ALLEN@mscf.med.upenn.edu (03/09/91)
Much of Biblical sexual morality is based on the mistaken belief
that each sperm contained an infant. The woman was thought only to be
a place for the sperm to grow. The woman did not make any other
contribution to the fetus. This can be seen in such phrases as
"spilling his seed" and "semen" (from Latin "seed") in refering to men
and "barren" or "fertile" when refering to women. Much of the debate
over sexual issues is a relic of this mistaken belief.
Since each sperm contains a fetus, it is murder to engage in any
activity where the sperm will not have a chance to grow into a child.
Consider:
Sin Reason
---------------------------------------------------
Masturbation Murder
Contraception Murder
Male Homosexuality Murder
Note that female homosexuality is not a sin because the woman makes no
contribution to the fetus and therefore she is not committing murder
by engaging in homosexual activity. This is why the Bible condemns
male homosexuality but not female homosexuality.
Now that we understand how the biology of reproduction actually
works, we know that there isn't a fetus in every sperm. What now is
the reason for condemning those acts that were previously thought to
be murder?
Sin Reason
---------------------------------------------------
Masturbation Tradition
Contraception Tradition
Male Homosexuality Tradition
Female Homosexuality Generalization from male homosexuality
If anyone can honestly look at their Bible and give me another
explanation that explains why only male homosexuality and female
homosexuality should be condemned, I will reconsider my belief that
homosexuality is not a sin, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
--
Hugs,
John
John Allen allen@mscf.med.upenn.edu ---
B4/5 f t w s(-) k r /| *\
|*\ |
\o*|/
"Light is the left hand of darkness" -- U. K. LeGuin ---kenns@prism.cs.orst.edu (Kenn R. Stump) (03/11/91)
In <Mar.9.01.08.52.1991.23202@athos.rutgers.edu> ALLEN@mscf.med.upenn.edu writes: > If anyone can honestly look at their Bible and give me another >explanation that explains why only male homosexuality and female >homosexuality should be condemned, I will reconsider my belief that >homosexuality is not a sin, but I'm not going to hold my breath. I'm assuming you made a typo in that paragraph. Or I missed something of importance. 8-) It may not be a direct answer to your question; in fact it may not even answer the question, but for reference: Epistle To Romans 1:26 - 27 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. >John Allen allen@mscf.med.upenn.edu --- >B4/5 f t w s(-) k r /| *\ > |*\ | > \o*|/ >"Light is the left hand of darkness" -- U. K. LeGuin --- kenns@jacobs.cs.orst.edu (no flames, please. It's late. I'm tired) (and my thinker is all thunked out 8-] )
mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) (03/11/91)
In article <Mar.9.01.08.52.1991.23202@athos.rutgers.edu>, ALLEN@mscf.med.upenn.edu writes: > Much of Biblical sexual morality is based on the mistaken belief > that each sperm contained an infant. I don't believe that is the case. The doctrine you allude to *was* the developed Stoic position, and as such it had an immense influence on the formation of Christian ethical doctrines. But I can't think of a single OT passage that would support such a notion (nor, indeed, any that would contradict it.) Jewish sexual ethics was NOT based on this notion. For one possible approach to an understanding of the Jewish law, I recommend as a starting point Bill Countryman's _Dirt Greed and Sex_, Fortress Press 1988, ISBN 0-8006-0887-9. This is, primarily, a look at the New Testament material, but I think it is a good starting point for the rather more alien (to us) matter in the Torah, as well. -- 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."
fuzzy@elaine0.stanford.edu (Daniel Zappala) (03/12/91)
In article <Mar.9.01.08.52.1991.23202@athos.rutgers.edu> ALLEN@mscf.med.upenn.edu writes: > > Much of Biblical sexual morality is based on the mistaken belief >that each sperm contained an infant. The woman was thought only to be >a place for the sperm to grow. The woman did not make any other >contribution to the fetus. This can be seen in such phrases as >"spilling his seed" and "semen" (from Latin "seed") in refering to men >and "barren" or "fertile" when refering to women. Much of the debate >over sexual issues is a relic of this mistaken belief. > This interpretation assumes the laws on sexual morality come from men, and not from God. My personal viewpoint is to instead acknowledge through faith that what is found in the Bible is God's word, and to understand what is in the Bible from that assumption. Since God fully knows the human reproductive system, he must have had his reasons for declaring masturbation and homosexuality as sins. I'm willing to take his word for it, but if one must rationalize, I can come up good enough arguments to satisfy my own probing mind. For example, if one views the sexual act as a union of woman and man on the level of a unifying of spirits, as well as bodies, then it is quite possible for me to see masturbation as a pale shadow of the full sexual act, and hence unpleasing to God. Note, I make no claim for this as a Biblical concept. I myself can settle for God's will without needing a complete reason. As far as specific phrases and wordings which might suggest an inadequate understanding, it depends on your view of how the Bible came to be. My own view of prophets sees them as people through whom God can reveal his will to his people. They are succeptible to cultural perturbations insofar as this will not obscure God's word. They are imperfect mouthpieces. Daniel fuzzy@leland.stanford.edu
ALLEN@mscf.med.upenn.edu (03/14/91)
In <Mar.9.01.08.52.1991.23202@athos.rutgers.edu> I write: >> If anyone can honestly look at their Bible and give me another >>explanation that explains why only male homosexuality and female >>homosexuality should be condemned, I will reconsider my belief that >>homosexuality is not a sin, but I'm not going to hold my breath. I did make a typo in the paragraph above. It should read "why only male homosexuality and *NOT* female homosexuality should be condemned." In article <Mar.11.02.39.34.1991.5448@athos.rutgers.edu>, kenns@prism.cs.orst.edu (Kenn R. Stump) writes: > For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their > women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: I knew that someone would try to use this piece of scripture. This is one example where the choice of the translation no longer accurately represents what the author was trying to say. The word meaning "nature" in Greek was used to express what we would call "custom". Passages exist where this meaning is clearer, but I do not have them at hand. This passage would more accurately be translated For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the customary use into that which is against custom. Lesbianism is still seen as a vile affection simply because it goes against custom. Part of the problem with Biblical sexual morality comes from the fact that the concept of individuality was invented in the late Middle Ages. In classical Greece, Plato talked about the Forms which were idealizations of things in the world. Plato stressed the importance of shedding as much of the real world as possible to get as close to the Forms as possible. This leads to perfectionism. With first the identification of individuality in the Middle Ages and then recognition of individual differences in the work of Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwin. With this new awareness of the individual we realize that perfection is an impossible task. The task that we should be concentrating on is INTEGRITY. This is being true to oneself, loving oneself, accepting oneself so that one can love be true to God, love God, accept God and love others. This is the point of Christ's whole message. God is the God of LOVE not punishment. God loves us as we are. We are the ones who judge ourselves as not being worthy of God's love not God who judges us as being unworthy of God's love. We separate ourselves from God, God does not separate Herself from us. If accepting our homosexuality makes us feel whole (which is a very common feeling), then God rejoices with us in that wholeness. -- Hugs, John John Allen allen@mscf.med.upenn.edu --- B4/5 f t w s(-) k r /| *\ |*\ | \o*|/ "Light is the left hand of darkness" -- U. K. LeGuin --- [I took at look at the article on physis (the word being used for nature in this passage) in Kittel. This gives a history of usage in Greek documents, in earlier contemporary Jewish documents, and in the NT. Nowhere do they identify it as customary. The range of meanings seems to be similar to our word "natural". This is particularly clear in Paul, with uses such as Rom 2:27, the Gentile are by nature the foreskin, Gal 2:15, those who are Jews by nature (i.e. by descent), Gen 4:8 bondage to things that are by nature no gods. Rom 2:14 Gentiles who do the law by nature, Eph 2:3 people who were by nature children of wrath. In none of these cases does "custom" make sense. Further it is clear from the context that Paul considers homosexuality to be more than simply a violation of custom. 1:26 talks about degrading passions, and 1:27 shameless acts. I'll let those who are more familiar with the history of philosophy than I talk about the issue of individuality. I don't think your comments on that are right either, but I based this only on a fairly general feeling that in the prophets we can see a progression from emphasis on the community to emphasis on the individual. --clh]
hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Chuck Hedrick) (03/14/91)
In article <Mar.9.01.08.52.1991.23202@athos.rutgers.edu> ALLEN@mscf.med.upenn.edu writes: > >Note that female homosexuality is not a sin because the woman makes no >contribution to the fetus and therefore she is not committing murder >by engaging in homosexual activity. This is why the Bible condemns >male homosexuality but not female homosexuality. Ah ... (I actually have a Bible today!) Romans 1:26-27 (TEV a.k.a. Good News Bible) 26 Because they do this, God has given them over to shameful passions. Even the women pervert the natural use of their sex by unnatural acts. 27 In the same way the men give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passion for each other. Men do shameful things with each other, and as a result they bring upong themselves the punishment they deserve for their wrongdoing. So, I think we'll have to say there is Biblical condemnation of female homosexuality, but let me continue... (As Paul does) 28 Because those peope refuse to keep in mind the true knowledge about God, he has given them over to corrupted minds, so that they do the things that they should not do. 29 They are filled with all kinds of wickedness, evil, greed, and vice; they are full of jealousy, murder fighting, deceit and malice. They gossip 30 and speak evil of one another; they are hateful to God, insolent, proud and boastful; they think of more ways to do evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no conscience; they do not keep their promises, and they show no kindness or pity for others. 32 They know that God's law says that people who live in this way deserve death. Yet, not only do they continue to do these very things, but they even approve of others who do them. Now that we're all feeling righteous, Paul comes in with his second chapter! *2* Do you, my friend, pass judgement on others? You have no excuse at all, whoever you are. For when you judge others and then do the same things which they do, you condemn yourself. 2 We know that God is right when he judges the people who do such things as these. 3 But you, my friend, do those very things for which you pass judgement on others! Do you think you will escape God's judgement? 4 Or perhaps you despise his great kindness, tolerance, and patience. Surely you know that God is kind, because he is trying to lead you to repent. 5 But you have a hard and stubborn heart, and so you are making your own punishment even greater on the Day when God's anger and righteous judgements will be revealed. 6 For God will reward every person according to what he has done. 7 Some people keep on doing good, and seek glory, honor and immortal life; to them God will give eternal life. 8 Other people are selfish and reject what is right, in order to follow what is wrong; on them God will pour out his anger and fury. 9 There will be suffering and pain for all those who do what is evil, for the Jews first and also for the Gentiles. 10 But God will give glory, honor, and peace to all who do what is good, to the Jews first and also to the Gentiles. 11 For God judges everyone by the same standard. *Is* Homosexuality a sin? There are certainly Biblical injunctions against it. But we all commit sins. We all do things which we *know* are wrong. What right have you or I to criticize another's sins when we commit so may ourselves. How many of us can even truthfully claim to obey just the 10 commandments faithfully, (let alone the many other injunctions, [among them homosexuality]). Yet we have singled out this sin as special. *This* sin is the one over which we divide congregations. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
janski@vipunen.hut.fi (Janne Olavi Salmi) (03/18/91)
[Daniel Zappala commented
... Since God fully knows the human
reproductive system, he must have had his reasons for declaring masturbation
and homosexuality as sins. I'm willing to take his word for it
--clh]
The Bible doesn't say that masturbation is a sin.
For example, if one views the sexual act as a union of woman and man
on the level of a unifying of spirits, as well as bodies, then it is
quite possible for me to see masturbation as a pale shadow of the
full sexual act, and hence unpleasing to God. Note, I make no claim
for this as a Biblical concept. I myself can settle for God's will
without needing a complete reason.
Yes, that is quite right. It's like playing chess against yourself.
You don't really win anything. But, again, it's not a sin in itself.
You can, however, find other things that are connected to it that are sins,
like "lusting thy neighbor's wife" that makes one do it.
--
**************************************************************************
* Janne Salmi / "Money, I need more money, just a *
* / little more money, yeah, I need more *
* Email:janski@niksula.hut.fi / money" -Extreme *
**************************************************************************
[As far as I know, the usual citation is Gen 38:8 ff, where Onan is
condemned for "spilling his semen on the ground". However there was a
specific context there. Onan had accepted the reponsibility of
raising up children for his dead brother, and this was a violation of
that responsibility. Does anyone know another citation? --clh]gwills@maths.tcd.ie (Graham Wills) (03/19/91)
In article <Mar.14.03.48.23.1991.24800@athos.rutgers.edu> ALLEN@mscf.med.upenn.edu writes: >The task that we >should be concentrating on is INTEGRITY. This is being true to >oneself, loving oneself, accepting oneself. I'm afraid I'll have to take issue with this one."Being true to yourself" is to me in complete opposition to the Christian faith, which is based on being "Being true to Jesus Christ". If I was true to myself, I would be a lazy, careless, inhospitable, ungenerous, arrogant, bossy, objectionable person. My faults are many, and if I was true to myself, it would not be a pleasnt sight. Fortunately, I was saved by Christ and I want to go against my own character. I work at letting Christ change me so I can be less like myself, and more like Him (without losing my own personality!). Our nature is fallen, and to be true to it is to be follow a sinful way. Graham Wills, Dublin, Ireland.
kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) (03/19/91)
In article <Mar.14.04.06.54.1991.25394@athos.rutgers.edu>, hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Chuck Hedrick) writes: Tom rightly divides the Word regarding Romans 1 & 2. Paul as clearly and plainly as he could shows his readers that homosexuality (male and female) is sin. Then in Romans 2, Paul condemns those who are self righteous - the "morally good" people on the outside. After condemning the actions of those bad outwardly and those bad inwardly Paul sums it up in Romans 3 - "there is none righteous - no not one". Paul then gives the answer to this human dilemna - Jesus Christ, the only True and Righteous man to walk this earth. Tom then says: > *Is* Homosexuality a sin? There are certainly Biblical injunctions > against it. But we all commit sins. We all do things which we *know* > are wrong. What right have you or I to criticize another's sins when we > commit so may ourselves. How many of us can even truthfully claim to > obey just the 10 commandments faithfully, (let alone the many other > injunctions, [among them homosexuality]). Yet we have singled out this > sin as special. *This* sin is the one over which we divide > congregations. > > Tom Blake > SUNY-Binghamton Tom, I think the reason this sin is singled out as "special" is because those committing it are teaching others (by example) that it is OK to do so. There are certain qualifications to be an elder (or overseer) in a church. Read Titus 1. Listed in there is "blameless, the husband of one wife, just, holy..." That being the case we wouldn't want to ordinate a professing thief (who continues to promote thievery by example) would we? Teaching another to sin is very serious. Jesus said that it would be better if a stone were tied around a person's neck and thrown into the sea than to teach another to sin. So if I enter your congregation teaching it is OK to steal and that continuing thieves should be ordained and I want the job - do you think that would cause division? You see the divider in this case is not those say homosexulaity is wrong. It is those who teach it is right, and want to lead congregations in that same doctrine. -- Kenneth J. Kutz Internet kutz@andy.bgsu.edu Systems Programmer BITNET KUTZ@ANDY University Computer Services UUCP ...!osu-cis!bgsuvax!kutz Bowling Green State Univ. US Mail 238 Math Science, BG OH 43403
kkrueger@zeus.unomaha.edu (Kurt Krueger) (03/19/91)
> For example, if one views the sexual act as a union of woman and man > on the level of a unifying of spirits, as well as bodies, then it is > quite possible for me to see masturbation as a pale shadow of the > full sexual act, and hence unpleasing to God. Note, I make no claim > for this as a Biblical concept. I myself can settle for God's will > without needing a complete reason. I believe this view to be a triffle condemning of virtually all adole- scents and a good chunk of the adult population. Since there are no passages in the Bible concerning masturbation, I would be much reticent to say that it is inherently immoral. To do so creates great feelings of guilt for ado- lescents who really already have a lot more guilt that they can handle. If you assume it a sin, then it must cause harm, yet no competent psychologist will agree that it does. Suppression because of extreme guilt and fear does cause a great deal of harm. My better judgement said to me "Shut up and skip this post," but I see a lot of teens messed up from well-intentioned views that wind up causing emotional havoc. Of course almost no adolescent reads the net, but all of the readers are a part of society which develops social mores. Respectfully, -- Kurt Krueger | BITNET: kkrueger@unoma1 | //\ MBA student | Internet: kkrueger@zeus.unomaha.edu | \X/--\ M I G A --
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (03/20/91)
>> *Is* Homosexuality a sin? There are certainly Biblical injunctions >> against it. But we all commit sins. We all do things which we *know* >> are wrong. What right have you or I to criticize another's sins when we >> commit so may ourselves. How many of us can even truthfully claim to >> obey just the 10 commandments faithfully, (let alone the many other >> injunctions, [among them homosexuality]). Yet we have singled out this >> sin as special. *This* sin is the one over which we divide >> congregations. >> >> Tom Blake >> SUNY-Binghamton > Ken replies in part... >Tom, I think the reason this sin is singled out as "special" is because >those committing it are teaching others (by example) that it is OK to >do so. There are certain qualifications to be an elder (or overseer) >in a church. Read Titus 1. Listed in there is "blameless, the husband >of one wife, just, holy..." That being the case we wouldn't want >to ordinate a professing thief (who continues to promote thievery by >example) would we? >[...] But you see, I think we are all in agreement that theivery is a sin. I honestly do not know if Homosexuality is a sin. I'll grant that it is clearly spoken against in the Bible. Leviticus 19:19 "Obey my commands. Do not crossbreed domestic animals. Do not plant two kinds of seed in the same field. Do not wear clothes made of two kinds of material." (TEV) Leviticus 19:26:28 "Do not eat any meat with blood still in it. Do not practice any kind of magic. 27 Do not cut the hair on the sides of your head or trim your beard 28 or tattoo yourselves or cut gashes in your body to mourn for the dead. I am the Lord." (TEV) The Bible is full of injuctions that we choose to ignore. Even though many of us know it by heart, let me cite Matthew 22:34-40 34 When the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees; they came together, 35 and one of them, a teacher of the Law, tried to trap him with a question. 36 "Teacher", he asked, "which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus answered, "`Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 This is the greatest and the most important commandment. 39 The second most important commandment is like it: `Love your neighbor as you love yourself.' 40 The whole Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets depend on these two commandments." (TEV) Given these two commandments, I believe theivery is obviously a sin. (If I love my neighbor, I won't steal my neighbor's property.) Similarly, all of the "10 Commandments" I feel can be logically derived from these two. *Is* homosexuality a sin? I *personally* find male homosexuality distasteful. But I don't know if it is a sin. If love is to be the guide to Christian behaviour, some of the most "Christian" people I know are homosexuals. Indeed, of the people I know with faith in Jesus Christ, some of those with the strongest faith are homosexuals. I find myself dwelling on Romans 14. Paul is mostly speaking about the question of unclean food, (this must have been a topic of some division in the church of Rome, [imagine the Jews and Gentiles on *this* one!]). These were important laws to the Jews! Just to get the flavor of 14: Romans 14:1-4 Welcome the person who is weak in faith, but do not argue with him about his personal opinions. 2 One person's faith allows him to eat anything, bu the person who is weak in the faith eats only vegetables. 3 The person who will eat anything is not to despise the one who doesn't; while the one who eats only vegetables is not to pass judgement on the one who will eat anything; for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of someone else? It is his own Master who will decide whether he succeeds or fails. And he will succeed, because the Lord is able to make him succeed. (TEV) Romans 14:19-23 So then, we must always aim* at those things that bring peace and that help strengthen one another. 20 Do not, because of food, destroy what God has done. All foods may be eaten, but it is wrong to eat anything that will cause someone else to fall into sin. 21 The right thing to do is to keep from eating meat, drinking wine, or doing anything else that will make your brother fall. 22 Keep what you believe about this matter, then, between yourself and God. Happy is the person who does not feel guilty when he does something he judges is right! 23 But if he has doubts about what he eats, God condemns him when he eats it, because his action is not based on faith. And anything that is not based on faith is sin. * we must always aim; some manuscripts have we always aim (TEV) It seems to me that Paul's guidance is that whether the eating of certain foods is a sin or not depends on the eater's faith, and is a matter between them and God. The eater must however not cause another to sin by their actions. If we were to extend this to homosexuality, it seems to me... If the homosexual's conscience is not bothered by their homosexuality then it is not for us to judge. But, the homosexual must also respect the beliefs of those who feel that homosexuality is a sin. Certainly if a homosexual were to seduce another who believed homosexuality to be a sin then they both sin. (Certainly causing a neighbor to commit what they consider a sin is not loving that neighbor.) Your citing of Titus is well taken. Keeping Paul in mind it might be best not to ordain a homosexual to serve parishioners who considered homosexuality a sin, but if the parishioners *did not* consider homosexuality a sin, would it still be impropper? I still *do not know* if homosexuality is a sin, but I am not willing to dismiss out-of-hand those very good people I know who are homosexuals. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
pdj7631@summa.tamu.edu (JONES, PAUL DAVID) (03/20/91)
In article <Mar.18.23.27.32.1991.28642@athos.rutgers.edu>, kkrueger@zeus.unomaha.edu (Kurt Krueger) writes... [much deleted: talking about masturbation] >If you assume it a sin, then it must cause harm, yet no competent psychologist >will agree that it does. Suppression because of extreme guilt and fear does >cause a great deal of harm. Just thought I'd point out that this applies to the homosexuality discussion, too... And yes, I know the rest of his post does not, or at least that most people here would say that it doesn't. ______ \ / Illithid (Paul D. Jones) Texas A&M, especially the Corps \ / PDJ7631@venus.tamu.edu of Cadets, stands staunchly behind \/ @rigel.tamu.edu each and every one of my opinions. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) (03/22/91)
In article <Mar.20.03.48.35.1991.9375@athos.rutgers.edu>, tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: Tom sites the following passage our lack of obedience to this command as a reason to (perhaps) believe that commands against homosexuality may not apply to this age: > The Bible is full of injuctions that we choose to ignore... > Leviticus 19:19 > "Obey my commands. Do not crossbreed domestic animals. Do not plant > two kinds of seed in the same field. Do not wear clothes made of two > kinds of material." (TEV) Tom I believe that God gave the nation of Israel many commands to separate them from the surrounding nations. Israel was to be different, set apart to God as a light for the nations. You'll find in this book that these commands were given to the *nation* Israel. The church had not been built yet (Jesus said "I will build my church" - future tense). Therefore, the reason we plant two kinds of seed in the same field is because our seperation unto God is no longer national (outward) but international (Jews and Gentiles) and internal (of the heart). The Body of Christ (a mystery revealed by Paul) is made up of believers who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit forever. This is what sets us apart - the fruit of the Spirit. > *Is* homosexuality a sin? I *personally* find male > homosexuality distasteful. But I don't know if it is a sin. > It seems to me that Paul's guidance is that whether the eating of > certain foods is a sin or not depends on the eater's faith, and is a > matter between them and God. The eater must however not cause another > to sin by their actions. If we were to extend this to homosexuality, it > seems to me... I think we might be able to extend this to homosexuality, if the Bible allowed us to, but it does not. Many people who want to believe homosexuality is OK have concluded: (1) Paul is biased and was not inspired by God when he wrote Romans 1 or (2) Paul *really* doesn't say homosexuality is wrong in Romans 1. I don't think #2 is even worth discussing, I don't think he could have been any clearer. > If the homosexual's conscience is not bothered by their homosexuality > then it is not for us to judge. But, the homosexual must also respect > the beliefs of those who feel that homosexuality is a sin. Whenever the conscience becomes the judge of truth and right and wrong, we are on dangerous ground. Truth, rather than coming from God, comes from the person's ability to rationalize behaviors. > Your citing of Titus is well taken. Please note that in Titus it says that the elder is to be the husband of one *wife*. Romans 1 says homosexuality is wrong. Both were written by Paul. The issue here is much larger than homosexuality. Is all Scripture God breathed? I believe it is but... > But you see, I think we are all in agreement that theivery is a sin. I > honestly do not know if Homosexuality is a sin. I'll grant that it is > clearly spoken against in the Bible. ...you are not sure. My suggestion to you would be, if there is a passage of Scripture that you don't think is being taken seriously (or shouldn't be taken seriously) ask someone who believes all of the Bible to be the Word of God what his or her interpretion is of that passage. This will help you in making your decision for yourself. And above all pray. I hope this helps Tom. God bless you. -- Kenneth J. Kutz Internet kutz@andy.bgsu.edu Systems Programmer BITNET KUTZ@ANDY University Computer Services UUCP ...!osu-cis!bgsuvax!kutz Bowling Green State Univ. US Mail 238 Math Science, BG OH 43403
fuzzy@elaine3.stanford.edu (Daniel Zappala) (03/22/91)
In article <Mar.18.10.45.10.1991.6195@athos.rutgers.edu> janski@vipunen.hut.fi (Janne Olavi Salmi) writes: >[Daniel Zappala commented > ... Since God fully knows the human > reproductive system, he must have had his reasons for declaring masturbation > and homosexuality as sins. I'm willing to take his word for it >--clh] > >The Bible doesn't say that masturbation is a sin. Unfortunately, my article was misunderstood, purely through my own fault. The original poster took the stance that the Bible said masturbation was a sin, and he felt this was due to cultural bias and a misundertanding of the reproductive system. My point was that whatever laws *are* in the Bible, they are from God, and not from humans. I used masturbation as an example only since he did. Now whether or not it actually is labeled a sin in the Bible, I'll leave to the current thread that other people have concentrated on. :) Daniel Zappala
brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (03/22/91)
In <Mar.20.03.48.35.1991.9375@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: >If the homosexual's conscience is not bothered by their homosexuality >then it is not for us to judge. But, the homosexual must also respect >the beliefs of those who feel that homosexuality is a sin. Certainly if >a homosexual were to seduce another who believed homosexuality to be a >sin then they both sin. (Certainly causing a neighbor to commit what >they consider a sin is not loving that neighbor.) I think that these observations remain equally valid if the word hetrosexual is used to replace the word homosexual. In entering a sexual relationship it is important to give serious thought as to the spiritual state of your prospective partner. Sex should not be allowed to become a sin. The church's traditional safeguard is the sacrament of marriage, were two people stand before God and their community and declare their willingness (eagerness) to entering into a state of sexual union with each other. -- Brendan Mahony | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz Department of Computer Science | heretic: someone who disgrees with you University of Queensland | about something neither of you knows Australia | anything about.
jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Johann) (03/25/91)
> [As far as I know, the usual citation is Gen 38:8 ff, where Onan is > condemned for "spilling his semen on the ground". However there was a > specific context there. Onan had accepted the reponsibility of > raising up children for his dead brother, and this was a violation of > that responsibility. Does anyone know another citation? --clh] I have heard this passage used before concerning masturbation and I personally believe it to be incorrect. More than likely, Onan was practicing the method of birth control known as "withdrawl". (Ineffective, yet probably the height of technilogical development at that time :-)) The reason God punished him was because it was his responsibility to raise children in his brother's name by his brother's wife. He, obviously, was not willing to take the responsibility. -Jon Anderson
johnw@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) (03/25/91)
In article <Mar.21.22.48.11.1991.15966@athos.rutgers.edu> bgsuvax!kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) writes: > >Please note that in Titus it says that the elder is to be the husband >of one *wife*. Romans 1 says homosexuality is wrong. Both were >written by Paul. The issue here is much larger than homosexuality. >Is all Scripture God breathed? I believe it is but... > I just want to clear something up here. It says that the elder is to be a 'one woman man' (Titus 1:6). You can be a man monogamously married to a woman and yet not be the man of commitment which this phrase talks about. You can be an unmarried (or -- *gasp* -- divorced) woman and have the commitment required for an elder. And you can be a homosexual with this type of commitment. At least this verse does not limit the position of elder to married men. > Kenneth J. Kutz John Warren "...What's a sweetheart like you doing in a dump like this?" - Dylan [The same word can mean either wife or woman and man or husband. All translations I've seen use husband of one wife in this context. This does not necessarily affect your conclusion, of course. --clh]
gdm7238@venus.tamu.edu (MCBRIDE, GARY DEAN) (03/25/91)
In article <Mar.21.22.48.11.1991.15966@athos.rutgers.edu>, bgsuvax!kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) writes... ]In article <Mar.20.03.48.35.1991.9375@athos.rutgers.edu>, tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: ] ]Tom sites the following passage our lack of obedience to this command ]as a reason to (perhaps) believe that commands against homosexuality ]may not apply to this age: ] ]] The Bible is full of injuctions that we choose to ignore... ]] Leviticus 19:19 ]] "Obey my commands. Do not crossbreed domestic animals. Do not plant ]] two kinds of seed in the same field. Do not wear clothes made of two ]] kinds of material." (TEV) ] ]Tom I believe that God gave the nation of Israel many commands to ]separate them from the surrounding nations. Israel was to be ]different, set apart to God as a light for the nations. You'll ]find in this book that these commands were given to the *nation* ]Israel. This statement is incorrect. The Law of the Prophets was indeed given to the nation of Israel, but it was intended to mark the people as the people of God. The Jews believed that anyone who practiced the law of the Prophets be he of Jewish ancestry or not was set apart as one of God's people. Jesus said quite bluntly in Matthew and Luke that not the tiniest part of the law of the Prophets will change or be forgotten. So, if Jesus did not want to change the law of the Prophets, why are Christians doing so? ]The church had not been built yet (Jesus said "I will ]build my church" - future tense). ] ]Therefore, the reason we plant two kinds of seed in the same field ]is because our seperation unto God is no longer national (outward) ]but international (Jews and Gentiles) and internal (of the heart). ]The Body of Christ (a mystery revealed by Paul) is made up of believers ]who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit forever. This is what sets us ]apart - the fruit of the Spirit. ] What scripture tells you that the Old Testament injunctions were to be abandoned? Where does it say that the Old Law should not be practiced by Christians? And if it does say that, how does this mesh with what Jesus said about not changing the law? I think it needs to be said that Paul and Jesus did not agree about the disposition of the Old Law. Paul said we are dead to the Law yet Jesus said it would never change or be nullified. He even went so far as to quote the Pharisee proverb, "I have come not to change the law but to fulfill it." Which means, at least the Jews understood it to mean, I have not come to tinker with God's eternal ordinances but to teach them how they apply in this situation. The situation he was talking about was of course his claim to the traditional Jewish role of Messiah. ] Kenneth J. Kutz Internet kutz@andy.bgsu.edu ] Systems Programmer BITNET KUTZ@ANDY ] University Computer Services UUCP ...!osu-cis!bgsuvax!kutz ] Bowling Green State Univ. US Mail 238 Math Science, BG OH 43403 Sensei "If Jesus was so opposed to the Pharisees, why did he quote traditional Phariseic wisdom over forty times?" [There seem to be a number of things that have to be reconciled: - Jesus' statment that he did not come to abolish the law - Jesus' way of dealing with the Law, which tended to radicalize and internalize it, and in some cases (e.g. "harvesting" on the Sabbath) did not call for literal obedience, at least as it was then interpreted - Acts 15, which says that Gentile Christians need not be circumcized, and probably need not obey the rest of the Law, except for a few commandments that seem to have been based on the convenant with Noah (in the form in which it was presented by 1st Cent. rabbis). - Paul's views, in Rom and Gal particularly, which saw the Law as at best a temporary schoolmaster until Christ should appear, and characterized Christians' relationship with God as modelled after Abraham's. (Abraham was before the Law.) - Paul's opposition to "antinomians", which indicates that whatever he thought about the Law, he also didn't think that "anything goes". There are a number of ways to reconcile these things. The most common is probably to say that the Law combines ethical contents, which are eternal, with specific ceremonies and ordinances that set off the Jews as a people. Christians are bound by the first, but not the second. The more radical approach is to say that the Law does not apply at all, and Christian ethics must be reconstructed based on love and not Law. Note that Christ's comment about fulfilling the Law is not necessarily as simple as it looks. First, he was speaking to a Jewish audience. If you adopt the point of view suggested by Acts 15, the Law is still binding for Jewish Christians. It's Gentiles who are not expected to be circumcized or to follow the full Law. Thus the Law is not abolished. It is simply not applied to Gentiles, which is after all consistent with 1st Cent. Jewish practice. Second, the word translated "fulfill" can have several meanings. One of them is "to end, conclude, make complete". Some interpreters have said that Christ (particularly by his death) ended the Law in this sense. I'm not advocating any specific solution here, but pointing out that the issue is a complex one, which will not be settled by citing any one passage. --clh]
fetherbay@ddtisvr.uucp (Kathy Fetherbay) (03/25/91)
In article <Mar.11.03.14.09.1991.5896@athos.rutgers.edu> mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) writes: >In article <Mar.9.01.08.52.1991.23202@athos.rutgers.edu>, >ALLEN@mscf.med.upenn.edu writes: > >> Much of Biblical sexual morality is based on the mistaken belief >> that each sperm contained an infant. > >I don't believe that is the case. The doctrine you allude to *was* the >developed Stoic position, and as such it had an immense influence on the >formation of Christian ethical doctrines. But I can't think of a single >OT passage that would support such a notion (nor, indeed, any that would >contradict it.) Jewish sexual ethics was NOT based on this notion. And I recommend you both slog your way thru _Birth_Control_in_ _Jewish_Law_ by David M. Feldman. It's a dense book, but only because he is thorough about demonstrating Talmudic reasoning. Ethics and morality are rarely based on a single perceived "fact" of nature, and Jewish tradition is a beautiful dance of opposing mitzvahs and developing understandings thru history using both the intellectual reason of man and God's law of love written on the heart. -- -- Kathy E.F.Daly -- - -- "A bad .sig file is better than no .sig file at all." Camex,Inc. pays me, but I work for DuPont Design Technologies (go figure...) Land Line by day: (408)970-4263
JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu (Jenni Sheehey) (03/27/91)
In article <Mar.25.03.27.42.1991.7040@athos.rutgers.edu>, gdm7238@venus.tamu.edu (MCBRIDE, GARY DEAN) says: >What scripture tells you that the Old Testament injunctions were to be >abandoned? Where does it say that the Old Law should not be practiced >by Christians? Well, I dunno about the rest of the law, but in Acts 10:9-15, there is a passage in which Peter has a vision. In this vision, he sees a blanket lowered from Heaven which contains all of the clean and unclean animals. Then a voice tells him to kill and eat the animals. Peter objects, but a voice tells him "Do not call impure that which the LORD has made clean". This is generally understood to mean the Gentiles, and that Peter should minister to them as well. But I have not seen any reason to not take it literally as well. Does anyone know of any? --Jenni Just my $0.02... not a complete response to the poster's concerns...
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (03/27/91)
In article <Mar.21.22.48.11.1991.15966@athos.rutgers.edu> bgsuvax!kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) writes: >> The Bible is full of injuctions that we choose to ignore... >> Leviticus 19:19 >> "Obey my commands. Do not crossbreed domestic animals. Do not plant >> two kinds of seed in the same field. Do not wear clothes made of two >> kinds of material." (TEV) > >Tom I believe that God gave the nation of Israel many commands to >separate them from the surrounding nations. Israel was to be >different, set apart to God as a light for the nations. You'll >find in this book that these commands were given to the *nation* >Israel. The church had not been built yet (Jesus said "I will >build my church" - future tense). This is an interesting loop hole, but I don't think you really want to apply it. The injunctions I cited from Leviticus were indeed given to the nation of Israel. (I also cited 19:26-28) But, the 10 Commandments were also given to the nation of Israel. And here's a little gem from just before 19:19: Leviticus 19:17-18 "Do not bear a grudge against anyone, but settle your differences with him, so that you will not commit a sin because of him. 18 Do not take revenge on anyone or continue to hate him, but love your neighbor as you love yourself. I am the Lord. (TEV) So, I don't think we really want to ignore injunctions just because they were given to the nation of Israel, and not to followers of Christ, and yet there are items of the law that I think many of us would agree we are better off without. Deuteronomy brings us a commandment which certainly puts "The Prodigal Son" in an interesting light... Deuteronomy 21:18-21 "Suppose a man has a son who is stubborn and rebellious, a son who will not obey his parents, even though they punish him. 19 His parents are to take him before the leaders of the town where he lives and make him stand trial. 20 They are to say to them, `Our son is stubborn and rebellious and refuses to obey us; he wastes money and is a drunkard.' 21 Then the men of the city are to stone him to death, and so you will get rid of this evil. Everyone is Israel will hear what has happened and be afraid. (TEV) Here's one that I'm afraid we all fall down on (Pardon the Pun) Deuteronomy 22:8 "When you build a new house, be sure to put a railing around the edge of the roof. Then you will not be responsible if someone falls off and is killed. (TEV) So, should we discard Deuteronomy? There's a baby in with the bathwater. Deuteronomy 6:4-5 "Israel, remember this! The Lord-and the Lord alone-is our God.* 5 Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. * The Lord...is our God; or The Lord, our God, is the only God; or The Lord our God is one. (TEV) The books of The Law have many laws we all accept. They have a number of laws which a many of us reject, (not all of us). By what ruler do we judge which laws are meant for us, and which ones are not? Do we look to Paul? Do we look to Peter? Do we look to the words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels? Do we pray to God to show us his way for us? I'd say any and all. Kenneth says "and above all, pray." I'll go along with that. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton P.S. I include this citation from Numbers. Does any denomination practice this ritual? Numbers 5:11-31 The Lord commanded Moses 12-14 to give the Israelites the following instructions. It may happen that a man becomes suspicious that his wife is unfaithful to him and has defiled herself by having intercourse with another man. But the husband may not be certain, for his wife may have kept it secret-there was no witness, and she was not caught in the act. Or it may happen that a husband becomes suspicious of his wife, even though she has not been unfaithful. 15 In either case the man shall take his wife to the priest. He shall also take the required offering of two pounds of barley flour, but he shall not pour any olive oil on it or put any incense on it, because it is an offering from a suspicious husband, made to bring the truth to light. 16 The priest shall bring the woman forward and have her stand in front of the altar. 17 He shall pour some holy water into a clay bowl and take some of the earth that is on the floor of the Tent of the Lord's presence and put it on the water. 18 Then he shall loosen the woman's hair and put the offering of flour in her hands. In his hands the priest shall hold the bowl containing the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall make the woman agree to this oath spoken by the priest; "If you have not committed adultery, you will not be harmed by the curse that this water brings. 20 But if you have committed adultery, 21 may the Lord make your name a curse among your people. May he cause your genital organs to shrink and your stomach to swell up. 22 May this water enter your stomach and cause it to swell up and your genital organs to shrink." The woman shall respond, "I agree; may the Lord do so." 23 Then the priest shall write this curse down and wash the writing off into the bowl of bitter water. 24 Before he makes the woman drink the water, which may then cause her bitter pain, 25 the priest shall take the offering of flour out of the woman's hands, hold it out in dedication to the Lord, and present it on the altar. Finally, he shall make the woman drink the water. 27 If she has committed adultery, the water will cause bitter pain; her stomach will swell up and her genital organs will shrink. Her name will become a curse among her people. 28 But if she is innocent, she will not be harmed and will be able to bear children. 29-30 This is the law in cases where a man is jealous and becomes suspicious that his wife has committed adultery. The woman shall be made to stand in front of the altar, and the priest shall perform this ritual. 31 The husband shall be free of guilt, but the woman, if guilty, must suffer the consequences.
ALLEN@mscf.med.upenn.edu (04/01/91)
In article <Mar.21.22.48.11.1991.15966@athos.rutgers.edu>, bgsuvax!kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) writes: > My suggestion to you would be, if there is > a passage of Scripture that you don't think is being taken seriously > (or shouldn't be taken seriously) ask someone who believes all of > the Bible to be the Word of God what his or her interpretion is of > that passage. You are making two assumptions here that are not necessarily valid. You are assuming that someone who believes all of the Bible to be the Word of God is 1) correct in believing that the Bible is the Word of God 2) is capable of interpreting what the Bible says accurately or at least better than the person who is not sure. I would contest both of these assumptions. I believe that the Bible is the word of God FILTERED THROUGH HUMAN MINDS AND HANDS. I also believe that the Qur'an is the word of God filtered through human minds. I also believe that the Bhagavad Gita is. I also believe that the I Ching is. I also believe that The Lord is My Shepherd and He Knows I'm Gay is. I also believe that Uncommon Calling: A Gay Man's Struggle to Serve the Church is. I also believe that The Last Temptation of Christ is. I also believe that each one of us is the only one who can interpret the Bible for ourselves. We can and should ask others how they have interpreted the Bible for themselves, but ultimately we are each only accountable to God for our own actions and therefore we must each make our own interpretation of all Scripture (not just the Bible). -- Hugs, John John Allen allen@mscf.med.upenn.edu --- B4/5 f t w s(-) k r /| *\ |*\ | \o*|/ "Light is the left hand of darkness" -- U. K. LeGuin ---
gwills@maths.tcd.ie (Graham Wills) (04/01/91)
In article <Mar.26.23.40.16.1991.11188@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: >"When you build a new house, be sure to put a railing around the edge of >the roof. Then you will not be responsible if someone falls off and is >killed. (TEV) > >So, should we discard Deuteronomy? There's a baby in with the >bathwater. This is an excellent example of the way Jesus asks us to re-interpret Deuteronomy. The passage quoted is excellent advise, BUT the motivation is only second-best. It is a legalistic piece of advice, not a loving piece of advice. Jesus would say: "When you build a new house, be sure to put a railing around the edge of the roof. Then your brother or sister will not be in danger of falling off and killing themselves" Jesus wants us to care for other people for their sakes, not *just* to obey his laws. The law should be seen as a guide to love, rather than a set of rules to obey or disobey. -Graham Wills, TCD, Ireland.