I guess I don't follow your drift here. Which Christian denominations do not believe in Jesus Christ and His teachings?
Well, we can start here, since this was a high profile event. The Bible says it is the inspired word of God. Mr. Robinson said he believed it was the word of God, but not "the words of God," which means that was his way of explaining how he thinks he can avoid the Biblical prohibition against homosexuality. Apparently, there is an entire church that claims to be "Christian" that agrees with him enough to make him a bishop, much less have any thought of taking his collar.
Gay Episcopal Bishop Elected
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: June 8, 2003 12:02 a.m. ET
(Concord, New Hampshire) The Episcopal Church has voted in its first openly gay bishop.
Rev. V. Gene Robinson, 56, was elected Saturday by New Hampshire clergy and lay Episcopalians, beating out three other candidates.
Robinson must still be confirmed by the church's national General Convention next month. It is expected to be the subject of a heated debate as Anglicans worldwide attempt to reconcile church traditionalists and reformers.
Last week the appointment of a gay man as a bishop in England created a maelstrom of dissent among conservative Anglicans (story) and a Blessing Service for a gay couple in British Columbia (story) last month created ripples all the way to the door of the Archbishop of Canterbury the leader of the faith.
In 1998 bishops of the worldwide Anglican Church passed a resolution calling gay sex "incompatible with Scripture." Since then attempts to sidestep the rule have been met with opposition.
Robinson lives with his partner, Mark Andrew, in Weare, New Hampshire and is an assistant to retiring Bishop Douglas Theuner of Concord.
He is a popular preacher at area churches and has been active in local causes such as establishing "Concord Outright," a support group for teenagers.
Before coming out he was married and has two grown children.
Although Robinson is the first gay man to have voted into the position of bishop he is not the first gay bishop in the Episcopal Church.
Former Utah bishop Otis Charles came out in 1993 but only after announcing his retirement.
©365Gay.com® 2003
So, he is living by a false teaching, that by implication the Bible is not to be obeyed, but instead we should just make up our own doctrine when we prefer it to God's.
It's all in the interpretation. There are a lot of immoral, dangerous, or illegal things you could do and justify your actions using the Word. We've seen plenty of examples of this recently.
Example-
Mark 16:18
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them...
That an excellent example. What does it mean?
It means that a small cult has decided to take a piece of scripture as a
commandment, that is, something that should be done, as opposed to understanding it as an example of the kind of power brought by the indwelling holy spirit. By the same token, because Christ and John the Baptist fasted in the desert for weeks on end, should we therefore conclude that we should do likewise?
Heck, I hate camping among scorpions. It's a good thing we don't have to imitate everything in the Bible. It's usually pretty clear that some things are meant to be examples of behavior, and other things are examples of ideas.
Or do you, like most other Christians, recognize that it's an analogy for facing everyday threats with your faith?
Well done. Neither does the scripture
Ephesians 6:11-18
11 "Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;"
mean that I should go clanking around looking like a fugitive from a Monty Python movie.
In terms of intolerance for other denominations of your own faith, a comparison to the Taliban is valid and appropriate.
If you have faith in God, and you believe that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is true, you must also be "intolerant" (how I love that old liberal favorite) of false teachings, false doctrines, and false beliefs. If God is right, and His word is true, then how can other views not consistent with God's word have any value?
The Taliban was a cult from an evil and false teaching that helped to inspire the killing of thousands of innocent lives. Comparing the Taliban to the righteousness of God is like comparing Michael Jackson to Pat Tillman.
There's no violence directed by you towards other Christians- only distaste, or "pity" as you put it.
I pity them because God's heart is broken for them, and they ignore the sacrifice He made as being a "myth." How sad is that? It's "pitiful."
Like I said though, one needs to go back only 20 years in Northern Ireland to find the fruits of this destructive attitude of exclusivity and rightiousness.
No one involved in the "troubles," as they were called, were Biblical Christians. The Catholics weren't, and the protestants were following a liberal Church of England Anglican doctrine. That same church is the Bristish source of the church mentioned above that just created a gay bishop. What does that tell you about Northern Ireland? It tells me it was a political dispute among two groups who divided themselves along "religious" lines, neither of whom were "believers."
See? Those who's faith differs from yours are "cling[ing] to a falsehood". We should look to you for guidance on what the Bible really teaches, since you have the only true insight into God's Word. Arrogant.
Sorry again. Fiirst of all "arrogant" should be spelled "accurate." Second, it makes no difference whatsoever if someone believes as I do. It makes ALL the difference if they believe something that does not come from GOD. That's the difference.
Ecumenical people see different beliefs as a sort of a spiritual "smorgasboard," where it doesn't really matter "how" or "what" you believe, as long as you believe it. This opens the door to a "do it yoursel" spirtuality, where anything goes, such as drinking poison, gay bishops, and flying planes into buildings.
Ecumenical views don't stand up to scripture. The Bible clearly says that it is 100% error free and inspired by God to be precisely what He intends. According to God, we are to spread HIS word, not just "accept" other ideas, nor make up our own as it suits us.
No, you should not look to "me" for guidance on what is true. You should look to the word of God. I have never advocated otherwise, except when I was an unsaved broadcaster. So if you have an argument, it isn't an argument with me. It is an argument with God.
I think we're all in agreement there. Interpretation of God's Word and tailoring your life to live within Christian doctrines is the foundation of Christianity. It's just that we don't need your help in achieving that!
I'm only telling you what the Bible says. What can the Bible be used for? It's the passage mentioned above.
2Timothy 3:16-17
"3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
3:17
that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
So, no, I am not ashamed for standing up to false teaching, when as a believer, I am directed to hold my brothers and sisters to account, just as they also hold me to account. If I support a false teaching, using the Bible as the standard, I hope that you too, would correct me.
Does that help you to better understand my position? I hope so.
