News-Record.com

Or was it like the so often many cases like this, kept "hushed up?" Regardless of whether it was or was not known, at least the wiles of alcoholism have been faced and are working on becoming "whole" again!

Shalom

Alcoholism, like depression, can smoulder unnoticed for a very long time before growing into a threatening problem. I sort of wonder how much the stress of opposition to him based on his sexuality contributed to the problem.

In any event, I hope that treatment helps him. No one ought to have to go through the living hell that is alcoholism...

I don't think alcoholism has anything to do with his ordination.

Since homosexuality is a deviant sexual addiction it is not surprising that another addictive behavior accompanies it. Sin has that effect. The Scripture tells us that the wages (result) of sin is death; which is not merely physcial death, but a depressive, guilt-ridden darkness of the psyche. People use various means to asuage the misery of their guilt: drugs and alcohol being but two popular ones. Godless ideologies, relgionism and sexual promiscuity are others.

Both Robinson and the Episcopal Church are in open rbellion against God and His Word. Do they really expect to escape His righteous judgments. What pride and self-deception.

Hard to believe Robinson's addiction wasn't known before his consecation. Whiskeypalian is not an undeserved quip. I am not a tee-totaller myself, but the wide acceptance of social drinking in his circles would render it rather stealthy. Perhaps the extent was not obvious. He is to be pitied in Christ and prayed for in this difficult time, but more that he would repent of his sexual sin as well, and find grace to be celibate if nothing else.

Once an addiction is strong and set in, there is the tendency to excuse, and even approve it because of the helplessness of the addiction. So it is with homosexuality, pederasty, nymphomania, etc. the strong bondage of addiction neither changes the nature of a sinful behavior, nor excuses it. To be "whole again" would necessitate repentance, spiritual counsel and the grace available through continual intake of biblical truth - which seems to be in short supply nowadays.

Boy, Nikos is really hitting on all cylinders here. Bigotry and ignorance are just about the only things he appears to have on his shelf these days. What a terrific ambassador for his God!

Gee, Eric, a little stong on the ad hominem stuff, minus argumentation. My viewpoint was rather forcefully put, I admit; but there is substantive debate around on the issue of homosexuality and the clergy, even within ECUSA.

I have my opinions about it, but all one gets from libs these days it seems is emotionally-charged attack when voicing opposition to their pet issues. As a biblical Christian, I cannot but disapprove of homosexuality, because the Bible not only condemns it negatively, but the Genesis model of one man for one woman prevails throughtout the Scriptures as God's only positive model for human sexuality. Polygamy was allowed only as a temporal and cultural norm. At least it was heterosexual, if not the best model.

It is not "bigotry" to disapprove of something in a strong manner, offering reaons from both nature and the Word of God. This does not include hatred of individuls, but it does mean rejection of the practice as being normal, godly and positive. Robinson's consecration was thus a travesty in terms of biblical morality. ECUSA made it a public issue, and on that level it is proper to voice strong public oppostion.

And if there is ignorance around today it is ignorance of the full meaning and substance of Holy Scripture. When we seek to improvise our own moral standards, we attempt to justify and practice things that end ultimately in personal misery and cultural degradation. Opposing such things in the public forum of ideas is not personal hatred or rejection, but objective argumentation for what our Creator has prescribed for our ultimate happiness and well being.

A consistent Christian can only rightly represent his/her God by upholding His clearly-stated standards of moral and ethical behavior, and by declaring His love and grace for us poor sinners -all of us!

"Gee, Eric, a little stong on the ad hominem stuff, minus argumentation."

I calls 'em as I sees 'em. I've realized that there's no point in bothering to argue with you, Nikos. Your penchant to express your bigotry and use the Bible to "justify" it makes you about totally worthless as a debater. Deal with it.

"Bigotry" regarding what? Well, if you think the Bible does not say what I assert, then counter it, Tell me why. You people are emotionally attached to your position and can, apparently, offer no reasonable defense. In the end, you just disengage in a huff, personally attacking your debater as you go.

Understandable, because with no objective standard of truth one has no recourse but the subjective opinions and feelings of individuals or pressure groups. How can one assert the binding truth of a moral/ethical position if such things are subject to change and "evolution." Sort of undermines confidence: true today and false tomorrow. And since it's all a matter of personal taste or passion, NAMBLA or the PLO can be just as "right" as anyone else.

Agree or disagree, my friend? Why?