irani@brahms.udel.edu (Jennifer Irani) (05/05/91)
There has been a lot of talk recently in the media about the Presbyterian Church (USA) and their possible new acceptance of a very liberal stand on sex. If passed, the church will not have qualms about Christians having homosexual relations, sex outside of marriage, premarital sex, etc. This is a disgusting fact!! What does the Bible have to say about this? Well, the Presb (USA) church seems to think it is outdated for they are willing to forget the many passages that speak of homosexuality, premarital sex, etc as a SIN! The Bible has not been revised and it does not need to be. The church in general has already accepted unequally yoked couples and has forgotten the concept of church discipline. In a time of swiftly changing values and ideals, this is definately a time for the church to stand firm. In addition, I feel it is a time for Christians within the PCUSA church to GET OUT if this is passed. You may think that you can make a difference by staying and maybe change it, but when something is passed nationwide, you will only become a part of it in association. My purpose here is not to step on a toes (however, if I stomped, I can not apologize) but to express my disgust for how the church is willing to compromise. May we see the tactics of Satan in this and join in prayer against it. Jennifer Irani irani@brahms.udel.edu [I've now had a chance to look at the report. It takes roughly the following position: The Bible has a number of approaches relevant to sexuality. This includes the Holiness Code in Ex. and Lev., the prophets' emphasis on justice in human behavior, and Paul's call to build Christianity on love rather than law. They claim that a number of current attitudes on sexuality are not derived primarily from the Bible, but from the attitudes of our culture towards the body, male dominance, and considering the nuclear family to be the ultimate value. They say that they are trying to steer a middle course between a secular culture that claims to be advocating freedom while it is actually abandoning responsibilty, and on the other hand a religious tradition that has degenerated into rules that are becoming irrelevant to an increasing fraction of our membership. The question is whether we can find anything between a culture that shouts "YES" and a religious tradition that has nothing more creative to say than "just say no". What they propose is an approach to sexuality that emphasizes responsible choice, taking into account fidelity to commitments, and just relations between the sexes (and between those with power and those who are powerless). While they would remove rules against some things now considered taboo, the concerns they propose also challenge things that are now all too common. They are not quite saying "anything goes", or at least they claim that they do not intend to. The report advocates that Christians need to reclaim passion and an understanding of humans as sexual entities. I find the report (and the associated minority report) very interesting. Note that the PCUSA is already committed to a style of using Scripture that is willing to dismiss some specific rules as being culture-bound. Thus I think the PCUSA is not going to take a position that will be entirely satisfactory to more conservative Christians. The questions that I think the church is going to have to grapple with are (1) whether it is enough to foster responsible decision-making, or whether there are areas in which specific guidance is useful, as an antidote to our tendency to allow passions to overwhelm us. This is of particular concern in dealing with youth. Interestingly enough, there is one area where they call for more specific policies, in connection with pastor's abuse of their role. (2) whether the emphasis on humans as sexual beings has to some extent confused sexuality with being sexually active. To respond to this proposal, the church is going to have to look carefully at the report in some detail. My hope is that we can avoid oversimplifying the issues so that we simply throw slogans at each other. There are a lot of difficult issues posed in the reports, which I'd like to see people come to grips with. Examples are the sexuality of persons with disabilities, and of those with mental incapacity. Note that this report will almost certainly be used as the basis for church-wide study. That is, I'd be very surprised to find the General Assembly voting to accept or reject it. When dealing with major issue, the PCUSA normally attempts to get groups throughout the church to study the issue in detail and make comments. Then further hearings are conducted, and there is an attempt to come up with a position. A lot will depend upon how individual Presbyterians see Scripture applying to sexuality. I really don't know, but I suspect over the next year or two, we'll all find out. --clh]
mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (05/07/91)
In article <May.4.23.33.21.1991.22374@athos.rutgers.edu> irani@brahms.udel.edu (Jennifer Irani) writes:
There has been a lot of talk recently in the media about the
Presbyterian Church (USA) and their possible new acceptance of a very
liberal stand on sex. If passed, the church will not have qualms
about Christians having homosexual relations, sex outside of marriage,
premarital sex, etc. This is a disgusting fact!!
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. I chanted the magic phrase "sit on your
hands, Mike" several times, and it doesn't seem to have worked. Have
you read the new "very liberal stand"? I have. I was impressed that
the authors of the report took the time to seriously investigate some
difficult issues rather than to throw catch-phrases and slogans at
them. Unfortunately, some people seems to prefer the catch-phrases
and slogans. They make life simpler, 'tis true.
What does the Bible have to say about this? Well, the Presb (USA)
church seems to think it is outdated for they are willing to forget the
many passages that speak of homosexuality, premarital sex, etc as a SIN!
Ah, it is quite clear that Jennifer has not read the report. Those
"many passages" (which are rather few and limited, especially when
compared with the "love your neighbor" and "love your
fellow-Christian" passages) *were* examined in the report. There was
considerable attention paid to them, especially in the section on
homosexuality. So, whatever else, no one on that committee ignored or
forgot anything.
The Bible has not been revised and it does not need to be.
Hey, we agree! But then, as a minister of mine once remarked, "I
don't need a pope." I don't need a pope, even if it's Paul, or
someone's misreading of him.
The church in
general has already accepted unequally yoked couples and has forgotten the
concept of church discipline.
The PCUSA has tried to accept all people. We regard it as essential
to "[extend] the fellowship of Christ to all persons." As a result,
one would be hard pressed to convince the PCUSA not to accept
"unequally yoked couples." As for the claim that the PCUSA has
forgotten church discipline, it certainly hasn't. It takes it far
more seriously than does the average single-congregation
fundamentalist church, for it tries to deal responsibly with the
individual(s) involved, rather than using broad, offensive, and
hate-filled techniques like shunning. It certainly isn't perfect at
these two goals, but it is considerably better than many who call
themselves Christian.
In a time of swiftly changing values and
ideals, this is definately a time for the church to stand firm.
Indeed. I'd like the see the church take a stand for what is right.
A stand for love, and for the expression of God's love to all people.
I'd like to see the church discard the reactionary wishes of a few who
confuse right-wing American culture with God-willed society. I'd like
to see a church which is able to address the needs and concerns of all
people rather than identifying "friends" and "enemies" and sheltering
the "friends" from the onrushing crowds of immoral "enemies".
In addition,
I feel it is a time for Christians within the PCUSA church to GET OUT if
this is passed. You may think that you can make a difference by staying
and maybe change it, but when something is passed nationwide, you will only
become a part of it in association.
Golly, if the report is accepted by the General Assembly, I think that
would be a remarkable sign that God is at work within the PCUSA. I
also think that, if the report is not passed, I will remain, and try
to work for justice and love. We don't like to acheive results
through threats. Jennifer's final sentence sounds a lot like the
Pharisee's comments to Jesus when the *known prostitute* washed his
feet with her tears and hair. Jesus was willing to associate with
those who were labelled "bad people" by the religious leaders of his
day. It's a shame that some still tell us that we should avoid the
"bad people" and reject them lest we be "made unclean" by association.
My purpose here is not to step on a toes (however, if I stomped, I
can not apologize) but to express my disgust for how the church is
willing to compromise. May we see the tactics of Satan in this and
join in prayer against it.
Consider my toes quite thoroughly squashed. I, too, would like to see
the tactics of Satan exposed. I would like to see the divisiveness
and vindictiveness end. I would like to see a church emerge that
effectively spreads the gospel of love instead of the clique-ish false
gospel of hate. This is what I pray for.
-mibkane@buast7.bu.edu (Brian Kane) (05/08/91)
In article <May.4.23.33.21.1991.22374@athos.rutgers.edu> irani@brahms.udel.edu (Jennifer Irani) writes: > > There has been a lot of talk recently in the media about the >Presbyterian Church (USA) and their possible new acceptance of a very >liberal stand on sex. If passed, the church will not have qualms >about Christians having homosexual relations, sex outside of marriage, >premarital sex, etc. This is a disgusting fact!! > What does the Bible have to say about this? Well, the Presb (USA) >church seems to think it is outdated for they are willing to forget the >many passages that speak of homosexuality, premarital sex, etc as a SIN! >The Bible has not been revised and it does not need to be. The church in In reference to this post and the recent posting about God's "Bad Laws" may I point out that certain notorious passages in the Old Testament refer to concubinage, bigamy, incest, and slavery as natural in the eyes of God (in that he does nothing or says nothing to stop these practices). Yet our modern culture completely rejects them. We have consciously or unconsciously revised standard biblical practices already. If the entirety of the Bible is God's Word, why have we given ourselves this privilege? Even more notoriously, why does our modern society reject the Biblical "Mark of Cain" argument for segregrating and debasing African Americans and other black-skinned peoples? Must we necessarily follow all of Scripture? Did God give Moses and others good and bad laws, leaving us to figure out which was which?... ...which brings me to my main point...how do we know that the laws against homosexuality aren't "Bad Laws"? Oh, and yes, one other VERY SIGNIFICANT way that the Bible has already been altered is the obliteration of any reference to homosexual marriages which were once legally sanctioned in the Roman Catholic Church, until the Inquisitions. There is an upcoming book to be published dealing with just this subject, by Prof. John Boswell of Yale. Look for it in the fall (according to Dr. Boswell). He will surprise you by documenting cases of gay marriages that occurred as recently as 1940 in Albania. Even now liturgy exists for the Mechites, a Christian sect in the Middle East. To my knowledge, they don't conduct gay marriages anymore due to Moslem influences/threats. So, if gay marriage rites and rights were once officially sanctioned by several Christian denominations, what happened? Why can't homosexual relations be holy as long as the persons are married, the same law which puports to apply to everyone else? Has a grave injustice ALREADY been done? [I don't recognize you as having contributed to this discussion before, so you may be a new contributor. Several people have referred to Boswell's claims of homosexual marriage ceremonies, but so far no one has been able to supply enough information to allow anyone to evaluate the claim. People are beginning to get annoyed by postings of that sort. Perhaps we could have a moratorium on citations until the book actually appears, or someone who knows what is going to be in it tells us in some detail. --clh]
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/10/91)
In article <May.8.03.50.26.1991.10536@athos.rutgers.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Brian Kane) writes: >...which brings me to my main point...how do we know that the laws against >homosexuality aren't "Bad Laws"? Here's an interesting passage from Matthew... (Jesus has just finished giving the Pharisees the low-down on divorce.) Matthew 19:10-12 10 His disciples said to him, "If this is how it is between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry." 11 Jesus answered, "This teaching does not apply to everyone, but only to those who God has given it. 12 For there are different reasons why men cannot marry: some, because they were born that way; others because men made them that way; and others do not marry for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. Let him who can accept this teaching do so." (TEV) What is the "conventional" way of interpretting this passage? I've often heard the argument made that "Jesus never spoke against homosexuality!". Well, that doesn't mean he's in favor of it either now does it. But back a few months ago, when the homosexuality issue was a hot topic on this board I came across the above passage. I didn't bring it up then. (Call me a coward.) The third reason Jesus lists apparantly has been interpreted as referring to the celibacy of the priesthood. What do the first two refer to? And what does the closing instruction refer to? (I would guess this is usually interpreted as "Accept the celibacy of the priesthood if your can.") Just throwing it out for discussion folks. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/10/91)
In article <May.4.23.33.21.1991.22374@athos.rutgers.edu> irani@brahms.udel.edu (Jennifer Irani) writes:
+general has already accepted unequally yoked couples and has forgotten the
+concept of church discipline. In a time of swiftly changing values and
+ideals, this is definately a time for the church to stand firm. In addition,
I don't think values are swiftly changing. In fact, the homosexual
groups seem to be advocating the same values, monogamy, marriage,
stable relationships, as the Christian 'family' protection groups. The
'value' that is changing is 'who is able to declare a stable 'marriage'
relationship". It would seem that some Christians are advocating that
since a homosexual relationship is sinful it may as well be transitory
as well. 2000 years of regulation has not ended homosexual practice, nor
will another 2000 years. The Christians clamor that they are protecting
the 'family' while denying a 'family' designation to all but those
relationship which fit into a very narrow spectrum of posibilities.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.eduhudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) (05/11/91)
In article <May.7.00.48.54.1991.15007@athos.rutgers.edu> mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes: , for it tries to deal responsibly with the >individual(s) involved, rather than using broad, offensive, and >hate-filled techniques like shunning. It certainly isn't perfect at >these two goals, but it is considerably better than many who call >themselves Christian. The concept of shunning is a Biblical one. Christians should feel free to associate with drug users, prostitutes, murderers, etc. as long as good judgement is used in doing so. But we should not associate with immoral people who call themselves Christians. In I Corinthians chapter 5, Paul discusses how the church whould deal with a man who was having an incestuous relationship with his stepmother or possibly his mother. Paul said that the man should be delivered to Satan for a while in order that in the end, his spirit might be saved. He further explained how can associate with sinners, but not with those who call themselves brothers who are sexually immoral, swindlers, drunkards, and practicers of several other sins. We should purge these people out of the church. That is our duty. Why should we do this. Well in my opinion, by associating ourselves with these people, we say to the world "this is what it means to be a Christian." Thus we blaspheme the name of God and the name of Christ with our witness. We can associate with sinners who are not Christians. By removing the "leaven" from the church, we give the non-Christians an example of how to live when they come into the church. Well, does this show Christian love? Is this applying Christian principles to our lives? Why did Paul say he delivered the man over to Satan? So that his spirit might be saved! It seems that by keeping such people in the church, we encourage them not to change. We endanger the salvation of their spirits! Is this true love? No. Love looks beyond the short term. Love doesn't always take the easy way out. It would be easier to accept these people. It is hard to cut the person off. It hurts when you have to amputate a member of your body. But it has to be done, or the poison will spread. Of course, this illistrations only goes so far. We are to cut the evil-doers off so that they will feel ashamed. Hopefully, they will turn from their sin, and come back to God. Then, this poisoned member can healed and restored to the body. If we really love someone, we will not encourage them to sin. It is clear from Scripture that homosexuality is a sin. I Corinthians 6, says that homosexuals, along with many other sins, that we might consider lesser and greater, will not inherit the kingdom of God. That is a serious statement. I have read the argument here that we are not under any kind of law, including the law of Paul. I recall a sentence in I Corinthians 9. Paul said that when he was with those who wer without law, he became as one without law. Not as being without law to God, but as being under the law of Christ. or something to that effect. Though we are not under the Torah, we do have some restrictions. For example, when the council of Jerusalem wrote a letter to the Gentiles to explain that they are not under the law, they were told to abstain from fornication, from idolatry, adn from eating blood. We cannot practice these things without sinning. And we are not to sin knowing that we will be forgiven. Hebrews 10 indicates that by trampling on the blood of Christ in sucha manner, we incur a greater penalty than death under the law. We are under the "law of liberty" according to James (2). We will be judged by this law. The Nicolatians taught that it was permissable to commit fornication, and various other sins. Their teaching is compared to the "way of Balaam." Jesus said in Revelations 2, that if the members of the church that had listened to these teachings did not repent, he would come against them with a sword. Peter also refers to such teachers who followed the "way of Balaam." (Ballam had according to Revelation, encouraged Israel to commit fornication and eat meat offered to idols.) Peter strongly condemns these false teachers in II Peter 2. He even says "For if after they have excaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of rioghteousness, than, after they had known it, to turn from the holy commandment, delivered unto them. But it is happened to them according to the true proverb, the dog is turned to his own vomit again, and the sow that was eashed ot her wallowing in the mire." I might have made a few mistakes, but this is the essence of it. Sorry for using the KJV. a Thank you. Link Hudson
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) (05/11/91)
In article <May.8.03.50.26.1991.10536@athos.rutgers.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Brian Kane) writes: > >In reference to this post and the recent posting about God's "Bad Laws" >may I point out that certain notorious passages in the Old Testament >refer to concubinage, bigamy, incest, and slavery as natural in the eyes >of God (in that he does nothing or says nothing to stop these practices). >Yet our modern culture completely rejects them. We have consciously or >unconsciously revised standard biblical practices already. If the entirety >of the Bible is God's Word, why have we given ourselves this privilege? I wish to interject here, that though Abraham and Sarah were cousins it is not accurate to say that God approves of incest. These two were married before the law was given. If you will read in the law, you will see that any brother or sister that married were cut off from the people. Most other forms of incest were punishable by death. Though in western culture it is taboo to marry one's first cousin, or even second or third cousin, in Biblical tradition, this is not considered incest. I could not marry my 1st cousin in good consciense. It is only a sin of conscience. Paul says in romans 5 that sin is not imputed when there si no law. Jesus made it clear that two were to be one flesh. Now we know that monogamy in marriage is the way to go. We have the words to obey now. People in the past did not always have them. In the past, God also overlooked the idolatry of the Greeks, but now the truth is manifested. >Even more notoriously, why does our modern society reject the Biblical >"Mark of Cain" argument for segregrating and debasing African Americans. I would like to point out that it is impossible for this mark to refer to blacks. or at least very unlikely. Cain perished in the flood. Eight people came out of the flood. They were, by patriarchial lineage, of course, descendents of Seth. I assume that this "mark of Cain" being used for blacks is a much later invention. It is not used for Nubians or any other darked skinned people in any later references. > >Oh, and yes, one other VERY SIGNIFICANT way that the Bible has already >been altered is the obliteration of any reference to homosexual marriages >which were once legally sanctioned in the Roman Catholic Church, until >influences/threats. > I don't see how this can support the idea that the Bible has been altered, not that I agree with the premise that the RCC ever performed such an immoral cerimony (and this is a protestant speaking.) The term "Roman Catholic Church" was not even used untill the 3 or 4 hundreds as I remember. The books of the New Testament were finished proabably before the end of the 1st century. The New Testament has more copies than any other document from its time. It is incredible how well supported it is. I hate to type it, but God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. When he said, "two shall be one flesh" he was refering to man and woman, husband and wife. Not husband and husband or wife and wife. Homosexuality cannot be supported by Christianity. Either accept one or the other.
tp0x@spica.fac.cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price) (05/13/91)
In article <May.10.03.11.38.1991.6564@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: >Here's an interesting passage from Matthew... >Matthew 19:10-12 > > 10 His disciples said to him, "If this is how it is between a man and >his wife, it is better not to marry." > 11 Jesus answered, "This teaching does not apply to everyone, but only >to those who God has given it. 12 For there are different reasons why >men cannot marry: some, because they were born that way; others because >men made them that way; and others do not marry for the sake of the >Kingdom of heaven. Let him who can accept this teaching do so." >(TEV) Rather than interpreting this teaching as being in favor of celibacy, I think it is one of the strongest statements in the Bible about the sanctity of marriage. "This teaching" Jesus keeps referring to is his teaching that marriages are not to be broken up. (Which precedes these verses.) Those who do not marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are those who for whatever reason do not feel that they will be able to make a lifelong commitment and keep it, and therefore do not wish to make shipwreck of their own and someone else's spiritual lives, not to mention of an institution of God. Whoso is able to receive it (that is, whoever is able to live up to marriage as it was intended by God to be) let him receive it. Tom Price tp0x@cs.cmu.edu Disclaimer: The above is as good an oversimplification as any
oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) (05/13/91)
Re: Thomas Blake In article <May.10.03.11.38.1991.6564@athos.rutgers.edu>, tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes, in response to Brian Kane: >>...which brings me to my main point...how do we know that the laws against >>homosexuality aren't "Bad Laws"? >Matthew 19:10-12 > > 10 His disciples said to him, "If this is how it is between a man and >his wife, it is better not to marry." > 11 Jesus answered, "This teaching does not apply to everyone, but only >to those who God has given it. 12 For there are different reasons why >men cannot marry: some, because they were born that way; others because >men made them that way; and others do not marry for the sake of the >Kingdom of heaven. Let him who can accept this teaching do so." >(TEV) > >What is the "conventional" way of interpretting this passage? I've >often heard the argument made that "Jesus never spoke against >homosexuality!". Well, that doesn't mean he's in favor of it either now >does it. Hi, Tom! From the perspective of the Catholic Church (i.e. the only one that I'm really familiar with), Jesus was not "in favor" of homosexuality. This view is not based on direct quotation because, as you've mentioned, there AREN'T any Gospel passages referring to homosexuality. Rather, it is noted that Jesus supports the Old Testament idea of monogamous, heterosexual, marital intercourse being the only good sexual acts. One must be careful, however: Jesus also strictly forbade the condemnation of one human by another. Namely, one cannot scoff at homosexuals and scream epithets of fire and brimstone at them and still pretend to be a follower of Christ. The condition of homosexuality is a perplexing one; the Catholic response to it is, simply put, that any Catholic inclined to homosexuality must, in order to remain a Catholic in good standing, acquiesce to a life of celibacy. Beyond the Church, Rome says only that homosexuality is unnatural, and if one surrenders to homosexual desires, one sins in much the same way that any other lustful human sins by indulging in extramarital sexual acts. In short, Catholics believe homosexuality to be a type of naturally occurring psychological malady; one cannot be blamed for being born homosexual any more than one can be blamed for being born without legs. In response to the occurrence of this malady, one is, as in all other cases of severe naturally-occurring trials, to persevere as best one can. When one "falls", and indulges homosexual urges, it is indeed a sin, in the eyes of the Church... but by no means an unforgivable one. Like any sin of weakness, God calls us to repent, resolve not to repeat the offense, and try again to live in His light. (Side note: in modern american english, the phrase "forgivable" is sometimes used to mean "excusable"; this is NOT the usage that I am using, nor does the Church use the word in that way. To be excusable is to be "not wrong". The Church insists that homosexual acts ARE wrong, but also insists that these sins are as capable of being forgiven by God as any other, given a repentant heart.) >But back a few months ago, when the homosexuality issue was a hot topic >on this board I came across the above passage. I didn't bring it up >then. (Call me a coward.) The third reason Jesus lists apparantly has >been interpreted as referring to the celibacy of the priesthood. What >do the first two refer to? And what does the closing instruction refer >to? (I would guess this is usually interpreted as "Accept the celibacy >of the priesthood if your can.") The passage in question, along with selected writings of St. Paul, are indeed taken by Catholics as support for a celibate Catholic priesthood. (One should note that there are many other arguments in favor of celibate Catholic clergy... a small reminder not to base one's whole argiment on Scripture quotation.) When reading the "reasons" cited in your passage above, I take the first two as a defense of celibacy (in general) against the (somewhat) common Jewish belief that marriage was desirable in humans, to the point of being almost mandatory (ref: "Be fruitful, and multiply."). Jesus pointed out that it was not sinful to remain unmarried, nor was it offensive to God. I doubt that Jesus had any sort of clergy in mind when He said this, but it remains a strong basis for accepting celibacy of priests as a non-sinful condition. Just a few opinions of mine; I hope this helps! Take care! Sincerely, Brian Coughlin oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu
tom@salzo.cary.nc.us (Tom Salzmann) (05/13/91)
Well, Michael, you have now disgusted me as well...
It's not even worth quoting your article, but the fact is simple and
clear. Homosexuality, fornication, etc, is SIN. Read it again. It is
SIN!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes we must show love and compassion, but clearly we
CANNOT tolerate the SIN and we must expect those in our family of
believers to REPENT. Your rather long article of disgust preaches
acceptance with no mention of counseling those to repent. If you don't
believe these things are SIN, you and the PCUSA are denying the inspired
Word of God. Let's just cut to the bone. Do you believe in an inerrant
Bible? If not, you are way off base. God's word is supreme and cannot be
challenged.
The Bible is all or nothing. If you want to claim Him, you must claim
His Word as well.
REV 3:16 So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to
spit you out of my mouth.
--
Tom Salzmann <tom@salzo.Cary.NC.US>
[I detect in the comment here that the wide reporting of the proposal
may have obscured what the actual position of the PCUSA is at the
moment. What you've been hearing about is a committee report. As far
as I can determine, most people within the PCUSA are horrified by the
report. While some changes in policies on sexual issues may happen, I
do not expect the position of the committee to be adopted by the
church. The current position of the PCUSA is that homosexuality is
wrong, and unrepentant, visible homosexuals cannot be ordained.
However homosexuals are welcome in the church, and persecution of them
is at least as serious a sin as homosexual sexual activities. However
I should note that many individual churches and other groups are more
accepting than the official policy indicates.
The committee (and mls) are of course well aware that their position
is not acceptable to those who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.
--clh]kane@buast7.bu.edu (Brian Kane) (05/13/91)
[In response to an exchange between Jennifer Irani and John Clark on whether homosexuals pose a threat to the family. --clh] Homosexuals pose no threat to the traditional family. Their numbers, almost certainly less than 25% of the general population, are too small to matter. Two thousand years of proscription have not ended homosexuality, and two thousand years of homosexuality have not affected the traditional family. Besides, the idea that someone's sexuality can be determined by recruitment is completely ridiculous. -----------------------------------CLIP HERE!-------------------------------- * * |Internet: kane@buast7.bu.edu Dazzling * |---or---: kane@buast1.bu.edu Commentary | from... * |Snailnet: Brian Kane * | Boston University ...the Hot Young Star! | Astronomy Dept. * | * | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
dconnor@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Daren Connor) (05/13/91)
But what you left out of your message was the fact that after Jesus dealt with most every "sinner" (I guess usually if he healed them?), didnt he say something along the lines of "Go and sin no more." ? Yes, the gospel is about love and accpetance, but it's also about desiring to become like Jesus as much as possible. Jesus is love, truly, but he also came "Not to abolish the law." Love does not mean we are free to do whatever we like. That is the cold reality that many within Christianity choose not to hear. - Daren Connor
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/14/91)
In article <May.13.02.33.40.1991.12581@athos.rutgers.edu> oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) writes:
+ Hi, Tom!
+
+ From the perspective of the Catholic Church (i.e. the only one that
+ I'm really familiar with), Jesus was not "in favor" of homosexuality.
+ This view is not based on direct quotation because, as you've mentioned,
+ there AREN'T any Gospel passages referring to homosexuality. Rather,
+ it is noted that Jesus supports the Old Testament idea of monogamous,
+ heterosexual, marital intercourse being the only good sexual acts.
For Jews, 'monogamy' became the exclusive marriage arrangment only after the
Diaspora. Even Josephus (ca. 70-80 AD) had to explain his two wives and
Herod's several to the Roman's as "as is our(Jewish) custom".
The 'ten' commandment only say 'no adultery and no coveting'
relative to other men's wives. It does not give a 'head' count.
It is the Roman custom to have only one wife which became our
antecedent for the practice. This combined with a number of 'it's
better not to marry at all' statements in the N.T. give the
proscription against one man several wives.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edujclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/14/91)
In article <May.13.02.55.19.1991.12674@athos.rutgers.edu> tom@salzo.cary.nc.us (Tom Salzmann) writes:
+
+It's not even worth quoting your article, but the fact is simple and
+clear. Homosexuality, fornication, etc, is SIN. Read it again. It is
There have a been a couple of postings during which I have though
the following:
"if civil laws reflected the Biblical moral laws, would any more
people receive salvation?"
It would seem from a number of postings, that some people beleive
that if certain 'temptations' were not available, the less people
would 'fall'. This seems to be in contrast to the statements that
everyone is in need of the 'saving Grace' independent of what type
of sin is involved.
In civil law the idea is to coerce at least a major portion of the
population into a certain behavior pattern. The result is a more
'peaceful' society(very simplistic model). In Biblical moral law the
principle is 'to some higher goal, ie. change human nature' (I don't
believe this but some may subscribe to it).
Or in another way, if one removes 'alcohol' from the available
drinks, clearly there will be less alcoholics but will there
correspondingly be more 'saved' individuals? (in this model, say, no
one can produce alcohol, yeast no longer works the same way).
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edukrueger@neutron.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) (05/14/91)
In response to the homosexuality question, for the most part, christians are not trying to stamp out homosexuality, we merely wish to point out that it is ungodly. Since it is ungodly, we wish people to not practice it. Ted
mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) (05/14/91)
In article <May.13.02.55.19.1991.12674@athos.rutgers.edu>, tom@salzo.cary.nc.us (Tom Salzmann) writes: > Well, Michael, you have now disgusted me as well... and the moderator notes: > The committee (and mls) are of course well aware that their position > is not acceptable to those who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. I think the Michael Tom is objecting to is not me, but the *Presbyterian* gay Michael (we're everwhere!) What I want to note, however, is this odd word "inerrancy" -- what it seems to imply is not anything about scripture, but rather a very specific collection of HUMAN interpretations of scripture. I would, myself, have been inclined to call scripture "inerrant" except that some people have taken the term and associated it with a very specific set of *readings* of scripture that are locatable in late 19th century American religious dispute. I am fully willing to grant the TOTAL and absolute authority of scripture. It is just the very strange presumption of one minor sect of Christianity that THEY are the determining standard of interpretation of this authority which I find impossible to accept. Late 19th century America is not, for me, a rational standard for ANYTHING. -- Michael L. Siemon "O stand, stand at the window, m.siemon@ATT.COM As the tears scald and start; ...!att!attunix!mls You shall love your crooked neighbor standard disclaimer With your crooked heart."
johnw@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) (05/14/91)
[In response to a posting by Michael Bushnell, Paul Hudson discussed the practice of shunning: >The concept of shunning is a Biblical one. >In I Corinthians chapter 5, Paul discusses how the church whould deal >with a man who was having an incestuous relationship with his >stepmother or possibly his mother.... >Why should we do this [shunning, that is]. Well in my opinion, by >associating ourselves >with [immoral] people, we say to the world "this is what it means to be a >Christian." Thus we blaspheme the name of God and the name of Christ >with our witness. We can associate with sinners who are not >Christians. By removing the "leaven" from the church, we give the >non-Christians an example of how to live when they come into the >church. --clh] Where is faith? Paul said, in Romans 1 or 2, "I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the dynamite of God unto salvation." (The greek word for 'power' was dunamis, from which we get 'dynamite'.) It takes more faith to believe that anyone, even those who disagree with relatively peripheral parts of Biblical morality (e.g., regarding homosexuality), can be saved (i.e., made whole, more and more pleasing to God; an ongoing process, in this life; not just going to heaven when we die). Our duty? To preach Christ, and him crucified. Yes. To show how faithful God has been throughout human history, so that our faith may be strengthened. Yes. To be policemen for Jesus? No. I don't know why Paul told the Corinthians to 'deliver that man to Satan'. At best it was a tragic choice that Paul had to make, and only under extreme circumstances. And I think that sometimes such a tragic choice must be made. I don't consider the presence of an 'unrepentant' practicing homosexual in the church that extreme. "But what kind of witness is that?" The witness that says that we are all sinners saved by grace through faith. I'm not that afraid that non-Christians will get the wrong example of how to live when they look at a church full of sinners, even ones who disagree with nonessential parts of the Bible. I AM afraid of the witness that says we as Christians have to hold each other to a moral code of external behavior. "Do this, don't do that; then you're a Christian." Can't we trust God to change us by putting His life in us for our faith actions? > >Thank you. >Link Hudson John Warren ----------- "She never said nothing, there was nothing she wrote. She gone with the man in the long black coat." -- Dylan
dconnor@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Daren Connor) (05/17/91)
I though this article might shed a little light on how this report is being received. This is from the San Jose Mercury News (from the Los Angeles Times) 5/11/91: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHURCH REJECTION SEX REPORT With uparalleled outcry, half of the Presbyterian Church (USA) regional bodies have urged the denomination's annual convention to reject a revolutionary proposal on sexuality that has shaken the normally placid denomination, making its apporval unlikely. Many Presbyterians do not even want the proposal studied further, fearing that they would be perceived as the first mainline Christian denomination to look favorably upon such things as unmarried couples living together and homosexual relationships. By Tuesday, 86 presbyteries out of 171 had registered negative reactions, especially to the recommended blessing of "responsible...joyful caring" intercourse outside of marriage for teens and homosexuals. "There is not a positive (resolution) in the bunch," said Marj Carpenter, public relations director for the 2.9 million-member denomination. Pres- byterian leaders said that the number of pre-convention resolutions, called "overtures", from the regional bodies had never been so high. Some officials say that the more than 600 commissioners to the 203rd General Assembly June 4-12 in Baltimore will be under great pressure to scrap the the 200-page majority report on sexuality that was three years in the making. A dissenting report defending traditional ethics, by six members of the 17-member committee, could form the basis for continued study. At latest count, the majority report had sold some 30,000 copies - compared with the 500 to 1,000 requests normally generated by committee reports. Many presbyteries, such as one in Seattle, urged the committee be disbanded for disturbing "the peace, unity, and purity of the church" and that the national convention reaffirm the "the only appropriate context for... sexual intimacy" is marriage between one man and one woman. The Presbyterian Church ahs been known for relatively progressive stances on social issues, but Carpenter said the current opposition cuts across liberal-conservative lines. Radical changes in sexual ethics have been opposed by eight former General Assembly moderators, the official who presides over the annual convention, then acts as a roving denominational spokesman for a year. "Three are very conservative and five are kind of liberal," Carpenter said.
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/17/91)
In article <May.14.03.33.34.1991.3416@athos.rutgers.edu> krueger@neutron.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
+In response to the homosexuality question, for the most part,
+christians are not trying to stamp out homosexuality, we merely
+wish to point out that it is ungodly. Since it is ungodly, we
+wish people to not practice it.
This does not coincide with various Christain groups which are very
vocal about not just condemning the practice among member but
pursue legislation which prohibits certain morally objectionabl acts.
Even when a law is enacted in a certain local these groups will send
'missionaries' to assist a small minority in that local to protest
and gain support of the 'prohibitive' orientation.
A example here in San Diego. The was a local ordinance which
prevented discrimination based on sexual orientation. The opposition
was lead by an individual from Orange County. If this person wants
to have no such laws in his county he is with in his right to
organize there. But clearly he is engaging in 'global' suppression
when he comes to SD. Of course SD is not the only place where his
organization set up shop. It seems that when any such law is
introduce in various place 'help' is on the way.
I'm sure many of you would send this fellow donations to help his
'good' work. But then if you like these tactics then don't complain
about the 'godless' who do the same.
Another 'hot' topic in this area is abortion. In both of these cases
it may be the state's interrest to allow practices which do not fit
into the narrow Christian moral code. Does this stop Christians from
promoting laws which reflect their brand of morals?
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.eduhudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) (05/17/91)
I have always interpreted that Scripture in Matthew 199, which says "made themselves eunuch's for the kingdom of heaven's sake." to mean that this "eunuch" does not marry in order to advance the kingdom of heaven. Maybe by "this teaching" Jesus was refering either to the previous "two shall be one flesh" or the teaching on eunuch's. Do you think that Paul is an example of a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven's sake? Do you think that perhaps he did not marry because he could not make the commitment? Link Hudson
math1h3@jetson.uh.edu (05/18/91)
In article <May.14.03.27.59.1991.3215@athos.rutgers.edu>, jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: > There have a been a couple of postings during which I have though > the following: > "if civil laws reflected the Biblical moral laws, would any more > people receive salvation?" > > It would seem from a number of postings, that some people beleive > that if certain 'temptations' were not available, the less people > would 'fall'. This seems to be in contrast to the statements that > everyone is in need of the 'saving Grace' independent of what type > of sin is involved. You raise an interesting point, and it's one that I have pondered occasionally. There have been a few postings lately on the purpose of the law, and I think this topic is closely related to your question. Lutherans describe the Law of God as serving three purposes: 1. To maintain external discipline against unruly and disobedient men (as a 'curb against unrighteousness') 2. To lead men to a knowledge of their sin, (as a 'mirror') 3. After they are reborn, and although the sinful nature still resides in them, to give them a definite rule according to which they should pattern and regulate their entire life. (as a 'guide'). (paraphrased from the Formula of Concord, Epitome, Article VI). When we speak of the civil laws reflecting God's law, we ought to be thinking in terms of purpose # 1, and maybe #2. We ought not to be thinking about regenerating people through the law. Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can do that. I think there is a definite place for the civil law to be used to uphold God's law. Certainly God's law against murder and theft must be enforced by the government. The question before us, however, has to do with things like abortion, divorce, adultery, and homosexuality. First of all, we ought not think that by enforcing laws against such sins we are making people into better people. Those opposed to such laws are usually quick to point this out. But I do not think that this is sufficient reason to abandon laws regarding sexual morality. Even though the law does not make people any better, it still serves a valid purpose as a curb against unrighteousness, keeping society orderly. The law reflects society's disapproval of offensive behavior, and (IMHO) more people would take their marriage vows more seriously if they knew that society disapproved divorce. I think more young men and women would avoid homosexuality if society were more disapproving of it. Not all would avoid it, but some would. If society really disapproved of premarital sex, we might see fewer single mothers and illegitimate children. As it is, our schools are swamped with significantly under-parented children. I think this, more than anything else, is going to be the ruin of the USA, and perhaps we will deserve it. We have to also consider that a sinner who feels society's disapproval may be more likely to repent, and seek forgiveness at the cross of Christ. There is another side to this: too many people who call themselves Christian really only mean that they are good citizens who obey the law. This is where the church has to do a better job of preaching the law, so that even the outwardly law-abiding citizens realize that they are only wretched sinners in God's eyes, sinners who are saved by God's grace alone. It has been rather interesting to me that at the same time our society has backed away from laws governing sexual morality, we have been quite happy to tie ourselves in bureaucratic knots with laws against discrimination. Now I am opposed to racial and religious discrimination, and I live in a city that has a lot of racial discrimination. I live in a neighborhood that, ten years ago, one might have called 'integrated', and now, most would call 'black'. Why the change? Because too many white people are afraid to live in a neighborhood with 'too many' black people-- and so they run away. I would say that racial discrimination (and not black people) has cost me about $20,000 in property values -- value that I can ill afford to replace. I would dearly love to wipe out racial discrimination. Yet I have grave reservations about anti-discrimination laws. To a certain extent, these are laws that are designed to change people's attitudes-- something that I believe only the Gospel can do. There is a certain amount of the 'curb against unrighteousness' in them -- you shall not burn crosses on your neighbor's lawn, you shall not make black people sit in the back of the bus, etc. But we run into real enforceability problems in other areas, particularly employment or housing discrimination. 'Why did you hire Bob instead of John?' 'I liked him better'. And so, in order to totally stamp out this evil, we make various employers collect data, and thoroughly justify any employment decision, which means more paperwork and expenses. Yet we still do not wipe out the sin. A case in point is the famous Grove City College case. The college refused to comply with the requirements of a federal civil rights law, asserting that since it accepted no direct federal funding (other than student scholarships), it was not subject to the law. The government never accused the college of discriminating; the complaint was that the college refused to do the paperwork. The courts decided in favor of the college; subsquently after a few years the Congress passed a 'Civil Rights Restoration Act' (I think that is the name) to 'rectify' this 'injustice'. We have arrived at this silly state of affairs because we think we can change people's hearts by enforcing laws. When they remain disobedient and sinful in our eyes, we pass more laws. We do this because we fail to understand the purpose of the law. Now we are seeing anti-discrimination laws used to defend sin (homosexuality, unmarried couples 'living together') rather than suppress it. Thus the civil law not only fails to reflect God's law, and not only is it used where it cannot succeed, but it is being used in opposition to God's law. Maybe it's time to move to a different neighborhood? :-) David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.
jmcg0401@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Joseph Michael Corey) (05/18/91)
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: >I don't think values are swiftly changing. In fact, the homosexual >groups seem to be advocating the same values, monogamy, marriage, >stable relationships, as the Christian 'family' protection groups. The >'value' that is changing is 'who is able to declare a stable 'marriage' >relationship". It would seem that some Christians are advocating that >since a homosexual relationship is sinful it may as well be transitory >as well. 2000 years of regulation has not ended homosexual practice, nor >will another 2000 years. The Christians clamor that they are protecting >the 'family' while denying a 'family' designation to all but those >relationship which fit into a very narrow spectrum of posibilities. I don't usually respond to things like this, yet I must now. 2000 years of regulation has not ended homosexual practice, no. Neither has it ended murder, lying, cursing one's parents, self-hate, self-aggrandisement (sp?), telling part of the truth, murder, persecution, adultery, etc. Christ obviously knows that the Church is human, fallen, and thereby incapable of producing "Perfection" in its members. Neither did Christ tell us that we must be found perfect. The only thing that will end ALL SEXUAL PRACTICE both moral and immoral is the return of Christ. This does not address all your concerns voiced in the above paragraph, but it does address some. I suggest, that if you want more info on what "The Christians" say we believe, that you consult a New International Version of the New Testament.
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) (05/18/91)
How is the case of an unrepentant homosexual any different from the case of an unrepentant incest-commiter. The penalties for both crimes were death under the Law of Moses. Homosexuality is specifically condemned in the NT more than incest is specifically condemned, if I remember correctly. We should deliver unrepentant sinners (of this caliber) and false teachers (like Alexander) over to Satan. I think a careful study of I Coritnthians 5 does show that to a certain extent, we should be "policement for Jesus." Of course, delivering over to Satan is the last step, after the church as a body has talked to the individual. Link Hudson.
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (05/19/91)
In article <May.17.02.52.34.1991.28089@athos.rutgers.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes: > Do you think that perhaps he [Paul] did not marry because he >could not make the commitment? No, I think he did marry! He may have been a widower but it would have been most unusual for a man of his background to have never married. He seems to have been very "up and comming" in Jewish society. In that society marriage was a duty incumbant upon every man.
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/19/91)
In article <May.17.02.52.34.1991.28089@athos.rutgers.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
+I have always interpreted that Scripture in Matthew 199, which says
+"made themselves eunuch's for the kingdom of heaven's sake." to mean
+that this "eunuch" does not marry in order to advance the kingdom of
+heaven. Maybe by "this teaching" Jesus was refering either to the
+previous "two shall be one flesh" or the teaching on eunuch's.
Or more in keeping with being inflamatory, throwing out the idea
that one had to be married to be important. I believe to be
considered a by jews of the time one had to be married. Which is how
some people have argued about the marital status of Jesus as being
married and being called 'rabbi'.
Since the Bible doesn't mention Jesus' marital status anything is
conjecture or dogma.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edulang@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) (05/19/91)
In <May.18.00.49.58.1991.2989@athos.rutgers.edu> jmcg0401@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Joseph Michael Corey) writes: >2000 years of regulation has not ended homosexual practice, no. Neither >has it ended murder, lying, cursing one's parents, self-hate, >self-aggrandisement (sp?), telling part of the truth, murder, >persecution, adultery, etc. 2000 years has also not put a stop to hypocritical self-righteousness, "the yeast of the Pharisees," and close-minded hate of people who live their lives a little differently from the mainstream. > I suggest, that if you want >more info on what "The Christians" say we believe, that you >consult a New International Version of the New Testament. Yes, and make sure you get that version, too; and not some other version that might put a different gloss on the passages about homosexuality. Heaven forbid you should read something in a footnote that doesn't fit in with the close-minded view that lumps homosexuality in with murder. The phenomenon referred to as homosexuality in the New Testament was, by and large, either something on the Greek model where an older man, usually already married and with a family, would take young teenaged boys, i.e., an extra-marital act; or it was ritual homosexuality, i.e., part of a pagan practice. The case of two people of the same sex sharing their lives in a loving, monogamous, long-term relationship did not exist then. Paul had nothing to say about this phenomenon. Ray lang@rex.cs.tulane.edu
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/22/91)
In article <May.18.00.40.51.1991.2898@athos.rutgers.edu> math1h3@jetson.uh.edu writes:
+law. Certainly God's law against murder and theft must be enforced by the
+government. The question before us, however, has to do with things like
+abortion, divorce, adultery, and homosexuality. First of all, we ought not
Do you think that the 'only' governments which proscribe these acts
are 'Christian'? I point you to most of the 'godless' communist
contries. Except for the abortion issue in the USSR, prostitution is
illegal, divorce is not 'free and easy' and adultery are just as
condemned, and homosexuality is illegal. It has been my thought that
the tactics of communism and goals, if I can use that word to mean what the
USSR has been promoting for 70 years, is exactly what many
fundamentalist Christians, except for the 'godlessness', have been
advocating. Rather than lead the unbelievers to their God via their
own life examples, there seems to me to be a desire to prohibit
'sinful' practices inspite of any 'rational' reason beyond Biblical
injunctives.
If you say that the Biblical 'laws' are 'natural' and various other
activities are 'un-natural' we will have a disagreement. What is
deemed 'natural' is very closely tied to what one considers proper.
The belief that the Bible to deliniate what is proper implies what
is 'natural'. There are a number of counter examples of major
governments which had a long existence and allowed the citizens various
activities which you as Christians proscribe.
+think that by enforcing laws against such sins we are making people into
+better people. Those opposed to such laws are usually quick to point this
+out. But I do not think that this is sufficient reason to abandon laws
+regarding sexual morality. Even though the law does not make people any
What abandonment? Prostitution has only been generally prohibited in
the U.S. for some 70-80 years. If it were not for women activists
wanting to change the condition of women, which many 'God Fearing'
men were wont to ignore, this 'immoral' activity would continued
with government's 'approval'. Of course one can argue whether the
laws prohibiting prostitution have actually done the job they were
intended to do. A prostitutes life is at the present even lower on
the social totem pole than before since in addtion to the low social
status the person is a criminal.
It would seem that the moral law that was enacted to remove the
prostitute did not do that but excaberated the situation by turning
the person in to a criminal. This is my point on the so called moral
laws made state law.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edujclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/22/91)
In article <May.18.02.13.18.1991.3887@athos.rutgers.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
+How is the case of an unrepentant homosexual any different from the
+case of an unrepentant incest-commiter. The penalties for both crimes
+were death under the Law of Moses. Homosexuality is specifically
However, for Lot we seen 1) incest twice 2) no indication of
repenance (second time drunkenness is used for 'extenuating
circumstances). For Lot's wife we see 1) disobedience 2) no time for
repentance. This what I consider to be an inponderable relative to
legalistic arguements concerning moral law and the Bible.
Why do I consider it 'inponderable', because in the case of Lot's
wife her sin is to look back on her home as it was distroyed by the
Diety. In Lot's case, as you have mention, the remaining biblical
texts preach essentially death or excommunication as the
punishment. Why should such a 'glance' be punished more that
complete break down of you stated moral law?
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.eduipoulin@uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu (05/23/91)
In article <May.18.22.48.24.1991.14079@athos.rutgers.edu>, hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) writes: > No, I think [Paul] did marry! He may have been a widower but it would > have been most unusual for a man of his background to have never > married. He seems to have been very "up and comming" in Jewish > society. In that society marriage was a duty incumbant upon every > man. If you look at some scripture though you will see that St. Paul advocated no change in lifestyle at all [paraphrasing here] "If you are married, stay married. If you are now single, stay single". He believed that one was more 'pure' in Christ in a non-married state... Of course, at the time, he believed that Christ would return within his own lifetime. :)
jefff@locus.com (Jeff Fields) (05/24/91)
In article <May.18.00.40.51.1991.2898@athos.rutgers.edu> math1h3@jetson.uh.edu writes: >Now we are seeing anti-discrimination laws used to defend sin (homosexuality, >unmarried couples 'living together') rather than suppress it. Thus the >civil law not only fails to reflect God's law, and not only is it used >where it cannot succeed, but it is being used in opposition to God's law. >Maybe it's time to move to a different neighborhood? :-) > >David H. Wagner >a confessional Lutheran. The anti-discrimination laws are only supporting sin as defined by one group of Christians. The civil law is not failing to reflect God's law, rather it is failing to reflect one group's interpretation of God's law. I thank God I live in a nation where I am not subjected to the tyranny of one group's definition of morality legislated into law. I pray to God that this will not change. I love all my Christian brethren but I do not wish to submit to the tyranny imposed by some of my Christian brethren. Maybe, it is time (as David jokingly put it) for some of these would be tyrants to move to a different neighborhood. NO, now I am only joking. Insert obligatory ":-) :-)" here. -Jeff Fields
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/24/91)
In article <May.22.00.20.27.1991.540@athos.rutgers.edu> jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: >In article <May.18.02.13.18.1991.3887@athos.rutgers.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes: >Why do I consider it 'inponderable', because in the case of Lot's >wife her sin is to look back on her home as it was distroyed by the >Diety. In Lot's case, as you have mention, the remaining biblical >texts preach essentially death or excommunication as the >punishment. Why should such a 'glance' be punished more that >complete break down of you stated moral law? I really don't think that Genesis means to imply that Lot's wife sinned by looking back, and that as a result she was turned into a pillar of salt. It seems from the story that Lot, his family and even his intended son-in-laws had to hurry out of town. Lot's wife turned to look back, and in that moment of hesitation, she was lost. An analogy, (but one which I've always identified with). Lot and his wife are scrambling out of the valley before a nuclear device is detonated. They have only enough time to get out of the valley, and behind a protecting hill before detonation. As they are about to clear the top of the hill, Lot's wife looks back on her home. Unprotected from the wave of light/heat radiation, Lot's wife is struck dead. As for the pillar of salt. I guess you're well aware of the salt pillars in the area. I'm quite willing to say that someone may have embellished the account slightly. (Perhaps even misunderstood Lot's account of what happened.) No, I'm not saying that Soddom was destroyed by a nuclear blast, but go back and read the account. There's a real sense of urgency. This city is gonna get destroyed, and you had better be nowhere near when it happens. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard) (05/27/91)
In the matter of Lot's wife being turned to salt, I was always under the impression that the reason she was turned to salt was that she disobeyed God, who had told them all to leave and not look back. The moral of the story was that when God told you to do something that was going to save your life you should do it. Shalom.