brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (03/08/85)
>From: black@nisysg.DEC > to me that means that these people do have the right to their homes, > livlihood, careers, front-seats-on-the-bus, medical treatment, etc. > It does not say that I have to associate with them socially, let > them teach my children, let them preach off my pulpit, or let them > donate blood. Scripture also tells me that God did in Sodom because > of the city's sexual preferences. You cannot convince me that AIDS > and herpes are not God's warnings to certain people to "cease and > desist." To ask me to believe otherwise is to ask me to cease > believing in Scripture. I see, as long as I spend my entire life in a gay ghetto somewhere, you think I should have the right to stay there. I know many gay teachers. You think they have a right to their livelihood and careers in one sentence and deny them that right in the next. Which are you advocating? Also there are gay people who feel that they are called to the ministry, and while I don't feel that anyone should be compeled to go to a minister that they have qualms about, I don't feel that these should be denied ordination either. Perhaps they could be ordained to serve people who do not feel such bigotry. As for donating blood, well, gays have donated blood for a long time, not as a privilage, but as a way of helping people who needed blood. While I must agree that blood should be screened to reduce the chance of diseases being passed through transfusions, that obviously should apply to all blood, not just gay people's blood. Further, please note that most gay people don't want you to *let* them *do* anything. Most of us would like you to get out of the damn way so we could do whatever we need to to live well and do well. Please reread the story of Sodom and find homosexuality mentioned specifically. According to the way I read that story, the sin of Sodom is never specifically laid out. But Christinoids have always been distinguished by their ability to twist their "Good Book" into an instrument for the justification of their prejudices, so this is no new trick. AIDS and herpes are diseases and if you wish to equate them with my imagimed sin I suppose that you may. However, when (or if) the cure for AIDS is found, will that prove that God has gotten over his snit with gay people. (No, you will find some other lie to tell!) Other people have covered many of the other weak points of your article so I won't go into the lack of constitutional understanding you possess, except to note that I do not believe that any church should be tax exempt. It has been shown that to many people use the tax dodge for personel gain (Christian TV stations, ministers driving a Rolls, etc.). *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
scott@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Scott Deerwester) (03/08/85)
Regarding R. Brower's comment to Black about "where do you see homosexuality mentioned in the story about Sodom...", Genesis 19:5 says, "They called to Lot, `Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" (NIV) The passage goes on to say that the angels struck all of the men blind, told Lot to gather up his people, and nuked the city. Seems pretty clear, ja? -- Scott Deerwester Graduate Library School University of Chicago ...!ihnp4!gargoyle!scott UUCP scott@UChicago.CSNet CSNet scott@UChicago.ARPA ARPA
ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) (03/10/85)
> Also there are gay people who feel that they are called to the ministry, > and while I don't feel that anyone should be compeled to go to a minister > that they have qualms about, I don't feel that these should be denied > ordination either. Perhaps they could be ordained to serve people who > do not feel such bigotry. That is a rather odd idea. If the Bible and religion does teach that homosexuality is wrong than ordaining a gay person to teach and lead a church seems a little peculiar. If the person in question admits to being homosexual and says he won't change than to have that person lead a church is completely against Biblical teaching and even common sense. A person that willfully and deliberately defies Biblical teaching and authority can obviously not teach that the Bible is to be obeyed or that the Bible is authoratative in the areas of morality and lifestyle, both important Biblical doctrines. If, however, the church in question doesn't feel that homosexuality is wrong, than there should be no problem. > Please reread the story of Sodom and find homosexuality mentioned > specifically. According to the way I read that story, the sin of Sodom > is never specifically laid out. But Christinoids have always been > distinguished by their ability to twist their "Good Book" into an > instrument for the justification of their prejudices, so this is no > new trick. Absolutely true. The Bible no where states that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for homosexuality. As a matter of fact, many Biblical scholars (at least the ones I've read) say that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not practicing hospitality. About "twisting their 'Good Book' into an instrument for the justification of their prejudices, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were known for their moral perversity and sexual immorality and the word sodomize (having sexual relations with animals) has its derivation in the sexual practices of that city. Rick (not Rich)
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (03/11/85)
> Regarding R. Brower's comment to Black about "where do you see > homosexuality mentioned in the story about Sodom...", Genesis > 19:5 says, > > "They called to Lot, `Where are the men who came to you > tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with > them.'" (NIV) > > The passage goes on to say that the angels struck all of the men > blind, told Lot to gather up his people, and nuked the city. > Seems pretty clear, ja? It's less clear in other translations. The RSV says "And they called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.'". And the King James also says "know them" rather than "have sex with them". A bit more ambiguous, I would say. But the really interesting part of the story comes in the following verses. Remember, according to the Bible, Lot is a righteous man, and he and his family are the only ones saved when Sodom is destroyed. So, what does he do about his demanding neighbors? "Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, 'I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.'" [RSV, Genesis 19:6-8] My thanks to Robert A. Heinlein, who pointed out this interesting example of Lot's upright ways in STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (03/12/85)
Don't be ridiculous! "Sodomize" has nothing (necessarily) to do with bestiality. It is a reference to anal intercourse. The word derives from "Sodom", through folk mythology. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (03/12/85)
> > Regarding R. Brower's comment to Black about "where do you see > homosexuality mentioned in the story about Sodom...", Genesis > 19:5 says, > > "They called to Lot, `Where are the men who came to you > tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with > them.'" (NIV) > > The passage goes on to say that the angels struck all of the men > blind, told Lot to gather up his people, and nuked the city. > Seems pretty clear, ja? > -- The word used in the Bible ( Hebrew version ) is literally, and we will know them. The word to "know" is used to mean sexual relations in other places ( Genesis Ch. 4, verse 1 - And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain ). Eliyahu Teitz.
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (03/13/85)
In article <863@ames.UUCP> barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: >> Regarding R. Brower's comment to Black about "where do you see >> homosexuality mentioned in the story about Sodom...", Genesis >> 19:5 says, >> >> "They called to Lot, `Where are the men who came to you >> tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with >> them.'" (NIV) >> >> The passage goes on to say that the angels struck all of the men >> blind, told Lot to gather up his people, and nuked the city. >> Seems pretty clear, ja? > > It's less clear in other translations. The RSV says "And they >called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them >out to us, that we may know them.'". And the King James also says "know >them" rather than "have sex with them". A bit more ambiguous, I would >say. > But the really interesting part of the story comes in the following >verses. Remember, according to the Bible, Lot is a righteous man, and >he and his family are the only ones saved when Sodom is destroyed. So, >what does he do about his demanding neighbors? > > "Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after > him, and said, 'I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. > Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring > them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing > to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.'" > [RSV, Genesis 19:6-8] > > My thanks to Robert A. Heinlein, who pointed out this interesting >example of Lot's upright ways in STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND. > >- From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry > NASA-Ames Research Center > Moffett Field, CA Thanks Kenn for helping to prove Don Black's statement. Yes, Lots solution was sinful. Lot should not of compromised Gods law to avoid trouble. Peter and John wouldn't compromise to avoid trouble and ended up in jail for it. Acts 4 0r 5, I believe? However, Lot's solution proves the point. He would of sacrificed his daughters virtue to satisfy the sexual desires of the people of Sodom. Also, in Gen 4 when Adam "knew" his wife, she got pregnant! Get the idea! Lot was a righteous man only because he was declared righteouss by God! Just as Mathew, a terrible publican; Saul of Tarsus, a persecutor of Christians; and Isaiah, a man of unclean lips. This illustration of Lot's sin, does not contradict the declaration of his righteousness, but illustrates the power of God to save sinners! Jesus said He came into the world to call not the righteous, but the sinners unto repentance. God has cleverly illustrated the flaws of all of the great men of the bible, to illustrate the truth of Romans 3! "There is none who does good, no not one!, and, All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God!"
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (03/13/85)
In article <1958@sdcc6.UUCP> ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) writes: >That is a rather odd idea. If the Bible and religion does teach that >homosexuality is wrong than ordaining a gay person to teach and lead >a church seems a little peculiar. If the person in question admits to >being homosexual and says he won't change than to have that person lead >a church is completely against Biblical teaching and even common sense. >A person that willfully and deliberately defies Biblical teaching and >authority can obviously not teach that the Bible is to be obeyed or >that the Bible is authoratative in the areas of morality and lifestyle, >both important Biblical doctrines. If, however, the church in question >doesn't feel that homosexuality is wrong, than there should be no >problem. Well, I know gay ministers. Most of the ones that I know were ordained in denominations which were, at that time, not supportive of gay people at all (some have changed their views and some have not) and those ordained were deep in the closet. Some of them married and had children. Most of them have since severed their ties to their original denominations, due to the anti-gay sentiments of their church's hierarchy and their own needs to be free. Many of them are still excellent ministers to their flocks. Many have joined with MCC, Dignity, or other groups catering to gay Christians. Rev. Troy Perry and Rev. James Sandmier are two examples of Christian ministers (fully out, which is why I use their names) who have dedicated their ministries through MCC. Troy was a Baptist and James was a Mormon. -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (03/13/85)
In article <362@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> scott@gargoyle.UUCP ( Deerwester) writes: >Genesis 19:5 says, > > "They called to Lot, `Where are the men who came to you > tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with > them.'" (NIV) > >The passage goes on to say that the angels struck all of the men >blind, told Lot to gather up his people, and nuked the city. So the "Christianoids" have retranslated the bible to agree with their prejudgements. Are there any people who read Hebrew well enough to to dispute this? This is the only version I have heard that translates this passage this way. None of the Jewish people with whom I have discussed this passage have translated the Hebrew this way either. -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (03/13/85)
I wish Yiri Ben David were still around or perhaps Mr. Martillo
could comment about Middle Eastern or Oriental hospitality. If
what I have heard is correct Lot was under SEVERE obligation to
protect his house guests even to the point of offering his own
flesh and blood (daughter) as a ransom to protect those who he
has taken in. I understand that this kind of stranger protection
is still practiced by nomadic peoples ( see a recent National
Geographic - sometime in 1984 on a married couple who lived for
a couple years on the Arabian desert - Oh rats ! maybe it was the
Smithsonian mag - sorry)
Anyway, Lot's behavior seems strange to us because our social
environment and sense of obligation are much different than
those in that cultural milieu.
P.S. The word "know" in the earlier English translations used in
this fashion usually means sexual relations.
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}rap@oliven.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) (03/15/85)
. ___ | >Genesis 19:5 says, | > | > "They called to Lot, `Where are the men who came to you | > tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with | > them.'" (NIV) | > | >The passage goes on to say that the angels struck all of the men | >blind, told Lot to gather up his people, and nuked the city. | >[ Deerwester ] | | So the "Christianoids" have retranslated the bible to agree with their | prejudgements. Are there any people who read Hebrew well enough to | to dispute this? This is the only version I have heard that translates | this passage this way. None of the Jewish people with whom I have | discussed this passage have translated the Hebrew this way either. | -- | Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems | {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower --- This is a point I am interested in. I am also curious how they translate the reference about Lot offering his daughters so that the crowd would leave them all alone. Can someone enlighten me into this, Richard? -- Robert A. Pease {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (03/15/85)
> From: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) > Subject: Re: Black's ravings (comment about Sodom) > Message-ID: <5100@fortune.UUCP> > Date: Tue, 12-Mar-85 17:23:20 EST > In article <362@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> scott@gargoyle.UUCP ( Deerwester) writes: > >Genesis 19:5 says, > > > > "They called to Lot, `Where are the men who came to you > > tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with > > them.'" (NIV) > > > >The passage goes on to say that the angels struck all of the men > >blind, told Lot to gather up his people, and nuked the city. > So the "Christianoids" have retranslated the bible to agree with their > prejudgements. Are there any people who read Hebrew well enough to > to dispute this? This is the only version I have heard that translates > this passage this way. None of the Jewish people with whom I have > discussed this passage have translated the Hebrew this way either. I can't translate the Hebrew on my own, but the Jewish Publication Society translation (a fairly new, very scholarly version that's officially accepted by Conservative Judaism) renders the passage as: Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may be intimate with them. Of course, Jewish tradition holds that the sin of Sodom wasn't homosexuality but gross lack of hospitality.
bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (03/16/85)
In article <fortune.5099> brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard brower) writes: > >Well, I know gay ministers. Most of the ones that I know were ordained >in denominations which were, at that time, not supportive of gay people >at all (some have changed their views and some have not) and those ordained >were deep in the closet. Some of them married and had children. Most >of them have since severed their ties to their original denominations, >due to the anti-gay sentiments of their church's hierarchy and their >own needs to be free. Many of them are still excellent ministers to >their flocks. Many have joined with MCC, Dignity, or other groups >catering to gay Christians. Rev. Troy Perry and Rev. James Sandmier >are two examples of Christian ministers (fully out, which is why I use >their names) who have dedicated their ministries through MCC. Troy was >a Baptist and James was a Mormon. >-- >Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems >{ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower It would seem that these "ministers" are sinning in several ways. First, the sin of homosexual activity needs to be confessed and repented of. Second, there is the lying to one's family and friends over the sin. In this case, they need to go to these people and ask for their forgiveness. Sin breeds more sin and waiting only compounds the problem. A broader question remains, namely, how can these ministers serve their flocks while living an openly sinful lifestyle? How can they be an example to others while lusting after members of their own sex? If a heterosexual minister engaged in sexual activity with someone he was not married to that would be fornication. What do you call it for the homosexual? "Coming out of the closet"? Paul made it clear in several places in the NT that homosexual activity is a sin. In our 20th century, "I gotta be me" society, the role of the Christian as a model of the Lord Jesus Christ to a dying world has been lost. Our life should reflect His life. People should look at us and see Christ. A man living in adultery, drunkenness or homosexuality is not exhibiting the marks of a true Christian. Steps should be taken to discipline those who are living in open rebellion to the Word of God. But of course, if the "church" condones it, then how can it discipline. Of course these ministers felt "uncomfortable" in their old churches. After much prayer and exhortation, they would have been excommunicated if they remained in their sin (no matter what the sin). Of course they will seek our those of their own thinking and band together to form a new "church". That doesn't mean it's a Christian church. Just saying it's so doesn't make it so. We should be careful about basing truth on experience. Just because something seems right to me doesn't mean that it is right. The Bible is full of individuals who thought they knew better than God and committed some offense. In most cases the results were disastrous. -- Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. ...{presby|psuvax1|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl
davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (03/18/85)
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) > The verb "know" is the typical KJV euphemism for "have sex". ... From: teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) > The word used in the Bible ( Hebrew version ) is literally, and > we will know them. The word to "know" is used to mean sexual relations > in other places ( Genesis Ch. 4, verse 1 - And Adam knew Eve his wife, > and she conceived and bore Cain ). From: rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) > P.S. The word "know" in the earlier English translations used in > this fashion usually means sexual relations. Do erroneous statements such as these represent the typical Christian's understanding of God's word? First of all the hebrew verb "to know" used in the text on Sodom in Genesis 19 occurs 943 times in the Old Testament. In only ten of these occurrences does it have the sense of carnal knowledge. The Greek translations use an expression equivalent to "making the aquaintance of" or "becoming familiar with" which is in marked contrast to the verbs employed in reference to Lot's daughters which clearly refer to sexual behavior. (I would put both Hebrew and Greek versions here but USENET is not as powerful as my Macintosh :-) ) Jesus himself refers to Sodom implying that inhospitality was its undoing (Matt. 10:14-15, Luke 10:10-12.) Ezekiel not only lists the sins of Sodom "pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness.. neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy" (16:48-49 KJV) but contends that they are less serious than the sexual sins of Jerusalem. Ecclesiasticus says God abhorred the Sodomites for their pride (16:8). The bottom line here is that interpretation of the Sodom story in terms of homosexuality is disputed by all later references in the Bible itself. This is only the tip of the iceberg. For those interested (especially Christians that claim they care about truely understanding what God's word says) I suggest reading Chapter Four of John Boswell's "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality" where this came from. As far as that goes, you can read the rest of the book to to get an idea how "Christian" viewpoints can change from season to season on this and other issues. David Trissel {ihnp4,seismo,gatech}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (03/18/85)
In article <1240@aecom.UUCP> teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) writes: > The word used in the Bible ( Hebrew version ) is literally, and > we will know them. The word to "know" is used to mean sexual relations > in other places ( Genesis Ch. 4, verse 1 - And Adam knew Eve his wife, > and she conceived and bore Cain ). > > Eliyahu Teitz. Is said word ever used to mean something else? -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) (03/19/85)
I've been trying to avoid getting involved in this, but it is taking up so much of my time reading these articles that it is worth trying to get rid of the issue once and for all. I am referring to the discussion of what the citizens of Sodom intended to do with Lot's visitors. The word is tranlated "know" in older translations. Everyone agrees that this sometimes means to have sexual relations with, but not everyone agrees that this is the meaning in this passage. Other suggestions are "to be intimate with", and -- well, I'm not sure quite what the most recent message actually was suggesting. It objected to the sexual implication, but didn't offer an alternative. I think all of these alternatives fall apart if you actually think about them. These are the guys who, when they couldn't get to Lot's guest, instead raped his daughter. I find it hard to believe that there original intentions were either to come to know these people as friends, or to have an intimate, but non-sexual relationship with them. Given the later course of the story, I don't think we need any other evidence to be reasonably sure that "know" is being used as a euphemism. I also don't see why anybody believes that this passage has anything to do with homosexuality. Sure, the actions they originally proposed to take were homosexual. But when they couldn't they were then satisfied with raping Lot's daughter. It doesn't sound to me like these guys were particularly interested in homosexuality per se. And even if they were, you forget that what they proposed to do was rape. No matter what our stand on homosexuality per se, surely we all agree that homosexual rape is wrong, and is far more serious than homosexual acts between consenting people. Even ignoring the issue of the rights of guests, these guys were turned to salt because of rape, not because of their sexual orientation. Before someone gives any more proposed interpretations of this passage, please make sure you include a scenario of what you think the citizens of Sodom intended to do with Lot's guests. exasperatedly yours, Charles Hedrick Director, LCSR Computing Facility, Rutgers University Ruling Elder, Presbyterian Church (USA)
urban@spp2.UUCP (Mike Urban) (03/19/85)
In article <10022@ulysses.UUCP> smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) writes: >I can't translate the Hebrew on my own, but the Jewish Publication Society >translation (a fairly new, very scholarly version that's officially accepted >by Conservative Judaism) renders the passage as: > > Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, > that we may be intimate with them. > >Of course, Jewish tradition holds that the sin of Sodom wasn't homosexuality >but gross lack of hospitality. Would the behavior of the men of Sodom appear any better if they had mistaken the angels for females? Do angels have gender?? Mike -- Mike Urban {ucbvax|decvax}!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!urban "You're in a maze of twisty UUCP connections, all alike"
ask@cbdkc1.UUCP (A.S. Kamlet) (03/19/85)
: > These are the guys who, when they couldn't get to Lot's guest, instead raped > his daughter. I find it hard to believe that there original intentions were : : > don't think we need any other evidence to be reasonably sure that "know" is > being used as a euphemism. I also don't see why anybody believes that this > passage has anything to do with homosexuality. Sure, the actions they > originally proposed to take were homosexual. But when they couldn't they > were then satisfied with raping Lot's daughter. It doesn't sound to me like > these guys were particularly interested in homosexuality per se. And even > if they were, you forget that what they proposed to do was rape. No matter > what our stand on homosexuality per se, surely we all agree that homosexual > rape is wrong, and is far more serious than homosexual acts between > consenting people. Even ignoring the issue of the rights of guests, these > guys were turned to salt because of rape, not because of their sexual > orientation. > : : > exasperatedly yours, > Charles Hedrick > Director, LCSR Computing Facility, Rutgers University > Ruling Elder, Presbyterian Church (USA) Raped Lot's daughters? I find where Lot offered his daughters, but cannot find anything which says the citizens of Sodom took Lot up on his offer. You bring up a good point about rape being a capital offense. As I recall, rape of a married woman was, biblically, a capital offense. But I don't remember that rape of a virgin -- a very serious offense -- was punishable by death. -- Art Kamlet AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus {ihnp4 | cbosgd}!cbrma!ask
larry@cci-bdc.UUCP (Larry DeLuca) (03/19/85)
> should look at us and see Christ. A man living in adultery, drunkenness or > homosexuality is not exhibiting the marks of a true Christian. Steps > should be taken to discipline those who are living in open rebellion to the > Word of God. But of course, if the "church" condones it, then how can it > discipline. Of course these ministers felt "uncomfortable" in their old > churches. After much prayer and exhortation, they would have been > excommunicated if they remained in their sin (no matter what the sin). Of > so marry me!!! i'll live a good married life. i'd love to raise children. i'd like to teach high school dance/drama someday. i'd work in community affairs. but you won't let me. > We should be careful about basing truth on experience. Just because > something seems right to me doesn't mean that it is right. The Bible is > full of individuals who thought they knew better than God and committed > some offense. In most cases the results were disastrous. > > -- > Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. > ...{presby|psuvax1|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl yes. maybe you should reread some of those passages and see if they apply to you (yes, the bible applies to "Christians", too (surprise)). -- uucp: ..mit-eddie!cybvax0!cci-bdc!larry arpa: henrik@mit-mc.ARPA This mind intentionally left blank.
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (03/21/85)
bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht)writes: >It would seem that these "ministers" are sinning in several ways. First, >the sin of homosexual activity needs to be confessed and repented of. >Second, there is the lying to one's family and friends over the sin. >In this case, they need to go to these people and ask for their >forgiveness. Sin breeds more sin and waiting only compounds the problem. Actually, I do not know if they practiced homosexuality during the period before coming out, or just suffered in a (to them) unnatural lifestyle. >A broader question remains, namely, how can these ministers serve their >flocks while living an openly sinful lifestyle? How can they be an example >to others while lusting after members of their own sex? If a heterosexual >minister engaged in sexual activity with someone he was not married to that >would be fornication. What do you call it for the homosexual? "Coming out >of the closet"? Paul made it clear in several places in the NT that >homosexual activity is a sin. >... >A man living in adultery, drunkenness or >homosexuality is not exhibiting the marks of a true Christian. >Of course these ministers felt "uncomfortable" in their old >churches. Of >course they will seek our those of their own thinking and band together to >form a new "church". That doesn't mean it's a Christian church. Just >saying it's so doesn't make it so. This is obviously the dispute. Troy says that God spoke to him, telling Troy that he needed to minister to his gay brothers and that is why he founded Metropolitan Community Church. For people who claim that God speaks to them, you folks sure aren't sympathetic to others who say that God spoke to them. I believe (note that I do not in any way speak for MCC) that the official policy of MCC goes along the lines that the Old Testament does not necessarily bind Christians (much the same as most Christians feel about eating pork) and Paul, not being God and having a legalistic background, inserted some of his own feelings into some of his letters to various early churches, it being assumed that Paul could make errors (he isn't God and therefore perfect). It is noticed that Jesus according to the stories of Jesus recorded in the Gospels makes no mention of homosexuality. He says a lot about loving your brothers and sisters and a lot about going out your way to treat your neighbors with dignity. He mentions being careful to pull the log out of your eye before trying to remove the speck in the eye of your brother. It seems to be a given that each brand of Christianity says that anybody who doesn't agree with them in every particular isn't a Christian. I am reminded of the story of the Pharisee... and it makes me sick! -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (03/21/85)
> In article <1240@aecom.UUCP> teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) writes: > > The word used in the Bible ( Hebrew version ) is literally, and > > we will know them. The word to "know" is used to mean sexual relations > > in other places ( Genesis Ch. 4, verse 1 - And Adam knew Eve his wife, > > and she conceived and bore Cain ). > > > > Eliyahu Teitz. > > Is said word ever used to mean something else? > -- Yes it is. And it's usage is in the common sense, to konow, be knowledgable of. All I was pointing out was that there are two different definitions of the word. Eliyahu Teitz.
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (03/22/85)
[ Bug poison ] In article <1972@burdvax.UUCP> bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) writes: >In article <fortune.5099> brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard brower) writes: >> >>Well, I know gay ministers. Most of the ones that I know were ordained >>in denominations which were, at that time, not supportive of gay people >>at all (some have changed their views and some have not) and those ordained >>were deep in the closet. Some of them married and had children. Most >>of them have since severed their ties to their original denominations, >>due to the anti-gay sentiments of their church's hierarchy and their >>own needs to be free. Many of them are still excellent ministers to >>their flocks. Many have joined with MCC, Dignity, or other groups >>catering to gay Christians. Rev. Troy Perry and Rev. James Sandmier >>are two examples of Christian ministers (fully out, which is why I use >>their names) who have dedicated their ministries through MCC. Troy was >>a Baptist and James was a Mormon. >>-- >>Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems >>{ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower > >It would seem that these "ministers" are sinning in several ways. First, >the sin of homosexual activity needs to be confessed and repented of. >Second, there is the lying to one's family and friends over the sin. >In this case, they need to go to these people and ask for their >forgiveness. Sin breeds more sin and waiting only compounds the problem. Tom is missing a point here. Even given the proposition that homosexuality is a sin, which may or may not be true for Gentiles, there is no reason to assume that being a sinner invalidates one from being an active priest. If that were the case, Paul would have stopped being a minister and an evangelist, as he had a strong awareness of many of his own sins, and was often being shown even more of them. There is the same kind of tension here which we face in other parts of our lives. The sinner is saved by the grace of God. The sin may continue to be there. We do not reject the sinner. We MAY reject the sin. If these men do not have the conviction that they are sinning, and show the signs that God's Spirit is working through them, then we must assume that He will convict them of their sins, in His own good time. A reminder: Our sense of what is "sin" is severely broken. We are only able to recognise sin in ourselves. God may use us to point out the sins of others. If this is true, we are forbidden to be proud or puffed up because of it. We are instead commanded to be humbly thankful that we are given the honor of being His servants. In the not too distant past, our culture had developed a strong sense of sin. It was a sin to eat meat on Friday, it was a sin to work on the Sabbath in ANY fashion, it was a sin to speak any name which might be the Name of the Lord other than in prayer or exhortation. It was a sin to murder (but killing an escaped slave was no sin, whether that slave was a black, an indentured servant, or even an apprentice). It was a sin to speak rudely or skeptically to a member of the Church Fathers. And sex, in most of its forms, was so sinful that families with too many children were often suspect for the immorality of the husband and wife! Admittedly this is a subset of Christians, primarily those of Puritan or similar background. What we see as sinful may just be an arbitrary cultural taboo. Hutch
ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen) (03/25/85)
I believe the OT punishment for rape of a virgin was that the rapist paid the father of the girl a set amount and married the damaged goods. I just love this justice...:-? Ellen
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (03/26/85)
In article <365@oakhill.UUCP> davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) writes: >From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) > >> The verb "know" is the typical KJV euphemism for "have sex". ... > >From: teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) > >> The word used in the Bible ( Hebrew version ) is literally, and >> we will know them. The word to "know" is used to mean sexual relations >> in other places ( Genesis Ch. 4, verse 1 - And Adam knew Eve his wife, >> and she conceived and bore Cain ). > >From: rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) > >> P.S. The word "know" in the earlier English translations used in >> this fashion usually means sexual relations. > >Do erroneous statements such as these represent the typical Christian's >understanding of God's word? > >First of all the hebrew verb "to know" used >in the text on Sodom in Genesis 19 occurs 943 times in the Old Testament. In >only ten of these occurrences does it have the sense of carnal knowledge. The >Greek translations use an expression equivalent to "making the aquaintance of" >or "becoming familiar with" which is in marked contrast to the verbs employed >in reference to Lot's daughters which clearly refer to sexual behavior. >(I would put both Hebrew and Greek versions here but USENET is not as >powerful as my Macintosh :-) ) > >Jesus himself refers to Sodom implying that inhospitality was its undoing >(Matt. 10:14-15, Luke 10:10-12.) Ezekiel not only lists the sins of Sodom > "pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness.. neither did >she strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy" (16:48-49 KJV) but contends >that they are less serious than the sexual sins of Jerusalem. >Ecclesiasticus says God abhorred the Sodomites for their pride (16:8). > Let me clear this up once and for all! The Hebrew word translated "know" or "knew" is "yadah", which means an "intimate relationship". True, it is only used in the context of sex a relatively few amount of times. It also is used to describe the relationship between God and Abraham. The key to understanding what the word is referring to is obviously context. The men of Sodom said to Lot, "Send the men out here so that we may "know" them. Now, this cannot mean that they wanted to get to know them better and start a close friendship with them, because Lot replied, Please do not do such an evil thing! There is nothing evil about cultivating a friendship. Second, The men could not have wanted to beat them up, or mug them, because the word "yadah" would have been inapropiate, as it means an intimate relationship. Third, if the men would have been guilty of unhospitality, they would have been in their homes minding their own business, not congragating in front of Lot's home to see the visitors. So finally, the conclusion would have to be that they wanted to use the visitors sexually. Now Lot did not exercise wisdom here, granted. It is obvious that Lot was a compromised man. He called the men of Sodom "friends". He lived there in the midst of all the sin going on there. He had grown so used to sin that he was willing to compromise. This is why it is so important for a church to discipline sin. Sin is like cancer. Its grows and grows. Before long Gods own people begin to tolerate it. Lot was willing to give up his daughters virtue hoping to satisfy the sexual hunger of the men of Sodom. The men would have nothing to do with them, however! The absence of homosexuality on a listing of sins of Sodom does not mean that it wasn't among them. Sodom was guilty of many sins. There character was one of rebellion illustrated by their failure to repent even after inflicted with judgment (blindness). The sins of Jerusalem would be greater because they were guilty of Apostasy! They had received the Law, they had a covenant with God, and they had the greater revelation, but they rejected it. They were guilty of spiritual pride and apostasy. Same principle as below! Jesus did not say the sin of Sodom was unhospitality. He was saying that the judgement of Sodom would not be as great as these cities because their sin was greater than Sodoms. That is, to see, hear, and experience Jesus Christ, and then to reject Him. The only sin that will keep a man out of the Kingdom of God, is the sin of rejecting the saviour. This illustrates Gods perspective on Sin. All have sinned and missed Gods mark! God makes men new creations. For those of you who profess to be Christians and are Gay, remember that Romans teaches of the old man who died with Christ, and has been raised from the dead in the newness of Life. All of us struggle with sin, but there is NO CONDEMNATION to those who are in Christ (Rom. 8:1) and if any man sins we have an advocate with the Father (John 1:9). But TRUE repentance is to surrender ALL to Him. Christ said that not all who call me Lord will be with me in the Kingdom! Make sure you don't just CALL Him Lord, but that He IS TRULY Lord of your WHOLE life! Paul said, "Examine yourselves, to determine whether or not you are truly in the Faith." Dan