benning@uunet.uu.net (02/11/91)
In article <Feb.6.03.02.40.1991.25888@athos.rutgers.edu>, DOUG@ysub.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell) writes: > It's becoming more common for Christians to attempt (through boycotts > or legislation) to impose their moral standards on nonbelievers. Doug. Perhaps this is a result of being forced to swallow the "new- morality" of this present generation, which is: - God doesn't exist - If God doesn't exist, man can define what is right and wrong. - If someone says what you do is wrong, fund a lobby to put into law what you do.It is a "personal choice" and part of my freedom of expression as an American. - If it feels good then do it. An example: A group from the gay community marched on Washington and had many speakers. One speaker called for an end to sodomy laws. He said what two consulting adults do in private can NOT be legislated. "We are not harming anyone with our actions..." went the claim. Okay. Maybe he is right. Then the next speaker gets up and demands more federal money for AIDS research to save the lives of those dying of this illness. Hey wait. I though what two (or more) adults did in private wasn't going to effect me. Now they want more money (which I agree the money is needed) to cure an illness spread through the intimacy of these individuals while in the privacy of there own home. Sounds like wanting to eat the cake and have it also. That federal money comes from you and me. So if more is needed for AIDS research, we help pay for it. An example: I Tell my children that the Bible TEACHES that homosexuality is sin. And those who claim to be, are no different than adulterers or one who sleeps with their sister. It is rebelion against God and through Jesus bringing you new life through faith, you can overcome the sin, and live a "normal" life of "normal" God given relations with the opposite sex. THEN, Television tells my children dad is an old fashion dope. The Schools WANT TO open a gay-awareness SUPPORT OFFICE TO TELL school age boys that it is okay AND NORMAL to want sex with the quarterback. Dad gets hit with a civil right law suit and is forced to work the AIDS floor at the local hospital because the Judge thinks it will help Dad respect other people more than he did before. No. I think what you see as just a reaction of having Imorality shoved down the throats of Christians, through TV, movies, Schools, public figures (even elected representatives) who have attacked the moral characters of believers. Granted, If we did it right, we would do it through the power of God as the first believers did. But Lord help us, we do what we can. In America I would say there is freedom of religion, but don't practice it outside of your home. It has been made illegal (in my opinion). > > What are we trying to say: > > > (4) something else ? Yes. Something else. > > Whenever I see this happening, I wonder if the Christianity they practice > has any real power or virtue of its own, or whether it's just a form of > making rules rather than living by faith and trust. > Perhaps it is a form of making rules. But when laws are passed against you, this might seem the mose proper way to protect what you regard as precious. Mixed with faith and trust, this could be a credible reaction. Though I know the Lord forbids murder, I often wonder what I would do if my childrens lives were threatened. Would I attempt to free them through any means (violence, killing the attacker???) or would I trust them to the Lord through faith. Many times GOD requires faith and trust TO BE ACCOMPANIED with action. > Doug > B. Benning [Interestingly, the argument that "we are not harming anyone" is not one I recall being proposed in this group by Christian homosexuals. I don't know whether you're seriously suggesting that laws against homosexuality should be retained because of health consequences. If so, you might want to think very carefully about the implications of that type of argument. Perhaps the state should endorse homosexual marriage, on the grounds that AIDS is a consequence of promiscuity, not homosexuality per se, and encouraging homosexuals to have stable monogamous relationships would decrease the amount of trouble. --clh]
gchin@eng.sun.com (Gary Chin) (02/11/91)
In article <Feb.6.03.02.40.1991.25888@athos.rutgers.edu>, DOUG@ysub.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell) writes: > It's becoming more common for Christians to attempt (through boycotts > or legislation) to impose their moral standards on nonbelievers. > Laws don't prevent sin, they point out sin. I believe that if something is against the law, more people will recognize that society doesn't encourage that kind of activity. It makes sense to right one wrong at a time. If I disapprove of something that is contrary to God's laws, I should let my government representatives know about it. > Whenever I see this happening, I wonder if the Christianity they practice > has any real power or virtue of its own, or whether it's just a form of > making rules rather than living by faith and trust. > I live by faith in Jesus, and I want my community to know about it. While I am here, I am a witness for Christ. Gary
marlatt@spot.Colorado.EDU (MARLATT STUART WARREN) (02/11/91)
In article <Feb.6.03.02.40.1991.25888@athos.rutgers.edu> DOUG@ysub.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell) writes: >It's becoming more common for Christians to attempt (through boycotts >or legislation) to impose their moral standards on nonbelievers. > >What are we trying to say: > >(1) If they won't repent, then at least we won't allow them to sin. > (this is the way many non-believers take it) > >(2) I detest xxxxx particular sin(s), so I don't want anyone sinning that > way around me (this sounds like bigotry, not Christianity, and > gives the impression that some sins are "worse" than others). > >(3) I don't like to be tempted with this sin, nor do I want my family > to face this temptation, so I'm going to put it out-of-sight (it's > not a sin to be tempted). > >(4) something else ? > >Whenever I see this happening, I wonder if the Christianity they practice >has any real power or virtue of its own, or whether it's just a form of >making rules rather than living by faith and trust. > >Doug I will not argue that the motivations behind may of these efforts are those you have listed above - and I agree, these are poor motivations for attempting to institute social change. I am of the persuasion that a heirarchy of sin is more or less a human invention (ie, if we break the law at one point, we are guilt of breaking the whole law). Also, avoidance of a group of sinful behavior does not equate with salvation - cleaning up the outside of the vessel does not make it a new vessel. Having said that, let me change side and argue for morality-based social change. That being that such actions may be profitable not because they lead individuals to salvation (indeed, they may not), but because openly accepted immoral practices may be destructive to a society at large. Thus I may, for example, work to limit the traffic of pornography not because I find it offensive and therefore feel that you should not have access to it, but rather because I feel that it has a cause-effect relationship with say violence toward women. Hence the issue of whether or not I am living by faith vs. by rules is not relevant. -- s.w. marlatt <>< and *(:-)
kbowman@eng.auburn.edu (Kevin Bowman) (02/11/91)
In article <Feb.6.03.02.40.1991.25888@athos.rutgers.edu> DOUG@ysub.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell) writes: >It's becoming more common for Christians to attempt (through boycotts >or legislation) to impose their moral standards on nonbelievers. > >What are we trying to say: > >(1) If they won't repent, then at least we won't allow them to sin. > (this is the way many non-believers take it) > >(2) I detest xxxxx particular sin(s), so I don't want anyone sinning that > way around me (this sounds like bigotry, not Christianity, and > gives the impression that some sins are "worse" than others). > >(3) I don't like to be tempted with this sin, nor do I want my family > to face this temptation, so I'm going to put it out-of-sight (it's > not a sin to be tempted). > >(4) something else ? > >Whenever I see this happening, I wonder if the Christianity they practice >has any real power or virtue of its own, or whether it's just a form of >making rules rather than living by faith and trust. > >Doug >-- You are addressing an admittedly difficult question. There are, however, some important points to consider. Some moral standard will be imposed on other people whether it be christian or otherwise. Where the German Christians during the Hitler regime wrong in demanding that Jews not be discriminated against? If it be true that we live under transcendent moral norms then I can not help but believe that they should required by all people, Christian or otherwise. The relevant question is what role does the state have in enforcing Divinely given precepts? For example: "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted amoung men .... who are sent to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right" (I Peter 2:13,14) This implies to me that we as Christians should work to have our our governmental bodies reflect this above mentioned function. In deference to the spirit of your letter I would note that no where in the New Testament is there any command that we should attempt to enforce subscription to the gospel through governmental bodies. But this *does not* mean that a government is free to repudiate their God-given responsibilities to uphold justice and order. Kevin Bowman (kbowman@eng.auburn.edu) Two Foundational Facts of Human Enlightenment: 1. There is a God 2. You are not Him
mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (02/14/91)
In article <Feb.10.20.00.05.1991.20291@athos.rutgers.edu> math1h3@jetson.uh.edu writes:
This is a good question. It seems particularly relevant to the discussion
Re: ACLU (cases) in t.r.m., on whether a man can refuse to rent housing
to an unmarried couple who apparently intend to use it for fornication.
One minor question. How do you "use" a house for fornication. I can
understand using a house to live in, or to entertain guests, or to
escape rain, or such, but it seems completely unimportant to having
sex. The real question you are asking is not "will you rent a house
if it will be used for fornication" but "will you rent a house to
people who fornicate." There is a world of difference between these
two.
I think some christians think morality first, Christ second. We
might think of someone, 'Well at least they are good people' meaning
that they are kind, loving, good parents, faithful in marriage, or
celibately single, etc. We might feel relieved when a couple that
has been living together decides to get married. But the fact is that
without faith in Christ, they must be cast into the eternal lake of
fire on the day of judgement. How can we keep silent about that?
indeed, if you would not rent to an unmarried couple, would you rent
to a jewish family? Historically, many have said no. Those who might
refuse the first need to consider the logical extension of their
ideas: that *anyone* who does seen as contrary to the Gospel needs to
be repressed. Since we all may differ about just what the Gospel is,
we need to avoid that repression. Paul said as much in the letter to
the Galatians, and we'd be wise to start listening.
-mibmib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (02/14/91)
In article <Feb.10.20.12.39.1991.20355@athos.rutgers.edu> abvax!iccgcc.DNET!benning@uunet.uu.net writes:
Doug. Perhaps this is a result of being forced to swallow the "new-
morality" of this present generation, which is:
- God doesn't exist
- If God doesn't exist, man can define what is right and wrong.
- If someone says what you do is wrong, fund a lobby to put into law
what you do.It is a "personal choice" and part of my freedom of
expression as an American.
- If it feels good then do it.
An example:
A group from the gay community marched on Washington and had many
speakers. One speaker called for an end to sodomy laws. He
said what two consulting adults do in private can NOT be legislated.
"We are not harming anyone with our actions..." went the claim.
I grew up in an environment which did great harm to me, simply because
I am gay. That same environment has hurt thousands of others, and
drives people away from Christ even today. If the issue is "who is
hurting who" (which I don't think it is), then please consider that I
and my brothers and sisters have been immeasurably hurt, by an
environment which claims to represent God's love to the world.
Okay. Maybe he is right.
Then the next speaker gets up and demands more federal money for
AIDS research to save the lives of those dying of this illness.
Indeed. A Christian response is to help those who are suffering
regardless of why they suffer. Thumbs up for that speaker.
Hey wait. I though what two (or more) adults did in private wasn't
going to effect me. Now they want more money (which I agree the money
is needed) to cure an illness spread through the intimacy of these
individuals while in the privacy of there own home. Sounds like wanting
to eat the cake and have it also. That federal money comes from you and
me. So if more is needed for AIDS research, we help pay for it.
What two people do in private has nothing to do with AIDS. Gay sex
certainly doesn't cause AIDS; and it only spreads it if people are
promiscuous and/or unsafe. This implies that the best response is to
spread information about safer sex practices. As OFM pointed out, it
also indicates that gay people should be encouraged to enter long-term
committed relationships.
It also implies that we should encourage women to have sex exclusively
with other women, because lesbian sex (promiscuous or not) is by its
very nature far less susceptible to disease spread than straight or
gay male sex.
An example:
I Tell my children that the Bible TEACHES that homosexuality is sin.
And those who claim to be, are no different than adulterers or one who
sleeps with their sister. It is rebelion against God and through Jesus
bringing you new life through faith, you can overcome the sin, and live
a "normal" life of "normal" God given relations with the opposite sex.
And just this has damaged, and continues to damage, thousands of
people daily. Day in, and day out, year in, and year out, this idea
is thrust forth, masquerading as love, and asking me and my sisters
and brothers to hate ourselves. We've discussed on this newsgroup
before whether the Bible does teach that, and I don't want to do so
again. Suffice it to say that I am damaged, and by this idea, and by
those who promulgate it.
THEN, Television tells my children dad is an old fashion dope. The Schools
WANT TO open a gay-awareness SUPPORT OFFICE TO TELL school age boys that
it is okay AND NORMAL to want sex with the quarterback. Dad gets hit with
a civil right law suit and is forced to work the AIDS floor at the local
hospital because the Judge thinks it will help Dad respect other people
more than he did before.
Is that what really happens? Television, aside from a few isolated
lights, is certainly not supportive of gay people. What that school
office is doing is teaching those kids that they are loved, that they
are not alone, and that they should not hate themselves. What you are
trying to teach them is that love is conditional upon sexual
preference, that they are alone and without peers, and that they
should hate themselves. While your love may indeed be so conditional,
God's is not.
No. I think what you see as just a reaction of having Imorality shoved
down the throats of Christians, through TV, movies, Schools, public
figures (even elected representatives) who have attacked the moral
characters of believers.
What I do does not effect your "moral character". If the Reformers
were right, we have no moral character at all, but rather an automatic
opposition to God and God's will. To claim that only straight people
can be acceptable to God is remarkably similar to claiming that only
those who are circumcised can be acceptable to God. The OT certainly
is filled with statements about "the uncircumcised", and there is the
overall conception that the uncircumcised are not acceptable to God.
Paul was marking a serious change by saying that circumcision, a
fundamental part of morality for the Jew, was not important.
Granted, If we did it right, we would do it through the power of God
as the first believers did. But Lord help us, we do what we can. In America
I would say there is freedom of religion, but don't practice it outside
of your home. It has been made illegal (in my opinion).
Not at all. Rather, it is illegal to impose religion on those who
don't want it. And labelling evolution or gay rights as a religion is
obscurantism, pure and simple, and conducive only to still more hate.
Perhaps it is a form of making rules. But when laws are passed
against you, this might seem the mose proper way to protect what
you regard as precious. Mixed with faith and trust, this could be
a credible reaction. Though I know the Lord forbids murder, I
often wonder what I would do if my childrens lives were
threatened. Would I attempt to free them through any means
(violence, killing the attacker???) or would I trust them to the
Lord through faith. Many times GOD requires faith and trust TO BE
ACCOMPANIED with action.
Tell me, how on earth does my right to have sex consitute a law passed
against you? On the other hand, a law prohibiting me from having sex
*is* a law against me. I have been hurt too much to be told that my
desire for simple civil rights is damaging to you. Many said the same
thing to civil rights leaders in the sixties, and have rightly been
denounced as promulgators of hate, no different from the hate forced
daily upon gay people in the name of Christ. The church which fosters
such ideas is corrupt and morally bankrupt, and in the words of my
pastor, I consider myself a walking miracle for having endured it thus
far.
-miblindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (02/14/91)
In article <Feb.10.20.13.19.1991.20371@athos.rutgers.edu> gchin@eng.sun.com (Gary Chin) writes: >In article <Feb.6.03.02.40.1991.25888@athos.rutgers.edu>, DOUG@ysub.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell) writes: >> It's becoming more common for Christians to attempt (through boycotts >> or legislation) to impose their moral standards on nonbelievers. >Laws don't prevent sin, they point out sin. I don't beieve any law was ever passed that had anything to do with the sinnful nature of the act in question. 'Sin' is a religious concept and term and is, to my knowledge, not used in legal procedings. >I believe >that if something is against the law, more people will >recognize that society doesn't encourage that kind of >activity. True. But making something illegal is not always the best way to handle the situation (take prohibition, for instance). >It makes sense to right one wrong at a time. If >I disapprove of something that is contrary to God's laws, >I should let my government representatives know about it. Unfortunately we are not a theocracy... we are a democracy with a strict separation of church and State (if Pain had his way there would be much more than mere 'separation'.) If Christianity were suddenly surpassed by, oh, say, Islam as the dominate religion in this contry, would you feel it was ok for the Islamics to pass laws based on their conception of what 'god' tells them is right and wrong? Oh, me thinks not! The same line of reasoning applies to what you are saying. You arrogantly assume that the inherent truth of your possition is self evident to everyone willing to look. It is not and the Christian history on morality is shakey at best. The Old Testament (or the Tanak... I'm a equal opportunity agnostic...) is FILLED with things sanctioned by God (Yahweh) that would cause outrage by today's standards. For instance God gives Moses several laws pertaining to the treatment of slaves (such as if you beat your slave too hard and he dies... its ok because he was your property to begin with). E-Gads! Don't piosly sit there and try and tell me Christinity and the Bible stand for morality and what is 'good' and 'right' for everyone. Some of us are moral on our own with no threat of punishment in the afterlife necessary to motivate us. >> Whenever I see this happening, I wonder if the Christianity they practice >> has any real power or virtue of its own, or whether it's just a form of >> making rules rather than living by faith and trust. > >I live by faith in Jesus, and I want my community to >know about it. While I am here, I am a witness for >Christ. Being a witness is fine... I encourage you to show us what a good Christian should be. But I draw the line when you start to try and make us be what you consider to be a good Christian through the ledgislation of laws that affect everyone. >Gary Jeff Lindborg "I support your right to believe as you like as long as you limit the practice of those beliefs to yourself."
BINDNER@auvm.auvm.edu (02/14/91)
Group, Imposed moral behavior is coercion, not moral behavior (which must come from a free conscience, the same way belief must). In a free society (such as ours) the ideal is for law to protect the innocent against violence. To go beyond this invites tyranny by the majority against the individual and the minority. Being Christian does not prevent a society from practicing tyranny (religious extremism is among the worst kinds and invites God's most severe punishments). Examples of such tyranny are the crusades, the conversion of Gaul by the sword, the Inquisition, the religious wars of the early modern age, the Isalmic revolution in Iran, the persecution of Arabs in Isreal, violence in India and Pakistan, the Pogroms of Russia and Eastern Europe, the Holocost. All of these persecuters felt empowered by God to commit these acts. I don't think God likes his name used by these people for hate. The reason we have a free (and yes, secular) society is to avoid these extremes. Though we don't always live up to the ideal (sodomy laws - WITHIN MARRAIGE, Know Nothing Party against Catholics) we have come the closest so far. Remember, the persecutions came about because the state religion of Rome felt threatenned by the new Christianity. This after the Church had taught submission to civil authority (quite ironically). Considering what happenned after the quote I'd take it with a grain of salt and use it in the context of rendering unto Ceasar. Remember, Christ also said "put not your faith in princes." The idea of forcing moral behavior on non-believers is anathema to Christ. He even objected to the Pharasee party who did it in a religious context, for "the letter of the law killith, the spirit givith life." The purpose of a moral life is not to get into heaven, but to LIVE HAPPILY ON EARTH. For remember, Christ said "MY YOLK IS EASY, AND MY BURDEN IS LIGHT." Keeping the commandments is a guide to avoid experiencing pain, and causing pain to others. To assure ones self a place in heaven one must go farther than simple morality. If you're really serious about holiness sell all that you have and follow Him. Forsake material excess and spend your life doing his work among sinners. Then you can be satisfied. Until then, don't impose your morality on others. If you wish to save them, do it through example. Show them that the moral life produces happiness on earth. You may lead them to Christ in this way. Michael P.S. On the post about not renting to fornicators. In many juridictions fornication is an illegal activity. Most leases are broken by conducting unlawful behavior. However, to not rent for this reason is to do the work of Ceasar, not of Christ. Christ would probably rent the room.
merlyn@digibd.com (Brian Westley (Merlyn LeRoy)) (02/18/91)
abvax!iccgcc.DNET!benning@uunet.uu.net writes: >An example: > I Tell my children that the Bible TEACHES that homosexuality is sin. > And those who claim to be, are no different than adulterers or one who > sleeps with their sister. It is rebelion against God and through Jesus > bringing you new life through faith, you can overcome the sin, and live > a "normal" life of "normal" God given relations with the opposite sex. > THEN, Television tells my children dad is an old fashion dope. The Schools > WANT TO open a gay-awareness SUPPORT OFFICE TO TELL school age boys that > it is okay AND NORMAL to want sex with the quarterback. Dad gets hit with > a civil right law suit and is forced to work the AIDS floor at the local > hospital because the Judge thinks it will help Dad respect other people > more than he did before. How does Dad get hit with a civil right law suit? He has a right to tell his children that homosexuality, sex with someone of another race, eating lobster, or going to a Catholic church is a sin; any lawyer will tell you that. Who could possibly have standing to file a civil rights suit against him? I thought this thread would discuss what the subject implies; imposing Christian morality on non-believers, such as laws against homosexuality, laws against sex with someone of another race (not too popular now, but common a few years ago), eating lobster (read Leviticus), or going to a Catholic church (not possible since the 1st and 14th amendments were passed). Should we ban alcohol and allow polygamy, to follow Islam? How will good Catholics get Communion wine? Should we allow alcohol and ban polygamy, to follow Catholicism? How can a good Muslim marry his deceased brother's wife if he is already married? I'll tell you what; if you can show how my actions harm you, we can probably agree (to some extent) how such harmful actions can be restricted. If you can only argue that my actions spiritually harm me, or offend your god, or harm "society" (the only part of society I'm harming is me unless you can show otherwise; then it becomes the first case), let me & god worry about that. He can always send in the odd lightning bolt if I get too uppity. Until then, I think eating lobster, homosexuality, going to a Catholic church, sex with a member of another race, polygamy, alcohol, peyote, and teaching your children that any or all of these are forbidden (or required) should be legal. --- Merlyn LeRoy
crf@tomato.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) (02/18/91)
In article <Feb.14.07.03.14.1991.23265@athos.rutgers.edu> mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes: >In article <Feb.10.20.12.39.1991.20355@athos.rutgers.edu> abvax!iccgcc.DNET!benning@uunet.uu.net writes: > I Tell my children that the Bible TEACHES that homosexuality is sin. > And those who claim to be, are no different than adulterers or one who > sleeps with their sister. It is rebelion against God and through Jesus > bringing you new life through faith, you can overcome the sin, and live > a "normal" life of "normal" God given relations with the opposite sex. > >And just this has damaged, and continues to damage, thousands of >people daily. Day in, and day out, year in, and year out, this idea >is thrust forth, masquerading as love, and asking me and my sisters >and brothers to hate ourselves. ... Not quite. There are two different things being spoken of here: 1. the assertion that homosexuality is sin 2. the assertion that because of #1, homosexuals should be severely judged Remember that Jesus kept these two things distinct. If you read "prostitutes" or "tax-collectors" in place of "homosexuals" above, then His attitude becomes clear: He never hesitated to love the "sinners," but He could always say to them, "Go and sin no more" - and, because of His radical love for them, they went and sinned no more! Although we have no records of His ever encountering a homosexual (who in all probability would have been shunned by Jewish society just as the prostitutes were), I strongly suspect His approach would be similar. If I may try to summarize, Michael is apparently saying this: in the past people who say homosexuality is a sin have used this as a reason for hatred; this hatred has been very damaging to homosexuals and produced just the opposite effect of Christian love. So far I agree completely. But Michael seems to go on to imply that because of all this we as Christians cannot consider homosexuality as wrong; with this part I disagree completely. Homosexuality is a sin; but then, so are fornication, adultery, jealousy, stealing, murder, pride, coldness of heart, and many other things. Jesus loves us despite our sins, and through that love calls _all_ of us to turn from _all_ kinds of sin; if only we could show that same kind of love! Grace and peace, Charles Ferenbaugh [No, that's not quite what is being said. Most homosexual Christians operate from the perspective that homosexuality is a basic character trait about which the person has no choice. As such you can't say "go and be homosexual no more". But this is the approach that most of the Church has taken. If someone who is homosexual accepts this instruction, they find it impossible to comply, and quite often end up considering themselves worthless. Of course the Christians who object to homosexuality do not accept this analysis. They regard it as equivalent to a thief claiming that his desires are a built-in thief orientation. It appears that this differences in perspective is a basic one, on which arguments have almost no impact. This tends to result in discussions that are less productive than usual. --clh]
ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) (02/18/91)
In article <Feb.14.07.03.14.1991.23265@athos.rutgers.edu>, mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes: > In article <Feb.10.20.12.39.1991.20355@athos.rutgers.edu> abvax!iccgcc.DNET!benning@uunet.uu.net writes: > > > I grew up in an environment which did great harm to me, simply because > I am gay. That same environment has hurt thousands of others, and > drives people away from Christ even today. If the issue is "who is > hurting who" (which I don't think it is), then please consider that I > and my brothers and sisters have been immeasurably hurt, by an > environment which claims to represent God's love to the world. > Before I begin, I will state that I believe it is possible for someone who has participated in homosexual activity to be forgiven and to become a Christian. I also believe that it is possible for that same person to backslide into his/her sinful behavior. Even so, that same person is still a Christian. As I have posted from a variety of Bible verses, the Bible shows that homosexuality is a sin. If you participate in homosexual behavior, you are committing a sin. Christ has said that "...you cannot serve God and mammon." Therefore, you simply cannot continue to fill your lustful desires and serve God. You must choose between the two. You cannot be a practicing Christian and committ homosexual acts. The two are contradictory. The Bible also teaches that sin separates you from God. In addition, it tells us that when a member of a church is living a sinful life and refuses to repent and after numerous attempts by Christians, then that person should be excommunicated from the church. So, when you committ sins, you will not only be far away from God, but God has ordered that when the sins reach an extreme, you should be excommunicated. Also, while we are told to leave the judgement of the heathen to God, we are told to rebuke our brother/sister. Therefore, it is the sinner who has cut himself off from God. Do not blame those who are following God's will in rebuking you. Elizabeth
kbowman@eng.auburn.edu (Kevin Bowman) (02/19/91)
In article <Feb.14.07.04.49.1991.23297@athos.rutgers.edu> lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: >In article <Feb.10.20.13.19.1991.20371@athos.rutgers.edu> gchin@eng.sun.com (Gary Chin) writes: >>In article <Feb.6.03.02.40.1991.25888@athos.rutgers.edu>, DOUG@ysub.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell) writes: >>> It's becoming more common for Christians to attempt (through boycotts >>> or legislation) to impose their moral standards on nonbelievers. > >>Laws don't prevent sin, they point out sin. > >I don't beieve any law was ever passed that had anything to do with the >sinnful nature of the act in question. 'Sin' is a religious concept and >term and is, to my knowledge, not used in legal procedings. It would be misleading to think that simply because the word `sin` is not explicitly stated in legal proceedings that this concept has no place in legal thought. Laws are made to both regulate and instruct its citizens on what is acceptable behavior within that society. There is an implicit metaphysical assumption that the nature of its citizens are such that they do in fact break these laws and must therefore be restrained or they will continue to do so. This metaphysical presupposition is called a `sinful nature' in Christian terminology and is the reason that laws are passed. > > If Christianity were suddenly surpassed by, oh, say, Islam as the >dominate religion in this contry, would you feel it was ok for the >Islamics to pass laws based on their conception of what 'god' tells >them is right and wrong? Oh, me thinks not! The same line of reasoning >applies to what you are saying. You arrogantly assume that the >inherent truth of your possition is self evident to everyone willing >to look. Rival conceptions of God in Christianity and Islam are not nearly as relevant as by what basis one defines ethics and how that should be administered in society. How do we define what is acceptable and inacceptable behavior? During Hitler's, Stalin's, and Pol Pot's respective reigns the meaning of ethics and the value of human life were vastly different than those considered by most in Western Society. Their conception of ethics were primarily derived from the notion that man is the automonous arbitrater of what is right and wrong , i.e what is moral. Can any human stand and arrogantly tell another what is right or wrong? Man starting from himself (an agnostic) cannot give any philosophically compelling reason why anyone should be ethical if they don't want to be. But the theist recognizes from the revelation of God that we are responsible to someone higher than ourselves and can not simply do what we wish either to ourselves or to someone else. There also seems to be this idea that seperation of Church and State is anti- thetical to the basic tenets of Christianity. This is not the case. Since the destruction of Israel there has not been a theocracy nor will there be one until the return of our Lord Jesus Christ. Until then we live under Gentile rule. A citizen of such a country is not required to adhere to all of the theological tenets of Christianity because that is not the role that God has ordained for the state to fulfill. This does not mean, however, that a state is emancipated from God's decrees but must uphold justice, peace, and order. This means that while a state should not require a citizen to pledge allegiance to Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord it should demand that a citizen not murder, rape, steal,etc. from his/her fellow neighbor. >Being a witness is fine... I encourage you to show us what a good >Christian should be. But I draw the line when you start to try and >make us be what you consider to be a good Christian through the >ledgislation of laws that affect everyone. > >Jeff Lindborg > Should we then allow Jeff Lindborg to legislate what *he* thinks is moral and just on everyone else. It is a prevalent myth that the laws that we have today are somehow morally `neutral` and are `self-evident` to everyone. We must decide whose morality we are going to enforce on others, not if. I realize that my theistic presuppositions are at variance with what others believe. But I have seen no reason to give mine up and accept someone else's, agnostic or otherwise. Kevin Bowman
DOUG@ysub.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell) (02/19/91)
I see my original posting has degenerated into an argument about homo- sexuality... we just had that debate a few months ago, to no conclusion. Here's another example: Christians urge boycott of a convenience store chain that carries Pent- house (In Ohio, one convenience store chain took a vote from its cust- omers about these magazines. The ballots were overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the magazines). One of the problems I see with legislating morality (besides the questions I posed originally), was that it looks to me like we're trying to make ourselves comfortable in this world, rather than preparing for the next. Are we laying up the wrong treasures ? Also, many of the christians attacking these "ungodly practices" seem to offer nothing positive about their faith, except to say that "I'm a christian, so I don't approve of ...., and I'm going to try to stamp it out". Jesus had compassion for sinners, and offered them a life in exchange. His harshest condemnation was for pharisees that imposed rules on others, when they weren't sinless. Some of the christians I have watched in action would be reaching for rocks when Jesus said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Doug -- Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, doug@ysub.bitnet Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH 44555 doug@ysub.ysu.edu Life is difficult for the organizationally-impaired.
mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (02/19/91)
In article <Feb.17.23.27.29.1991.21530@athos.rutgers.edu> ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes:
Before I begin, I will state that I believe it is possible for someone
who has participated in homosexual activity to be forgiven and to become
a Christian. I also believe that it is possible for that same person
to backslide into his/her sinful behavior. Even so, that same person
is still a Christian.
Well, I'm glad that you don't deny my Christianity. At least, not
yet.
As I have posted from a variety of Bible verses, the Bible shows that
homosexuality is a sin. If you participate in homosexual behavior, you
are committing a sin. Christ has said that "...you cannot serve God
and mammon." Therefore, you simply cannot continue to fill your lustful
desires and serve God. You must choose between the two. You cannot
be a practicing Christian and committ homosexual acts. The two are
contradictory.
Ah, well, you do know indicate that I'm not Christian. At least, not
*really*. Hmm. Can you be a Christian and commit any sin at all?
Further, how dare you tell me that I "fill my lustful desires"? Do
you have any biographic information upon which to base that statement?
You haven't quoted *any* scripture, at least not in this posting. If
you did so previously, I must have missed it. It's up to OFM if he
wants to tolerate that discussion again. However, let me state that I
do *not* find the quotations you are likely to present as in any way
prohibitive of all gay sexual acts.
Finally, note that it is perfectly possible to be homosexual and not
have sex at all.
The Bible also teaches that sin separates you from God. In addition,
it tells us that when a member of a church is living a sinful life
and refuses to repent and after numerous attempts by Christians, then
that person should be excommunicated from the church.
Indeed. If my church chooses to exclude me, so be it. I recognize
their right to do so. But I believe that such exclusion is not
exclusion from the grace of God or from fellowship with Christ. I can
find a group of Christians who are accepting.
So, when you committ sins, you will not only be far away from God, but
God has ordered that when the sins reach an extreme, you should be
excommunicated. Also, while we are told to leave the judgement of the
heathen to God, we are told to rebuke our brother/sister.
You can rebuke me, but you must grant me the right of rebuttal and
give me due charity. If you will not take my statements at face
value, then there is no basis for discussion. How to you reply to my
assertion that being gay is an inalterable fact of personality? Your
statements offer no alternative but celibacy. Is that your true
belief, or do you contest (with no experience upon which to do so)
that sexuality cannot be changed?
Therefore, it is the sinner who has cut himself off from God. Do not
blame those who are following God's will in rebuking you.
Ah, I don't blame you. I merely ask that you give me due credit.
-mibJeremy.Gibbons@prg.oxford.ac.uk (Jeremy Gibbons) (02/25/91)
ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes > You cannot be a practicing Christian and committ homosexual acts. The two > are contradictory. Does this just apply to homosexual acts? What's so special about them? Or do all sins preclude me from being a practicing Christian? I knew that church numbers were falling, but I didn't realise that there were *no* practicing Christians! Jeremy *-----------------------------------------------------------------------* | Jeremy.Gibbons@prg.oxford.ac.uk PRG, 11 Keble Road, Oxford, UK | *-----------------------------------------------------------------------*
sc1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Chan) (02/28/91)
> Your line of reasoning is muddled at best. Let's analyse this, shall we?? I say: 1) The law should reflect the will of the people 2) Some of the people are Christians therefore 3) Christians should have a right to try to influence the law Not very muddled at all, you see. You say: 1) The law should reflect principles of innocence and guilt 2) Christians have ideas of innocence and guilt based on religion 3) Our government mandates a seperation of Church and State 4) Allowing Christians to influence the law is equivalent to having a theocracy. 5) A theocracy is a a violation of the "seperation of Church and State". THEREFORE 6) Therefore Christians should have no influence over the law and just let the atheists and agnostics decide what is right and wrong in society. Your argument falls apart entirely on point #4. Allowing Christians to influence to the government does not constitute a theocracy. It is merely granting to Christians the same rights which are available to all US citizens. Christians have to face the same checks and balances which any other group must face; they do not have an a priori right to change the law. Lindborg: >No, I didn't. I said that laws based on your belief in God and what >you believe that god tells you (through the bible, I assume) are not >appropriate in our legal system. You have, of course, heard of the >separation of the church and state? The seperation of Church and State means that the government will not impose it's will on the Church (in the way that the English government chooses who gets to be the Archbishop of Canterbury) and that the Church will not impose its will on the government (such as historically when the RC Church had control of over most European governments) You seem to claim that religious conviction is an invalid source for law. Well then, I ask you "What does constitute a valid source for law?" If you're not a total cynic, you might say that laws should be made according to our collective moral consciences. It so happens that religion is a deciding factor in the moral consciences of many people. Are we somehow bereft of the basic rights of citizenship if we base our beliefs on religion? This seems to be what you are claiming, which is why I say that you are arrogant. The people who are arguing for legal changes based on religion are going through the proper channels. They are in no way abrogating the Constitution of the United States in their activities (for the most part). The legal system should reflect the consciences of its citizens, and it is in no way compromised if the citizens have Christian mores, and the law reflects this. >Laws should be made to protect >the innocent, not to expound your beliefs in your god. Sounds good rhetorically - too bad it has no basis in what's *really* happening right now. Are any mainstream Christian groups trying to replace the Pledge of Allegiance with the Nicene Creed? No one is trying to legislate faith. People are trying to bring the law in line with their concepts of morality. This is the right of every US Citizen, be they agnostic, Christian, Marxist, Democrat, Libertarian, Skinheads, etc... A law based on Christian morality is not an endorsement of faith in God - it is an endorsement of government's accountability to its citizenship - some of which happen to be Christian. Stephen Chan
djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (02/28/91)
ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes > You cannot be a practicing Christian and committ homosexual acts. The two > are contradictory. No, dear heart. They are not. Christ does not expect us to be sinless. What Christ expects from us is to examine our own lives, and try to find the sin in them, and confess and repent that sin, and then re-examine our lives and find the sin that's *still* there, etc., in a process that (barring Divine intervention) can never be truly complete in this life. Christ expects that, as we are imperfect, fallen beings, we will commit some sinful acts. He expects that, as soon as we have realized that they are sinful, we will repent them. Christ also expects us not to judge one another. This next paragraph must be read very carefully, elizabeth (do you really spell it with no caps?); for it is *not* directed as a slam at you. I do not judge you; I do not know what your motivations in the above-quoted comment are. I suggest that a gay whose acts -- however sinful they may be, and I do not know whether they are or not -- are committed in honest and charitable love with his or her partner may be much closer to the Holy Spirit than a professing Christian whose preachments at gays come not out of love for them but out of hate for them. I personally think it better for Christians to avoid making such preachments until they are absolutely certain their minds and hearts are clear of any such hate, because we must be right with our brothers before offering sacrifice.
ALLEN@mscf.med.upenn.edu (03/01/91)
In article <Feb.26.04.35.00.1991.12964@athos.rutgers.edu> lieuwen@mycella.cs.wisc.edu (Dan Lieuwen) writes about homosexuality: Even if it is a basic character trait, that does not imply a person has no choice about actions. [...] A person has the ability to choose not to perform a given action, although it may be difficult. Despite our society's best efforts to the contrary, there are many Christian (and Muslim and Orthodox Jewish) people in this country who practice continence until married. Some Christians choose celibacy for life. I doubt any of these people find this an easy thing to do. This is where your analogy breaks down. Some Christians *choose* celibacy, but the church, if it accepts a homosexual orientation, often *requires* celibacy from homosexuals. I think that homosexuals should be free to choose whether or not to be celibate. One interpretation of the creation story in Genesis is that the Creator created Eve as a helpmate/companion for Adam. People who would require homosexuals to be celibate are denying them the joy of having such a helpmate/companion. Finally, it is illegal for homosexuals to get married (unless one of them happens to be a Danish citizen). Requiring them to be celibate until marriage is equivalent to requiring them to be celibate. -- 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 ---
mib@churchy.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (03/01/91)
In article <Feb.27.00.25.02.1991.8893@athos.rutgers.edu> sc1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Chan) writes: mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes: > Indeed. If my church chooses to exclude me, so be it. I recognize > their right to do so. But I believe that such exclusion is not > exclusion from the grace of God or from fellowship with Christ. I can > find a group of Christians who are accepting. > That last sentence seems to be a very damaging exposition of your relationship to religion: you seem to imply that religion serves to vindicate your own beliefs about right and wrong. Do you actually *follow* a set of beliefs, or do you fish around until you find one that accomodates you? I don't claim to follow a set of beliefs, rather, I claim to follow a person, the one man Christ. If a church were to exclude me for reasons relating to sexual orientation, I would conclude that they were sufficiently distant from Christ in that respect that I would be comfortable finding another congregation. The "office of the keys", given so much attention by the Roman church and by the Reformers, refers to just this ability of a church. If I were excluded, I would certainly consider the matter very carefully. The statements of my church *do* carry considerable weight with me, and I don't dismiss them lightly, if I do at all. The sentence before that includes "fellowship with Christ". Are you his follower, or his equal? The demands of following Christ are quite well known, we don't get to introduce exceptions or loopholes. One of the particularly nice things about Christianity, as it happens, is that following Christ is the same as being his friend. Did I say equal? No. I said "fellowship". I am his fellow, his brother, an adopted son of God. The words are Paul's, not mine. I'm not trying to introduce exceptions or loopholes. If you believe that then you will begin to understand what I'm saying here. Homosexuality, in orthodox jewish teaching, is wrong. It is also wrong in traditional Christian morality. If you're trying to argue that homosexuality is not a sin (in the context of Christianity), then you'll have to overturn not only 2000 years of Christian teaching, but also another ~2000 years of Hebrew teaching too. I'm more than willing to essentially disregard orthodox Jewish teaching about morality. Equally abhorent in the Torah is the wearing of clothes made with more than one color of fiber. Do you do that? The "traditional Christian morality" you claim is anything but that. Persecution of gay people started in about the 13th century AD. Prior to that, there is no evidence of any widespread harm done to gay people throughout Christendom, nor any widespread consensus on the morality of gay people. Also, note that homosexuality is not the same as gay sex. It is possible to be homosexual and never have gay sex, and it is possible to be heterosexual and never have straight sex. >How to you reply to my >assertion that being gay is an inalterable fact of personality? Your >statements offer no alternative but celibacy. Is that your true >belief, or do you contest (with no experience upon which to do so) >that sexuality cannot be changed? Personality is not inalterable. In fact, being a good Christian entails constantly altering your personality to bring yourself closer to the ideal. Being a Christian isn't just a matter of going to church and professing faith in Christ. It implies an all pervasive change in attitudes, desires and actions. I didn't say that "personality is inalterable". I said that being gay is inalterable. You, again, fail to take me at my word. This is the antithesis of Christianity. I have presented my experience, which you have no data save dogma to oppose it with. And, I'd like to turn this around. Did this all-pervasive change change your attitude toward homosexuality upon being a Christian, or are your ideas essentially the same as they would be if you were a non-Christian? Most people I've met that oppose gay people would do so regardless of whether they are a Christian or not. If this is not done, then being a Christian has no more significance than joining a club, or entering a new social group. Unfortunately, for many people, this seems to be the case. You don't have to tell me this! I'm the person who messes up too many comfortable church meetings pointing out that the church is more than another humanitarian social service group. >Ah, I don't blame you. I merely ask that you give me due credit. You have a right to your opinion. But the weight of tradition and experience makes your protests seem very hollow. Where is the weight of experience? Of tradition? Have you any documents attesting to this tradition? Historians have detected a marked shift in attitudes around the 13th century, but not before. They have plenty of documents attesting to the widespread acceptance of gay people prior to that, and to occasional vigorous debate. Christians have a duty to show charity to everyone, sinners and saints alike. But if you profess to be a Christian, then you should struggle to avoid sin - not just shrug it off as a personality trait. The easy, comfortable road is the usually the sinful one. You, AGAIN, miss the entire point. I don't claim that homosexuality is sinful, but that I can excuse it. Rather, I claim that being gay simply isn't a sin. It isn't any more sinful that being left handed, or eating with the left hand. It just has nothing to do with sin. And, how DARE you tell me that this is the "easy, comfortable road"?! The history of persecution, of the murders of thousands of gay people by bigots, of being excluded from the community claiming to show God's love, you call that EASY? It's not easy, it's very, very painful. So painful, in fact, that this will be my last post in this thread. We're just not getting anywhere. -mib
lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (03/05/91)
In article <Feb.28.03.41.02.1991.9831@athos.rutgers.edu> sc1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Chan) writes: > 1) The law should reflect the will of the people > 2) Some of the people are Christians > therefore > 3) Christians should have a right to try to influence the law Fine... no agument there. Lets see how you twist what I did say into what you wanted me to say: > You say: > 1) The law should reflect principles of innocence and guilt > 2) Christians have ideas of innocence and guilt based on religion Not necessarily! There are a wide diversity of opinion among many question of morality (abortion for isntance). Futher, an earlier post of mine pointed out that according to the bible slavery would be ok. I think you'd have a hard time finding a Christian would would base still find slavery acceptable. > 3) Our government mandates a seperation of Church and State > 4) Allowing Christians to influence the law is equivalent to > having a theocracy. Again, this isn't even close to what I said. I said that when Christians try and influence the passing of laws that are based *solely* of religious ideas of morality that have little or no practial basis for being made into law, the lawmakers should reject their bid. They are working for the state, not for the religious views of their consituents (even if the majority of their voters are Christian). If Christians (or any other cross section of society) wants to try and lobby something into law... fine. If these proposed laws are based on the practical good they will have on society, fine and good. If they are based on nothing but religious conviction, they should be dumped. Was it clear that time? > 5) A theocracy is a a violation of the "seperation of Church >and State". > THEREFORE > 6) Therefore Christians should have no influence over the law >and just let the atheists and agnostics decide what is right and wrong >in society. An entirely erroneous conclusion made with a poor understanding of what I had to say. [a number of concusions made on the above assumptions deleted ] > The legal system should reflect the consciences of its >citizens, and it is in no way compromised if the citizens have >Christian mores, and the law reflects this. Then you would have no problem if the majority of the people were Islamic and laws were passed concerning women having to remain covered when outside their home? Or laws about death penalty being invoked for crimes such as fornication and theft? These are morals based on the dominant religion, after all! And our laws should reflect the views of the majority, right? Wrong! Where would our civil rights movment be if the "majority" were allowed to dictate everything? Think this one through for a minute... > Are any mainstream Christian groups trying to replace the >Pledge of Allegiance with the Nicene Creed? Well, the Arizona state republican party has declared the United States to be a "Christian Nation" (as opposed to a secular one, I assume). Possibly not "mainstream", but its a start. > No one is trying to legislate faith. People are trying to >bring the law in line with their concepts of morality. The law is not there for you to dictate to the rest of us what you consider moral or not. I know this is difficult for you to swallow but not all of us agree with you... > A law based on Christian morality is not an endorsement of >faith in God - it is an endorsement of government's accountability to >its citizenship - some of which happen to be Christian. Actualy, most of them are. Which is why its dangerous to assume that because you are in the majority you can dictate the behavior of the rest because they are in the minority. Think about the civil rights movement and the Islamic analogy for a bit... Jeff Lindborg
ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) (03/06/91)
In article <Feb.28.04.16.10.1991.10333@athos.rutgers.edu>, djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes: > ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes > > > You cannot be a practicing Christian and committ homosexual acts. The two > > are contradictory. > > No, dear heart. They are not. Christ does not expect us to be sinless. Note the word PRACTICING. A practicing Christian is not just someone who is a Christian (through faith in Jesus Christ) but is instead someone who practices what he/she claims to believe in. One who is a Christian believes in the Bible and its teachings. Thus, if one want to be a practicing Christian, one should strive to do those things that the Bible teaches. While none of us are perfect, we should at least try. > > Christ also expects us not to judge one another. > I am not judging you. For all I know, you may be a heterosexual who is pulling a prank. I am simply stating that the Bible forbids homosexuality. > > I suggest that a gay whose acts -- however sinful they may be, and I do not know > whether they are or not -- are committed in honest and charitable love with his > or her partner may be much closer to the Holy Spirit than a professing Christian This is absolute blasphemy. It's like saying that two people in an adulterous relationship are close to God when they are "doing it", or that a murderer is close to God when he kills. The Bible clearly shows that homosexuality is a sin. Sin separates one from God. It does not bring him/her closer to God. > whose preachments at gays come not out of love for them but out of hate for > them. I personally think it better for Christians to avoid making such So, this is what it comes down to. I simply reiterate what the Bible says, and because you don't want to accept it, you indirectly accuse me of hating you. What a cop - out. My question would be, is one more interested in doing the Lord's will, no matter what it may be, than he is in sticking to his/her own version of right and wrong? Elizabeth
lieuwen@mycella.cs.wisc.edu (Dan Lieuwen) (03/06/91)
[This continues the discussion of whether homosexuality is a basic character trait, and if so what it implies. > This is where your analogy breaks down. Some Christians *choose* > celibacy, but the church, if it accepts a homosexual orientation, often > *requires* celibacy from homosexuals. I think that homosexuals should be > free to choose whether or not to be celibate. --clh] They may choose whether or not to be celibate, just as any single person has the choice about whether or not to be continent. In both cases, if they choose not to accept continence, they have made a choice that goes against historic Christianity. They have the right to do so. However, they should not try to distort Christian dogma by saying that their behavior is Christian behavior. If they wish to start their own religion, that is their business--but it unjust for them to try to warp historic Christianity. Orientations are not all good. Some people, for whatever reason, have a sadistic bent. The Gospel requires that they not act on this bent. I am not trying to compare homosexuals to sadists, but only to call into question the premise that if a person has a certain orientation, it is always right to act on that orientation. Dan
lieuwen@mycella.cs.wisc.edu (Dan Lieuwen) (03/06/91)
^The "traditional Christian morality" you claim is anything but that. ^Persecution of gay people started in about the 13th century AD. ^... Historians have detected a ^marked shift in attitudes around the 13th century, but not before. ^They have plenty of documents attesting to the widespread acceptance ^of gay people prior to that, and to occasional vigorous debate. You ignore the Didache which can be found in The Apostolic Fathers, some of the earliest writings of the church after the close of the the New Testament era. It clearly forbids sodomy. If that's not sufficient, it is not a very difficult task to find other explicit condemnation of homosexual sexual activity in the Church Fathers. Dan
rjb@akgua.att.com (Robert J Brown) (03/06/91)
In article <Mar.1.02.57.09.1991.15601@athos.rutgers.edu>, mib@churchy.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes: > mucho deleto > > And, I'd like to turn this around. Did this all-pervasive change > change your attitude toward homosexuality upon being a Christian, or > are your ideas essentially the same as they would be if you were a > non-Christian? Most people I've met that oppose gay people would do > so regardless of whether they are a Christian or not. > see above > > -mib Do we have a logic problem here ? I think that ALL truth is God's truth. If homosexuality is wrong (that is Not truth), then it is so irrespective of my position in the universe as a Christian or Non-C. For instance, I was against the common cold before becoming a Christian. I remain faithful to that position today. The KKK is likely to be against both the common cold (for White Folks anyway) and homosexuality. Since they are palpably anti- Christian, should that affect my position on either issue ? Again, since all Truth is God's truth the KKK may be correct on both these issues even though they are a group whose basis and positions on many subjects are "wrong". Bob akgua!rjb
rvp@softserver.canberra.edu.au (Rey Paulo) (03/08/91)
In article <Feb.28.04.16.10.1991.10333@athos.rutgers.edu> djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes: >ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes > >> You cannot be a practicing Christian and committ homosexual acts. The two >> are contradictory. > >No, dear heart. They are not. Christ does not expect us to be sinless. Wrong. While I agree that Christ does not expect us to be sinless, to willfully commit sin is another issue. As far as I can understand, homosexuals are well aware that homosexual acts constitute sin. Therefore, a homosexual committing homosexual acts is willfully comitting sin and in my belief the forgiveness of such sin is in question. We should all be aware that there are sins which are unforgivable. What Christ wants from all of us (including homosexuals) after all our previous sins have been confessed and cleansed, is to stay away from sin. This does not mean, however, that we should sin no more but only under circumstances which is entirely and humanly impossible for us to avoid and more importantly, it is not for us to decide what those circumstances are. In fact the ideal scenario is to sin no more as Christ said after healing a sick man "Go and sin no more!". But since we are humans and hence weak, all along we still stumble but not willfully. I firmly believe that committing homosexual acts are well under the control of homosexuals in the same way as a normal man and woman abstain from sex. > >I suggest that a gay whose acts -- however sinful they may be, and I do not know >whether they are or not -- are committed in honest and charitable love with his >or her partner may be much closer to the Holy Spirit than a professing Christian This statement is the same as saying: "When a person kills someone as long as he does it in honest and charitable love with the victim then he may be closer to the Holy Spirit ..." This uncomfortably leads us to the topic of "mercy killing" which is highly debatable and which I think every christian does not approve. -- Rey V. Paulo | Internet : rvp@csc.canberra.edu.au University of Canberra | "One and one and one is three" PO Box 1, Belconnen ACT, AUSTRALIA | -The Beatles --------------------------------------+----------------------------------- [Most homosexual Christians -- at least the ones that speak openly on the subject -- seem not to believe that homosexual activity is sin. You may say they are wrong, but it seems odd to say that they know it is sin. --clh]
djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (03/09/91)
In article <Mar.5.23.47.16.1991.23197@athos.rutgers.edu> ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes: >While none of us are perfect, we should at least try. Absolutely. > I am not judging you. For all I know, you may be a heterosexual who is >pulling a prank. I am simply stating that the Bible forbids homosexuality. You *are* judging me: you are assuming that anyone who writes such a thing seriously must be gay. I am not. I am about as heterosexual as they come, married with kids. I also have the advantage of knowing a number of gays well, and knowing that it is perfectly possible to be gay and still love Jesus and call him Lord. . . a possibility you dismiss out of hand. *If* it is sinful to be gay, a matter which is not as open and shut as you seem to think it is, then all that means is that you can't be gay and be perfect. None of us, or durned few, will achieve perfection in this life. I'm reasonable certain I won't. All of us are sinners. I have a short temper at times. My fellow Christians try to help me control it, through prayer and reminders. What I don't understand is: why does this *particular* sin make you ineligible to be a Christian, while a short temper, or the willingness to assume another person must be either gay or joking, does not? Is it intrinsically worse than all those other sins? And who says so? Isn't trying to say whose sins are worse than who else's sins *also* a form of judging? >This is absolute blasphemy. It's like saying that two people in an >adulterous relationship are close to God when they are "doing it", or that >a murderer is close to God when he kills. What I said was not that gay sex _per_ _se_ brings one closer to God. What I said was that *ANY* act committed in a spirit of love, is more godly than *ANY* act committed in a spirit of hate. >The Bible clearly shows that homosexuality is a sin. Sin separates one >from God. It does not bring him/her closer to God. The Bible also "clearly shows" that eating crab is a sin. Do you ever eat shellfish or pork? Do any useful work between sunset Friday and sunset Saturday? By your own logic, if you do these things, you are not a Christian. The history shown in the Bible is one in which a series of Covenants supercede each other, each being more "advanced" in godliness than the one before. Christ's Covenant, the final Covenant, freed us from the complex, prescriptive and essentially negative nature of the Mosaic Law (thou shalt not, thou shalt not, with the occasional thou shalt thrown in so people would have *something* to do), *WHICH* *WAS* *NEVER* *BINDING* *ON* *ANYONE* *BUT* *THE* *HEBREWS* *ANYWAY*, and replaced it with a simpler, descriptive, and positive Law, stated in the two Great Commandments: Love God, and Love your neighbor as yourself. (Note that, implied in that second, is a certain degree of self-love: not vanity or pride, but accepting that, since God loves you, you must be worthy of love, despite your sinful condition.) St. Paul spent years of his life struggling with this, as shown in the New Testament, and finally realized that Christians were not bound by the rituals of the Mosaic Law, but only by the law of Love, _caritas_. We are required to obey the laws of the land (rendering unto Caesar), but beyond that, our acts are bound only by Love. Love of God must come first, of course. >So, this is what it comes down to. I simply reiterate what the Bible says, >and because you don't want to accept it, you indirectly accuse me of hating >you. What a cop - out. No, I do *not* accuse *you* of anything. I believe that many Christians attack gays out of hate. I do not know why you attack gays in the way you do. I do not accuse you of hating gays. Even if I did, it would not be accusing you of hating me. I am, as I said above, not gay. I merely believe in treating gays with the Love they deserve as God's creatures, whom He loves, whom He loved enough to die for. If he did that, can we do less than love? >My question would be, is one more interested in doing the Lord's will, >no matter what it may be, than he is in sticking to his/her own version >of right and wrong? "One" is interested in doing the Lord's will, as embodied in the words He spoke while He walked among us. "One" is interested in trying to live up to the sacrifice He made for us. "One" is interested in loving His creatures, more than my own idea of what is right and wrong, including "one's" own ideas about sexual morality. "One" has some definite ideas about what is right and wrong, but if "one" were to start applying them to others, "one" would be loving "one's" own ideas more than those others. If the commandments of Love are the "greatest," then any other commandments -- including any commandments concerning sexual morality -- must fall by the wayside in favor of _caritas._ May the Lord bless you and keep you, and all who read this, Dan'l
ALLEN@mscf.med.upenn.edu (03/09/91)
In article <Mar.5.23.47.16.1991.23197@athos.rutgers.edu> ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes in response to: >> I suggest that a gay whose acts -- however sinful they may be, >> and I do not know whether they are or not -- are committed in >> honest and charitable love with his or her partner may be much >> closer to the Holy Spirit than a professing Christian > >This is absolute blasphemy. And don't you think that the Pharisees thought that it was blasphemy for Jesus to heal the blind man on the Sabbath or for Jesus to talk to the Samaritan (and a woman, at that) at the well or for Jesus to clear the moneychangers out of the temple. Christ constantly challenges people to do what is right rather than what Church doctrine says is right. >The Bible clearly shows that homosexuality is a sin. No it does not. People have interpreted it in such a way, but it is not clear that it is a sin. >Sin separates one from God. Which is why homophobia is a sin. It separates the homophobes from God because they cannot accept all God's children as She accepts them. It separates homosexuals from God because they do not to be part of a church that hates them for who they are. Homophobia is a sin; homosexuality is not. >[Sin] does not bring him/her closer to God. This is how I know that homosexuality is not a sin. Accepting my homosexuality allowed me to accept God. If I could not love myself for who I was then how could I accept that God loved me for who I was. Accepting my homosexuality has brought me closer to God. >I simply reiterate what the Bible says, That's right you simply reiterate what the Bible says, just as the Pharisees simply reiterated what the Law said. The Bible is very clear what Jesus thought of the Pharisees. -- 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 ---
johnw@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) (03/14/91)
In article <Mar.5.23.47.16.1991.23197@athos.rutgers.edu> ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes: >In article <Feb.28.04.16.10.1991.10333@athos.rutgers.edu>, djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes: >> ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes >> >> > You cannot be a practicing Christian and committ homosexual acts. The two >> > are contradictory. >> >> No, dear heart. They are not. Christ does not expect us to be sinless. > >Note the word PRACTICING. A practicing Christian is not just someone who >is a Christian (through faith in Jesus Christ) but is instead someone who >practices what he/she claims to believe in. One who is a Christian believes >in the Bible and its teachings. Thus, if one want to be a practicing >Christian, one should strive to do those things that the Bible teaches. One of the things that the Bible teaches is "If you be circumcised [i.e., perform some painful act on yourself to try to be righteous by following some set of rules], Christ shall profit you nothing" (somewhere in Galatians); "I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power [the greek has dunamis, or 'dynamite'] of God unto salvation" (somewhere around Romans 2 or 3). Note that he didn't say the power of the believer--we don't do the work of salvation. Salvation rightly understood means safety, wholeness, following your rightful destiny, in addition to the assurance of going to heaven when we die. > >While none of us are perfect, we should at least try. > If you do you're getting in God's way, and Christ shall profit you nothing. Okay, then what do we have to do? Faithe. Not believe. Place yourself at risk by hanging onto a promise of God (and there are myriads of those). Every day. Faith is hard, but legalism, which I see creeping into this newsgroup, is impossible and not what God expects. Christ does not expect us to be sinless, but he will make us sinless, and the job won't be complete until after we die. John Warren "... Into the narrow lanes, I can't stumble or stay put." - Dylan [The first ref is to Gal 5:2: "if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you". The second is Rom 1:16 --clh]