rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (03/05/85)
Re: Judgement Part II - Church Discipline and Gay Christians
Whether one is or is not truly a Christian is known only absolutely
by the Absolute Himself.
However, those people who claim to be Christians and flout the obvious
moral imperatives provided for us in Scripture are to be educated
(gently) in their error first. The plan is shown to us very clearly
in the Word that if they cannot be persuaded, by one brother or sister
then two or three should attempt to persuade him or her. Then you take
it to the church at large. The Scriptures teach us that this discipline
belongs in the church for our betterment and that there is such a thing
as Spiritual Authority. Notice the assumption implicit to my remarks
is that the believer belongs to a local congregation or assembly.
Again the scriptures teach us "Forsake not the assembling of yourselves
together..". There is no such thing (he says dogmatically) as a Lone
Ranger Christian (by choice) who is not headed for a hard fall or at
the very least severely retarded spiritual growth. I mean...how can I
find out how much I am growing in love if I don't have your abrasive
personality to get Grace for several times per week (Sunday twice and
perhaps Wedsnesday)?? :-)
Everything I've said so far is perhaps a little foreign to us 20 th
century Western types. Perhaps a typical reaction from your basic
mainline Protestant male upon receiving a visit from an Elder or Pastor
who, ever so gently, would dare bring a corrective word would be..
"You self-righteous bastard ! Who died and appointed you God !?"
Or, if the individual were a woman( who tend to be more polite)
or a polite man, he or she might sit in stunned silence during
the correction and then after the event just split with that
local church.
Basically church discipline is non-existent because we think the
unBiblical thought that we are ONLY accountable to God when it
is abundantly clear we have accountability to our brothers and
sisters as well.
But I digress,...Gay lifestyles are clearly sinful for Christians.
The New Testament Scripture references (especially Romans 1) have
been cited repeatedly. Even if homosexuality were not prohibited
in and of itself, we could make an
argument against it on the basis of sex outside of marriage is either
fornication or adultery. Since marriage is never spoken of in the
Scriptures in the context of man/man or woman/woman.......
How this ties in with Church Discipline is that when Gays are corrected
they react with arguments about bigotry and narrowness. The corner-
stone of their argumentation is that gayness is genetically determined.
I would concede without argument that this could be the case that there
are predispositions in some make-ups toward gayness, alcoholism, etc.
The Gay theological error in my opinion is "God made me this way". We
are born into a fallen world which produces these kinds of
aberrations (sp?) but that does not relieve us from our responsibility
as Christians. I have heard the testimony of many ex-gay people who
have been delivered from homosexuality to the point that I suspect
that it is a learned behavior perhaps in some cases abetted by
natural predisposition.
Loving someone in the Christian sense does not mean eternal silence
in the face of a brother or sister Christian continuing to lead
a clearly sinful lifestyle of whatever description.
In line with my earlier article, the degree to which we judge unbelievers
who happen to be gay or living in any other sinful lifestyles is
somewhat problematic since theologically these folks have more serious
problems than their behavior.
For a lot of Christians the operational understanding of Man is that
he sins because he is a sinner,...not the other way around.
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}
P.S. I KNOW MY POSITION LABELS ME AS A BIGOT AMONGST A BUNCH OF PEOPLE.
SAVE YOUR FLAMES ON THAT PARTICULAR POINT.kae@ihuxl.UUCP (Alan Edwards) (03/08/85)
> Re: Judgement Part II - Church Discipline and Gay Christians
Another scripture is in I Corinthians 6:9-11 were Paul says:
9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit
the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators,
nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers
of themselves with men,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers,
nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye
were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of
the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.
Paul tells us that "the unrighteous shall not inherit the
kingdom of God" in verse 9 and then goes on to list some sins
that we need to be aware so that we're "not deceived".
Then in verse 11, Paul says that some of them were like this.
Paul using the word "were" certainly leads us to believe that
they had changed and weren't the same!
Why aren't they in that unrighteous state? Paul says, they
were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of Jesus and
in the Spirit of God.
Certainly, it must have been more important to the people
of that day to put aside their worldly pleasures for an inheritance
in the kingdom of God!
--
-Alan Edwards
IH 4B-402 x4033
(ihuxl!kae)davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (03/08/85)
There seems to be many open minded Christians here on the net. My reply to Bob is addressed to you all as well as to him and I would be interested in hearing your responses. All I ask is that you give serious consideration to the points and questions I pose. In article <1292@akgua.UUCP> rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) writes: > >However, those people who claim to be Christians and flout the obvious >moral imperatives provided for us in Scripture are to be educated >(gently) in their error first. ... Its fairly obvious Bob that you haven't been among openly gay Christians. Your eyes might be somewhat opened if you attended one of the gay churches in your area or if you had a friend you knew was gay. (I can see why gays would wish to stay closeted around you.) If you were to attend a gay church you would be put into quite a dilemma for you would find Christians just as devoted as you taking communion, testifying, and living the exact same religious life as you. Of course the position you would be forced to place yourself in is one of either totally rejecting the obvious of what you'd be seeing/experiencing ("whats wrong with these sinners! How can they let Satan decieve them so? They are so stupid! Can't they read the Bible?") or starting to understand that your concepts of reality may need a little growing and stretching. Somehow I get the feeling from the tone of your posting that you are not about to open yourself up to the possibility of gay Christianity. You can stand on your soapbox and post all day about those gays who think they are Christian but aren't. My challange to you is to meet some of the people you condem. Or is this beneath you? Your attitude is all too typical of the Christians in the church I grew up in. That's one of the reasons I left. >Again the scriptures teach us "Forsake not the assembling of yourselves >together..". There is no such thing (he says dogmatically) as a Lone >Ranger Christian (by choice) who is not headed for a hard fall or at >the very least severely retarded spiritual growth. ..... Would you care to substantiate this? Even though I am not a Christian I know several people who are that seldom attend any church. I find it highly unlikely that you personally know of several who tried let alone tried and failed. Could you point out in scripture where this is predicted? >is abundantly clear we have accountability to our brothers and >sisters as well. Do you take this seriously? Are you willing to investigate the facts about your gay Chistian brothers and sisters? If you are not interested then don't keep spouting things about people you know nothing about. There are others here in net..christian that seem willing to keep an open mind and let their God through both prayer and examination show them the answer to these things. What do you think about such an attitude? Would you trust God enough to do the same thing? > >But I digress,...Gay lifestyles are clearly sinful for Christians. >The New Testament Scripture references (especially Romans 1) have >been cited repeatedly. Even if homosexuality were not prohibited >in and of itself, we could make an >argument against it on the basis of sex outside of marriage is either >fornication or adultery. Since marriage is never spoken of in the >Scriptures in the context of man/man or woman/woman....... If gay lifestyles are clearly sinful then why don't the gay Christians see that? Do you have any idea? Have you ever asked any? Is it not worth your effort to go and ask? Or do you already "know the truth" anyway. The issues are not as clear cut as you make them out to be. Haven't you been reading the postings regarding John Boswell's book? Haven't you seen the fact that nowhere in the Old Testament fornication is prohibited (and thus did God change his mind for the New Testament?) Do you just ignore any information that conflicts with your worldview? Do you look in the Bible to see how many teeth a sheep has instead of looking in the sheeps mouth? I may not know very much, but a lot of what I do know has been tested by checking to see if those concepts match what I actually find in the world. The problem is what I find in the external world doesn't seem to match up with what you are saying. >....................................................... The corner- >stone of their argumentation is that gayness is genetically determined. Now we get to the heart of the matter. >The Gay theological error in my opinion is "God made me this way". We >are born into a fallen world which produces these kinds of >aberrations (sp?) ... Let me ask a simple question here: Are you heterosexual because God made you that way, or did you choose it? How do you know? The vast majority of gays feel that they had no choice in the matter. Are they all wrong? Do you really think you know them better they do themselves? >.............. I have heard the testimony of many ex-gay people who >have been delivered from homosexuality to the point that I suspect >that it is a learned behavior perhaps in some cases abetted by >natural predisposition. > There are a few problems with this. First of all you have seen only one side of the fence. You are obviously unfamiliar with those Christians who have left your church after years of waiting for God to change them from being gay to straight, only to come to understand that not only is God not going to change them but He wants them the way he created them. Most gay Christians have spent years thinking that their gay inclinations were somehow wrong, and only after a lot of prayer and time did it dawn on them that they were supposed to be gay. Of course, some gays (Christian or not) automatically sense that their gayness is normal and so don't go through as much turmoil. The second point to make is that sexuality is a continuim. Most people seem to be on the ends of the spectrum but there are people all the way in between from pure heterosexuality to pure homosexuality. It may be easy to think of the world as all black and white, but thats just not reality. I can see many people that may be in the middle and able to adjust to either side. That may explain some of the people you have come accross. The churches are full of people who claim to be "saved" from the evils of drugs, alchohol, etc. etc by God. Now I have a different idea what really happens here but thats beside the point. The facts are that people can radically change for the better via religous experiences. The problem is that almost all gays which are christian end up NOT being changed. If they were there wouldn't be any gay churches since there would be no gays in them!! Do you really think God is incapable of changing them? Or that they are so far from God that they don't know any better? By the way, gay churches range from Jewish to Morman to Catholic to ... Here in Austin there are several varieties including fundamentalist, catholic and charismatic. Well Bob I think I have brought up a number of questions I hope you and the many other Christians here honestly consider. Kindest Regards, Dave Trissel
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (03/13/85)
Dave Trissel = >> Bob Brown = > Gee Dave, You started out so nice.... >>There seems to be many open minded Christians here on the net. My reply to >>Bob is addressed to you all as well as to him and I would be interested in >>hearing your responses. All I ask is that you give serious consideration to >>the points and questions I pose. >In article <1292@akgua.UUCP> rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) writes: > >However, those people who claim to be Christians and flout the obvious >moral imperatives provided for us in Scripture are to be educated >(gently) in their error first. ... Then you started into fiction writing... >>("whats wrong with these sinners! >>How can they let Satan decieve them so? They are so stupid! Can't they read the Bible?") My mouth started paining me from all those words you started stuffing into it...... and my head...Wow you did a stuff job there too !! >>Somehow I get the feeling from the tone of your posting that you are not about >>to open yourself up to the possibility of gay Christianity. Obviously David your reading skills need some sharpening. I did NOT deny that there are Gay Christians. I maintain that they are in rebellion at the moment if they are not actively attempting to get free of it. >>You can stand on >>your soapbox and post all day about those gays who think they are Christian >>but aren't. My challange to you is to meet some of the people you condem. >>Or is this beneath you? Your attitude is all too typical of the Christians >>in the church I grew up in. That's one of the reasons I left. More of the same David. You type well but you don't read well. In fact you make my case pretty well in that you erect a straw man of me as a condemner of homosexuals as un-Christian. I've not done that, I'm discussing correction WITHIN the church. You obviously are so rabidly emotional on this issue that you can't sit still enough at your terminal to read what I've typed. In fact you are so biased that you didn't even read the title of my article...you know the one that had Gay Christians in it without the quotes or smiley faces. Anyway, my frustration meter just registered in the red zone so I give up. "You can do anything that you wanna do (wanna do) but it's the love of Jesus that saves you.." Steve Archer '84 Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}
larryg@teklds.UUCP (Larry Gardner) (03/15/85)
Bob, This is all I have to say to you about your article, RIGHT ON!!! AMEN!!! karen
davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (03/19/85)
In article <1315@akgua.UUCP> rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) writes: >Dave Trissel = >> >Bob Brown = > > >Gee Dave, You started out so nice.... > >>There seems to be many open minded Christians here on the net. ........... > >Then you started into fiction writing... > >>("whats wrong with these sinners! >>How can they let Satan decieve them so? They are so stupid! Can't they read >>the Bible?") > >My mouth started paining me from all those words you started stuffing >into it...... and my head...Wow you did a stuff job there too !! I pointed out the dilemma you probably face attending a gay church. What you quoted was only one of the responses possible. I did not indicate that would be *your* response and I'm sorry if it came out that way. However, too many Christians resort to the "logic" in the quotes (even in my family.) But my posting requested responses on how you interpret the fact that there are so many gay Christians and their churches. >>Somehow I get the feeling from the tone of your posting that you are not >>about to open yourself up to the possibility of gay Christianity. > >Obviously David your reading skills need some sharpening. I did NOT deny >that there are Gay Christians. I maintain that they are in rebellion >at the moment if they are not actively attempting to get free of it. And I quote the very start of your posting: "Whether one is or is not truly a Christian is known only absolutely by the Absolute Himself. However, those people who claim to be Christians and flout the obvious moral imparatives...are to be educated (gently) in their error first." This start with the word 'claim' does seem suspicious. You do later write "..brother and sister Christian continuing to lead a clearly sinful lifesyle..." Phrases like this certainly indicate you do not take well to the notion of gay Christianity, as I said. But this is all beside the point. The force of my response was in regarding gay Christians as being somehow in error, especially your attitude that they are misguided on the issue of homosexuality and you are not. I did make some comments concerning the fact that you haven't been around openly gay Christians, for they would have put these dilemmas to you before I have. Next I challenged you to meet the people you condemn. You rightly reply that your posting regarded "correcting" gays only within your own church. But I call you to reconsider your accusations in the first place since the damage they cause is harmful to a significant number of gay Christians, not just those in your own church. Next I challenged you to show where in the Bible it says a Christian must regularly attend church or otherwise prove your assertion that they "are heading for a hard fall or at least severely retarded spritual growth.." Then comes the question as to whether you would trust God to show you the truth regarding homosexuality if you did your own investigation through both prayer and thoughtful consideration, perhaps even attending a gay church. After you state "Gay lifestyles are clearly sinful for Christians" I challenged you to support your view. Romans 1 has been gone over before in earlier postings in this group. The next question I posed was of the "when did you choose to become a heterosexual" type. You indicated your reasons for thinking gays are free to decide their own sexual preference from those that you knew that 'switched sides' so to speak. I gave a different interpretation of your sample data plus pointed out the contradiction in there being gay churches in the first place. If God doesn't like Homosexuality, than why the gay churches? >Anyway, my frustration meter just registered in the red zone so I >give up. > I'm sorry my rhetoric offended you. The condescending attitude you have to those "clearly leading a sinful life" in your eyes certainly offends me. My big regret is for providing you such an easy out for ignoring the points I brought up in my posting. You have successfully responded without considering a single one. This is called avoiding the issues. Being open-minded means considering the points, not agreeing with them. I trust that my posting was at least "food for thought" for many on the net. Dave Trissel {seismo,ihnp4,gatech}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (03/19/85)
Alan Edwards defending the idea that homsexuals are sinners: > Another scripture is in I Corinthians 6:9-11 were Paul says: > > 9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit > the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, > nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers > of themselves with men, Since many gays claim that some Christians twist scripture to suit their own ends it is interesting to investigate one of the versus where it appears condemnation agains homsexuality occurs. This last verse contains two of the three words by Paul that are commonly interpreted today to relate to homesexuality. (As an aside, it certainly seems to me that at first glance this would be an obvious interpretation.) From John Boswell's "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality": The first of the two, basically "soft," [effeminate] is an extremely common greek word; it occurs elsewhere in the New Testament with the meaning "sick" and in patristic writings with the senses as varied as "liquid," "cowardly," "refined," "weak willed," "delicate," "gentle," and "debauched." In a specifically moral context it very frequently means "licentious," "loose," or "wanting in self-control." At a broad level it might be translated as either "unrestrained" or "wanton," but to assume that either of these concepts necessarily applies to gay people is wholly gratuitous. The word is never used in Greek to designate gay people as a group or even in reference to homosexual acts generically, and it often occurs in writings contemporary with the Paline epistles in reference to heterosexual persons or activity. [There are several footnotes through all of this but for purposes of brevity they are not included. Next Boswell goes on to show that this word was unanimously taken to mean masterbation until well into the 20th century even by those theologians who most stigmatized homosexuality. Finally Boswell goes into details on just why "abusers of themselves with men" (the second word of Paul's we are interested in) very likely was used to mean "male prostitutes" by Paul. Boswell continues...] Perhaps the most extensive evidence that "[second word in greek]" did not connote "homosexual" or even "sodomite" in the time of Paul is offered by the vast amount of writing extant on the subject of homoerotic sexuality in Greek in which this term does not occur. It is extremely difficult to believe that if the word actually meant "homosexual" or "sodomite," *NO* previous or contemporary author would have used it in a way which clearly indicated this connection. [And Boswell goes into many greek words of the time which did refer to homosexuality.] So what at first seems an obvious reference to homosexuality is instead seen to be a filtered effect of greek words through cultural glasses from possibly weak translations. Of course Boswell's treatment does not "prove" homosexuality was not meant by Paul. But it does bring up some good reasons why that assumption should be questioned. > Paul tells us that "the unrighteous shall not inherit the > kingdom of God" in verse 9 and then goes on to list some sins > that we need to be aware so that we're "not deceived". In order to not "be deceived" it is important that when one reads and quotes scripture one does so with regard to its true meaning. Acting as though God spoke in Old English to the original people who wrote the Bible is just irresponsible. There have been some good postings on this net as to how to go about examining scriptural references in their native languages. Of course, this can only properly be done if our own cultural biases are recognized along with those of the scriptural periods themselves. Dave Trissel {seismo,gatech,ihnp4}!ut-sally!oakhill
larry@cci-bdc.UUCP (Larry DeLuca) (03/19/85)
> > Re: Judgement Part II - Church Discipline and Gay Christians > > > Whether one is or is not truly a Christian is known only absolutely > by the Absolute Himself. > > However, those people who claim to be Christians and flout the obvious > moral imperatives provided for us in Scripture are to be educated > (gently) in their error first. The plan is shown to us very clearly > in the Word that if they cannot be persuaded, by one brother or sister > then two or three should attempt to persuade him or her. Then you take > it to the church at large. The Scriptures teach us that this discipline > belongs in the church for our betterment and that there is such a thing > as Spiritual Authority. Notice the assumption implicit to my remarks > is that the believer belongs to a local congregation or assembly. > yes, you start with one stone...if that doesn't kill them, you get a friend to throw one...then you call your minister, and he'll throw one... give one to the mayor, the police chief, the town whore (she's gotta atone for her sins, too)...pretty soon they see the error in their ways, or at least blood falling from their forehead... > Again the scriptures teach us "Forsake not the assembling of yourselves > together..". There is no such thing (he says dogmatically) as a Lone > Ranger Christian (by choice) who is not headed for a hard fall or at > the very least severely retarded spiritual growth. I mean...how can I > find out how much I am growing in love if I don't have your abrasive > personality to get Grace for several times per week (Sunday twice and > perhaps Wedsnesday)?? :-) > > > But I digress,...Gay lifestyles are clearly sinful for Christians. > The New Testament Scripture references (especially Romans 1) have > been cited repeatedly. Even if homosexuality were not prohibited > in and of itself, we could make an > argument against it on the basis of sex outside of marriage is either > fornication or adultery. Since marriage is never spoken of in the > Scriptures in the context of man/man or woman/woman....... > i don't know about you, but my lover and i have already said our marriage vows...and much like adam and eve, we didn't have a priest to preside over it, either... > How this ties in with Church Discipline is that when Gays are corrected > they react with arguments about bigotry and narrowness. The corner- > stone of their argumentation is that gayness is genetically determined. > > I would concede without argument that this could be the case that there > are predispositions in some make-ups toward gayness, alcoholism, etc. > The Gay theological error in my opinion is "God made me this way". We > are born into a fallen world which produces these kinds of > aberrations (sp?) but that does not relieve us from our responsibility > as Christians. I have heard the testimony of many ex-gay people who > have been delivered from homosexuality to the point that I suspect > that it is a learned behavior perhaps in some cases abetted by > natural predisposition. > but the alcoholic is self-destructive... > Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} > > P.S. I KNOW MY POSITION LABELS ME AS A BIGOT AMONGST A BUNCH OF PEOPLE. > SAVE YOUR FLAMES ON THAT PARTICULAR POINT. maybe my suggestion of net.christian.only is not in order so much as a newsgroup net.christian.bigots...or maybe net.christian.kkk...or maybe net.christian.self-righteous-bastards (too long? how about net.christian.srb) You self-righteous bastard!!!! Who died and appointed you god??? "...it's not enough not to be with you. I have to be against you..." --Lorraine Hansberry, _The Sign in Sidney Brustein's Window -- uucp: ..mit-eddie!cybvax0!cci-bdc!larry arpa: henrik@mit-mc.ARPA This mind intentionally left blank.
larry@cci-bdc.UUCP (Larry DeLuca) (03/19/85)
> > Re: Judgement Part II - Church Discipline and Gay Christians > > Another scripture is in I Corinthians 6:9-11 were Paul says: > > 9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit > the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, > nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers > of themselves with men, > 'abusers of themselves with men' -- could mean lots of things...again we twist the words to fit our contorted minds... did you ever read it in hebrew? what does it say? did you ever read it in any of the tongues before that? > Certainly, it must have been more important to the people > of that day to put aside their worldly pleasures for an inheritance > in the kingdom of God! > > -- > > -Alan Edwards > IH 4B-402 x4033 > (ihuxl!kae) maybe so...maybe not...but since no one can be sure until we appear before you-know-who, if it doesn't affect you now, why worry about it? larry... -- uucp: ..mit-eddie!cybvax0!cci-bdc!larry arpa: henrik@mit-mc.ARPA This mind intentionally left blank.
larry@cci-bdc.UUCP (Larry DeLuca) (03/19/85)
> Dave Trissel = >> > Bob Brown = > > > Gee Dave, You started out so nice.... > > >>There seems to be many open minded Christians here on the net. My reply to > >>Bob is addressed to you all as well as to him and I would be interested in > >>hearing your responses. All I ask is that you give serious consideration to > >>the points and questions I pose. > > >In article <1292@akgua.UUCP> rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) writes: > > > >However, those people who claim to be Christians and flout the obvious > >moral imperatives provided for us in Scripture are to be educated > >(gently) in their error first. ... > > > Then you started into fiction writing... > > > Obviously David your reading skills need some sharpening. I did NOT deny > that there are Gay Christians. I maintain that they are in rebellion > at the moment if they are not actively attempting to get free of it. > > >>You can stand on > >>your soapbox and post all day about those gays who think they are Christian > >>but aren't. My challange to you is to meet some of the people you condem. > >>Or is this beneath you? Your attitude is all too typical of the Christians > >>in the church I grew up in. That's one of the reasons I left. > > More of the same David. You type well but you don't read well. In fact > you make my case pretty well in that you erect a straw man of me as a > condemner of homosexuals as un-Christian. I've not done that, I'm > discussing correction WITHIN the church. > > You obviously are so rabidly emotional on this issue that you can't > sit still enough at your terminal to read what I've typed. > that's not quite so. david responded to your outlandish letter much more calmly than i did. and YOU BET I'M RABIDLY EMOTIONAL!!!!!! it's people like you who perpetuate the attitudes that get my friends bashed, make my parents afraid to meet my lover, make life just plain miserable some days. but i'm going to keep fighting. i have to. i'm fighting for me, my lover, and our life together. i'm not one of those wonderful selfless people, like you. i'm a selfish bastard who wants to just live his own life in peace. > In fact you are so biased that you didn't even read the title of > my article...you know the one that had Gay Christians in it without > the quotes or smiley faces. > > Anyway, my frustration meter just registered in the red zone so I > give up. > > "You can do anything that you wanna do (wanna do) > but it's the love of Jesus that saves you.." > Steve Archer '84 > > i hope he saves you, too... > > > Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} larry... -- uucp: ..mit-eddie!cybvax0!cci-bdc!larry arpa: henrik@mit-mc.ARPA This mind intentionally left blank.
larry@cci-bdc.UUCP (Larry DeLuca) (03/19/85)
> > Bob, > > This is all I have to say to you about your article, > > > RIGHT ON!!! > > AMEN!!! > > karen yes, the two of you just make the perfect couple. why don't you get married (then you can fuck without lust)? using the net to spread prejudice worldwide seems pretty sickening to me. larry... -- uucp: ..mit-eddie!cybvax0!cci-bdc!larry arpa: henrik@mit-mc.ARPA This mind intentionally left blank.
jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (03/21/85)
> > > > Bob, > > > > This is all I have to say to you about your article, > > > > > > RIGHT ON!!! > > > > AMEN!!! > > > > karen > > yes, the two of you just make the perfect couple. why don't you get > married (then you can fuck without lust)? using the net to spread > prejudice worldwide seems pretty sickening to me. > > larry... I also find of the some views expressed by Karen deplorable. Yet, I feel that the above personal insults serve no useful purpose. Although I understand Larry's frustration with Karen's dogmatic one-liner prose, I suggest that his personal attacks uncalled-for, and are doing a bad service to USENET. I don't even think that Karen's article are harmful. By posting her articles, Karen demonstrates the inhumane nature of her ideology. Since I assume most netters are intelligent human beings, it is more likely - after getting a first hand demonstration of such ideology - that hey will be repelled, rather than attracted, by this ideology. -- Yosi Hoshen, Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, (312)-979-7321, Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
larryg@teklds.UUCP (Larry Gardner) (04/03/85)
I guess I have problems when I spell my own name wrong.... Here we go again.... Dave mentioned (I think it was Dave) how Romans was already quoted (but you can't refute it can you! or Leviticus) Why continue to prove to us heterosexual bigots that we should accept homosexuality and that God does? WE CAN'T and I CAN'T. That is really beside the point. Does Jesus, does God accept it? He can't either. Why? because that person is more important to you than Him? Aren't they? The scripture has been quoted and discussed and spoken but YOU conviently attack certain scripture and ignore what you can't attack. There are Satanic churches too but that doesn't make them right either (discussing Gay churches). Is your heart right with Jesus? That is the question each of us must ask if we desire to follow HIM. karen
davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (04/07/85)
In article <523@teklds.UUCP> larryg@teklds.UUCP (Karen Calrk) writes: > >Here we go again.... > >Dave mentioned (I think it was Dave) how Romans was already >quoted (but you can't refute it can you! or Leviticus) > Actually, all that needs to be refuted is whether Paul speaks for God or not and whether the Bible is God's perfect word. We can start at Genesis if you like and show how the two different versions of the order of creation there contradict one another. So much for the Bible being perfect. Next we have Adam and Eve's sons Cain and Seth procreating among themselves with "wives" appearing out of nowhere. I guess as some have posted in this newsgroup that God "allowed" incest since that's the only way of increasing the population. This goes on for several generations. The score so far: Incest 704 Homosexuality 0 Now we come to the sons of God coming into the earth (from Heaven?) and having sex with the "daughters of men" creating giants. After this they came again and bore children which were again giants. News flash: Incest 2130 Extraterrestrial Sex 3846 Homosexuality 0 Now we finally get to Noah who leaves the ark with only his sons and their wives. (Sigh.) More incest to repopulate the earth. Incest makes a comeback Incest 8949 Extraterrestrial Sex 3846 Homosexuality 0 Do you Christians who take the Genesis myths as literal truths see why your beliefs appear silly? As myths I believe they have powerful ways of working on us at subconscious levels. But when you proclaim them as absolute truths you turn the Bible into something about as believable as professional wrestling. (I almost expect to get rebuttals such as "But professional wrestling IS just as TRUE as the Bible!!" ;-) ) Concerning Paul, he was quite ahead of his time. He had remarkable insight into human nature and also saw that the church was going to start desintigrat- ing since the eminent return of Jesus didn't seem to be happening as planned. Directly responsible for the continuation of the Christian church his writings show his tact and biases as well. It is obvious from his letters that Paul wrote them, not God. Why should Paul be any better at getting around cultural prejudices than St. Thomas Aquinas who believed women were only created when defects occurred at conception. >Why continue to prove to us heterosexual bigots that we should >accept homosexuality and that God does? WE CAN'T and I CAN'T. > >That is really beside the point. Does Jesus, does God accept >it? He can't either. > You know Karen, you remind me of the so-called religious leaders around Jesus' time. They KNEW from their scriptures what God was and wanted. And when Jesus came they fell over themselves proving how He violated scripture and blasphemed God. I would feel sorry for Jesus running into you today. As soon as He would say something even remotely different from YOUR understanding of scripture you would be the first to call Him a liar and blasphemer. In fact, to you, this would have to be a false prophet very likely controlled by Satan himself since he is twisting God's word claiming to know as much as God. Especially once you find out he has actually ministered to a gay congregation- he even had the gall to claim they were among the downtrodden he talked about once - you would really have him on the ropes. This would be utter proof. . To show yourself pious before God maybe you would even lecture him publicly to show the world this man's folly. And if he, instead, attracted more and more followers, why... why yes- the damage caused by this false man claiming to know what God really wants and misleading others into Hell is so great -- that God would certainly approve of His death! I can just see you now washing your hands claiming "It's his own fault! He proved he was a liar and blasphemer by his own words!" In summary Karen, you claim a relationship with God, yet all you talk about is a book. Concerning homosexuality or any other matter, I presume you could just get the answer from God himself. Who is the greater authority? God or the Bible? Why not get the answer from God? I think I know why. Because you won't ask him, that's why. If you were honest with yourself you would have to admit that YOU DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING FROM GOD THAT YOU DON'T ALREADY BELIEVE! I'm willing to bet that you actually FEAR God telling you anything that may not match your interpretation of the Bible. That's why you will never ask God about homosexuality. You couldn't stand His answer being anything other than what YOUR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT YOU THINK GOD'S WORD AND SCRIPTURE IS. That explains why there's never a response such as "Yes, I prayed last night and God told me homosexuality is ...." like there has been with at least one real Christian in this newsgroup who actually seems to have a working relationship with God, unlike your "This book says..." mouthings. I think its hypocritical to go around saying "I have a personal relationship to God" and then disprove it with your drivel. You have every right to believe homosexuality is wrong as I do that Christian- ity is wrong - as long as neither of us harm others in so doing! But don't expect for me and others to believe that YOU know what God thinks BECAUSE ITS OBVIOUS THAT YOU DON'T! >..... The scripture has been quoted and discussed and spoken but >YOU conviently attack certain scripture and ignore what you can't attack. I accuse you of quoting scripture and ignoring God. When you don't have a God to cling to, all you're left with is a book. I also accuse you of worshipping the Bible - the false image you place higher than God Himself! > >There are Satanic churches too but that doesn't make them right either >(discussing Gay churches). And I suppose that in these Satanic churches they pray to Jesus and testify and claim miracles in Jesus' name? You better go to either Jesus or a gay church and find out the truth! (I doubt you'll do either.) > >Is your heart right with Jesus? That is the question each of us >must ask if we desire to follow HIM. > >karen Is your heart right with Jesus? If so, how do you explain your lack of communication with Him over these issues? Do you just talk to Jesus - I mean, is it always a one-way conversation? Do you ever hear anything back? Hello.....Hello.... Earth to Karen....Earth to karen P.S My apologies to the real Christians out there. I don't for one minute think Karen represents any of you. Dave Trissel {seismo,ihnp4}!ut-sally!oakhill
larryg@teklds.UUCP (Larry Gardner) (04/09/85)
Dave, I do have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. He does talke to me and I do talk to Him. I have asked Him about homosexuality AND He speaks to me from the Bible, also. The point is of course what you said at the beginning....
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (04/14/85)
In article <oakhill.379> davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) writes: > >Next we have Adam and Eve's sons Cain and Seth procreating among themselves >with "wives" appearing out of nowhere. I guess as some have posted in this >newsgroup that God "allowed" incest since that's the only way of increasing >the population. This goes on for several generations. The score so far: > > Incest 704 Homosexuality 0 > >Now we finally get to Noah who leaves the ark with only his sons and their >wives. (Sigh.) More incest to repopulate the earth. Incest makes a comeback > > Incest 8949 Extraterrestrial Sex 3846 Homosexuality 0 The Law was not revealed to mankind in its entirety at creation. Adam and Eve received the first commandment, "Go forth and multiply." Noah and his family received further commandments, including the commandments forbidding incest. Abraham received the commandment of circumcision. The Israelites under Moses' leadership received the rest. Thus, before Noah, incest was not forbidden. Furthermore, the Bible does not forbid marriage between first cousins. Frank Silbermann