling skills”.
And,please do point out that which you think is misspelled. Perhaps that will gear you up for defending your inane misuse of Scripture??
Oh,and BTW, where did I post my conclusions about your referenced verse?? I did no such thing. I asked YOU to explain what you meant by referencing it.
Frankly,you seem particularly clueless. And that’s saying a lot considering some of the Borg we get at PP.org.
Perhaps you’re a bit afraid to expound upon the hermeneutic hooliganism it takes to defend same-sex unions??
Perhaps you involved in a same-sex union which you’re trying desperately to justify??
Perhaps you’re hoping to form a same-sex union with someone here??
Perhaps you’re going to explain to us how same-sex unions are fine, yet homosexual sex is not??
Or perchance, that same-sex unions are fine and so is homosexual sex??
We don’t know because you refuse to post anything intelligible. Naturally, that’s a sure-fire method for keeping from making any more of an equine posterior of yourself. But it’s hardly a convincing approach.
C’mon. Drum up some testosterone and post something of substance. We all a-tingle with anticipation. Really.
Dude, in the words of the Olson twins, “Hoooow Rude!” Coming up in here and telling someone sarcastically that they need to work on their spelling? Please. If you’re trying to get a point across, it’s lost behind all that rudeness! Didn’t your mama ever tell you that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar?
So as Christians then according to your own words, there should be no issue with homosexuality or abortion as they are affirmed by the laws of the land. Anyway, I leave it to you and others who post in double-speak.
(MN: You have to stretch a long way to come to that conclusion. Rome literally lit up Christians because they refused to obey the law of the land that said you have to worship Caesar. The law of the land is sometimes used by the ungodly to persecute the Christian. We could start with the Christian and the Roman Empire and move out from there.
The fact that I don’t blow up abortion clinic doesn’t mean I don’t have an issue with the law of the land. On rhw he fact that I try to get the law changed is an indicator that I DO have an issue with the law. You confuse an unwillingness to engage in indiscriminate civil disobedience with “not having an issue with the law of the land.”
I have an issue with Welfare. I have an issue with Medicare and Medicaid. I have an issue with a whole host of things the federal government does. But it doesn’t follow that I am going to go out and promote civil disobedience in reaction to them. )
ParsonP,
Just because the Bible does not speak of same sex unions doesn’t mean its not a sin. Abortion is not mentioned “specifically” (Procedural) but it is implied.
In Genesis when God created them man and woman it was for a purpose. God created our bodies with specific purposes. To think that God would bless two men sodomizing each other in a “marriage” relationship is ludicrous. Yet, you assume that just because it is not mentioned therefore it is OK. The same goes for women regarding their natural purpose. If you can’t see the natural use of a woman’s body regarding the birthing and sustaining a baby then you really can’t understand why God in Genesis created the opposite sexes.
Also, on the spiritual level we see the marriage supper of the Lamb (Christ -Dominant) and his Bride (Church - Submissive). Do you not see the parallels? So in either case of the physical and spiritual, same sex marriage does NOT pass muster.
ParsonP, if you can’t see the obvious that God would not sanction same sex marriage then you obviously can’t discern anything biblical.
Kyle
Nita-
I have a comment about this one statement: “I want them to come to know Jesus.” What do you mean “know Jesus”? James 2:19 says, “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.” To know or believe that Jesus exist is not having a life-tranforming relationship with Him.
NO ONE (homosexual, hetresexual, whatever) can come to Christ without first understanding their sin and the need to repent. When I speak aganist the sin of homosexuality or any other sin, I show more love for that person then those who sugar-coat the Gospel. Because then they can have a true conversion.
The next verse in James 2 says, “You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless.” You can not have faith without a turning away from sin and changing your deeds. Do Christains sin - yes, but a lifestyle of habitual sin, is evidence that a person is not a Christain.
I would also encourage you to go to Revelation chapters 2 and 3 and learn what Christ had to say to the seven churches. Take notice to how Christ reacts to the those who allow sin and false teaching into the church.
I know people who are gay, I would not deny them food, shelter, a job, the true Gospel message etc. BUT I would not allow them to have regular input in my life. I would not allow them to practice a gay lifestlye and be my pastor. I would not allow them to teach my children about their lifestyle. I could go on. but you get the point.
God Bless.
20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[
one (homosexuals included) can
Well, I am late to the party. I posted on the Warren thread and so now I have come to this one. My view of Warren was one of indecision despite not being thrilled with the man. I was enlightened by Laura’s reference to Michael Spencer’s review of Warren. Still, at the end of the day, the Warren prayer remains too ecumenical for my taste and leaves me wishing he had just went for it a little more.
Now, Gene Robinson is another issue. My posts in threads on this man may not be well remembered, but Gene Robinson is the reason I left the American Episcopal Church. Anything he said, regardless of the Biblical and theologic soundness of the statement, is tainted by the speaker. And that is the shame of it. Anyone who hears the Word in the context of Gene Richardson cannot help but hear it through the prism of institutionalized homosexuality within a major Christian denomination. The message is not the issue, here. The instrument of that message is larger than his words. The instrument is the message. That is why I left the AEC. That is why I shudder when I see his name in such lofty public view. He brings attention to what is wrong with the church, instead of bringing attention to what is right with Christ.