rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (03/27/85)
I finally got some time and distance in time from our original discussion to try to reply to Dave Trissel, who rightly chided me for avoiding the issues. And you're right Dave, you provided an out to me by un-needed cheap shots (in my opinion) that diverted me from answering you in a substantive way. Well, let's have at it! Dave = >> Bob = > >>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. Dave, what can I say that's less inflammatory than only God knows for sure who is and is not a Christian ? The people who CLAIM to be Christians is the only working basis any of us have. Isn't that what Rich and several others have so vehemently pointed out. If you claim to be something and there is some objective measure as to whether your BEHAVIOR is in keeping with your claim then bring it on. That measure (however you may think that I am incorrectly interpreting it ) on gay issues is the New Testament. To cite Boswell (whose book I'll gladly read if supplied publisher and title) and then scream BIGOT BIGOT against anyone who disagrees with his conclusions strikes me as desperate. When I said Brother and Sister Christian who are clearly leading a sinful lifestyle (referring to gays and others) I meant exactly that. Nothing sub rosa, nothing insinuated slyly...Why must you interpret that obliquely ? I think the thing that happens in these discussions is that "Cultural Sin" or non-conformist behavior is confused and intermixed with Biblically proscribed behavior. There is also the problem of subjects that are dealt with directly in the Bible like I think that gay issues are. Others like alcohol consumption are treated less directly relative to Islam for instance where alcohol is prohibited clearly and directly by the Koran. Then there is a whole set of issues that are not dealt with directly in the Scriptures but we INFER a proper course. This is the area most fraught with the cultural issues (and frequent silliness). >>Next I challenged you to meet the people you condemn. Now here is where the milk starts to curdle. I condemn no one. I disagree with them and you. I think they should change their behavior. If you can't see that difference...well what can I say ? >>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.." The whole thrust of Paul (the Apostle) is the connectedness of the Body of Christ. If you want me to I can drag out the Corinthian citations about "How can the ear say that 'I have no need of the foot'..." etc . I just don't know how familiar you are with the NT. I mean how can we "confess our faults to one another" unless we are in an ongoing relationship with other parts of the Body. In the book of Hebrews the writer puts it directly on us "Do not forsake the assembling of yourselves together as is the custom of some." >>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. You make the A PRIORI assumption that I have done none of these things. In other words, this is an attack on my integrity. >>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. I refer you to the recent series by Jeff Gillette in this newsgroup giving an exagesis of relevant Greek passages that rebut the Boswellian view. >>If God doesn't like Homosexuality, than why the gay churches? This is flawed logically. You assume, as many do, that because God tolerates - that is - allows continued existence of something in the Universe that He approves of it. I refer you to the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares (aka Parable of the Weeds) in Matt 13 where the enemy has sown weeds in the wheat field. The servants want to root out the weeds but the Master restrains them saying that the separation process will take place at Harvest time. The allowance of the weeds to remain is needed to prevent pulling up good plants with them if it were done now. I am assuming that both Gay Christians and me are "wheat". But back to my first statement in the first article - only God knows for sure. Perhaps I am the "weeds" and gays are the "wheat". Tune in at Judgement Day. >> When did you choose to be heterosexual ? It doesn't matter. If I learned in God's word by conviction of the Holy Spirit that heterosexuality was wrong, I would repent of it and ask (and keep on asking) [ see Matthew 7] till I was changed. This is called repentance and growth. This process should go on no matter what your station in Christian growth. To the degree that I don't do this I am in error no less than any other unrepentant Christian This is true analogously for alcoholism which we know has some genetic components as well. You and Gays assume that the way you are born into this world is OK. All manner of birth defects (spiritual and physical) testify against that view. >>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. This typically happens when conservative Christians air their position. We are accused of being condescending or prudish or whatever epithet is convenient. Dave, I just flat disagree with you and I think I've done a little better explaining why this time. >>Dave Trissel {seismo,ihnp4,gatech}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} (guilty of consorting with known Fundamentalists)
davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (04/02/85)
>[Trissel] >> When did you choose to be heterosexual ? >[Brown] >It doesn't matter. If I learned in God's word by conviction of >the Holy Spirit that heterosexuality was wrong, I would repent of >it and ask (and keep on asking) [ see Matthew 7] till I was changed. >This is called repentance and growth. ... > >This is true analogously for alcoholism which we know has some genetic >components as well. You and Gays assume that the way you are born >into this world is OK. All manner of birth defects (spiritual and >physical) testify against that view. > I presume from this that a mongoloid child is "not OK' in your terms? Certainly mongolism fits in "All manner of birth defects." What seems to be incorrect here is that there is an assumption that genetic influences can be just hurdles to the way God wants us to live. If human sexual feelings were merely tendencies I would concede your point. But the two most primary physical drives are those regarding sex and food. First off, people are born with sexual affinities ranging all the way from extreme heterosexual to extreme homosexuality. The larger (90 percent or so) of the population is in the hetersexual side. It seems that gays have been around throughout history in all cultures and in generally the same population proportions as we have today. Only where homosexuality is greatly taboo do they seem absent, just like in the Soviet Union today. But they are there just the same. The problem here as I see it is that God is supposedly unresponsible for this spread of sexual tendencies, that somehow those not exactly on one line in the sample are somehow "unnatural." This doesn't seem realistic. This is also contradicted by the many instances of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. You seem to be saying that genetically based inclinations are no excuse to God even if homosexuality or alcoholism may be predisposed by genes. If homosexuality is genetically determined, or even only genetically predis- posed doesn't this imply that some poeple have "badness" in their genes? I get unconfortable here since my earlier upbringing regarded blacks as being inferior due to their "genes." Even though you yourself may hold no prejedice it sure opens the door for others to justify bigotry. Anyway, the $64K question is whether any tendency is "permenent", "unnatural" or "changable." Sin is supposed to be something *willingly* done against God or his laws. I would propose that the lack of gays in gay churches being "healed" of homosexuality even though they are dedicated Christians is similar to the lack of mongolian children being "healed" and made normal. That even if you believe homosexuality to be abnormal, that for most it is an integral part of their nature, something which they have no control over. And unless you are towards the middle of the Kinsey sexual preference scale that just like the mongoloid child no amount of prayer or penance is going to change the way you are as far as sexual preference goes. Your theology is such that whatever the Bible says is evil must be a conscious willfull act. If you see homosexuality condemed in the Bible then you must believe that homosexuality is chosen, or at least with effort can be changed. I don't think this jives with the facts. Too many gay Christians haven't changed and too many homosexuals claim that their sexual affinities are no more unnatural than are your own. > >Dave, I just flat disagree with you and I think I've done a little >better explaining why this time. > Yes you have. I guess its just an artifact of the net that in trying to communicate with conciseness in a medium with no visual or verbal clues or instant responses that we all so easily misread each other. Even as I entered my response above I was wondering just how far afield I may be misinterpreting your own statements. >Bob Brown >(guilty of consorting with known Fundamentalists) Dave Trissel {ihnp4,seismo}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet (guilty of once being a known Fundamentalist)