Counterculture Con HQ

February 5, 2010

Gay Bishop: St. Paul Was Only Against Gay Acts by Straights

Gay Bishop, Gene Robinson

Jesus warned us about wolves in sheep’s clothing.  That means they are false prophets who come to destroy you, but on the exterior they look as harmless as a lamb.  They aren’t going to come to us looking like Dick Cheney or Saddam Hussein.  That would be too obvious.  They’re going to look like this guy.  The state of Episcopal religion below, gentle readers.


( – In a section of his New Testament letter to the Romans (1:22-27) dealing with God’s admonitions against same-sex relations, St. Paul was actually writing about heterosexuals who engage in same-sex acts and not homosexuals, said  the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal church.

“We have to understand that the notion of a homosexual sexual orientation is a notion that’s only about 125 years old,” Bishop Robinson told “That is to say, St. Paul was talking about people that he understood to be heterosexual engaging in same-sex acts.  It never occurred to anyone in ancient times that a certain minority of us would be born being affectionally oriented to people of the same sex.”

At the National Press Club on Tuesday, asked Bp. Robinson: “St.  Paul wrote in the Book of Romans, ‘Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.  … Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.  … Men committed indecent acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.’  So my question is, was St. Paul right in—about engaging in homosexual acts as being against nature?”

Bishop Robinson answered: “The question you ask takes about two days to answer, but I’ll try to give you the Cliffs Notes version which is: One of the things we have to understand is that any piece of scripture needs to be understood in its own context.  We have to understand that the notion of a homosexual sexual orientation is a notion that’s only about 125 years old.“That is to say, St. Paul was talking about people that he understood to be heterosexual engaging in same-sex acts,” said Bishop Robinson. “It never occurred to anyone in ancient times that a certain minority of us would be born being affectionally oriented to people of the same sex.  So it did seem like against their nature to be doing so.”

Other panelists at the press conference included Harry Knox, member of Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships and director of the religion and faith program at Human Rights Campaign; Bishop Carleton Pearson, senior minister at Christ Universal Temple in Chicago; Frank Schaeffer, author and journalist; Rev. Elder Darlene Garner, pastor at Metropolitan Community Church; Rev. Barry W. Lynn, director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State; and Moses, a Ugandan citizen seeking asylum in the United States to escape abuse in his own country based on his sexual orientation.

More gay, here.

What the good bishop is talking about here is the man/boy love of the hellenized world.  He’s saying Paul was speaking out against those unnatural acts, not the ones he, the Bishop, engages in.  Our society no longer condones the bad gay of the ancient Greeks, says the good bishop, therefore Paul’s words on homosexuality no longer apply.  Remember, “context” is everything to the christian revisionists of the Left.  He also says that our modern notions on homosexuality are only 125 years old.  I must admit I have no clue from what hat he pulled that rabbit.  Couldn’t he have just blamed the Victorians?  That’s always a sure bet.  Though it doesn’t really matter for the sake of my argument.  Here the assumption is that we are all the philosophical descendants of ancient Greece, and that our views on homosexuality are based on those vile notions of man/boy love, not the loving ghey he’s all about.  That may or many not be true.  It doesn’t matter for the sake of my argument.  What matters is what cultural legacy Paul inherited, and what he knew about homosexuality.  We can therefore disregard the good bishop’s “125 years” red herring.

So let’s play the context game.  Paul lived in a hellenized world, that’s true.  Greek culture dominated the Mediterranean just as Western culture dominates the world today.  But Paul was nevertheless a JEW, not Greek.   He may have lived in a hellenized Judea, but he was first and foremost a defender of the Torah before he was struck down on the road to Damascus.  He was a pharisee hell-bent on maintaining the purity of the Jewish religion.  Thus Paul’s views on homosexuality would have come from the Torah–the Jewish Torah.  Not Greek/Hellenic culture.  Jews like Paul chafed under their hellenized rulers at the time of the Macabean revolt, a revolt against Greek domination of Judea.  The Jews and the Greeks would have had entirely distinct views on homosexuality.  Just like Liberals and conservatives do today.  We live in the same country, entirely different worldviews.  There may have been Jews who bought into the new Greek paradigms, but they would have been the Liberals, not the mainstream of Jewish life.   Here the gay bishop is blurring that fact.  If our current views on homosexuality only go as far back as 125 years, as the gay bishop claims, the same cannot be said for Paul.  The Jews had their own long history and experience with homosexuality going back almost a millenia to Egypt–separate and distinct from the Hellenic.  And it is THAT tradition–not the Greek–which the Christian faith inherited.  So his “125 years” claim is not only a distraction, it’s bogus.  What we have here is simply a homosexual priest attempting to “hellenize” the Jews of Paul’s day, and then claim Paul was denouncing the excesses of man/boy love of the hellenized culture of the time.  But that just doesn’t fly historically.  The Jews, no matter how hellenized, were never that far gone.  And certainly saint Paul was not.  So the good bishop fails.

He has a conflict.  And instead of doing what most people do when their lives conflict with the religion they profess, i.e., change his life or walk away; he chooses a third way– change the religion!  I’m not entirely without sympathy for gay christians.  But something about the way they are trying to rewrite 2,000 years of Church doctrine pisses me off too.  It takes a certain kind of arrogance that I can’t personally fathom or understand.  It’s one thing to pick and choose on a personal level what you like and don’t like about your religion, and live by those choices.  Fine. You affect nobody but yourself.  But to walk in off the streets like this good bishop does and pretend to know more than all the saints of history before him?  I stand in sheer awe of the balls.

Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: