steveb@u.washington.edu (Steve Born) (07/02/90)
In a recent article, Michael I. Bushnell suggested
1. The Roman church once reqularly performed homosexual marriages.
2. The Reformers went back to these ceremonies to get a more
acceptable substitute for the Roman ceremony of their day,
as far as the wording of the rite was concerned.
Michael then offered to supply the reference for these statements if anyone
so desired. I would like to ask him to publicly post them, for two reasons:
first of all, I doubt if the documentation for such claims can stand serious
scrutiny; and secondly, I would like to open discussion on what I believe to be
one of the most serious problems in the church today, the growing acceptance of
homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.
No matter what the practice of the early Roman Catholic church may have been,
there can be no doubt about the scriptural position in regard to homosexuality.
When Paul wrote to the earliest Christian church in Corinth, he included this
passage in his letter: "Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit
the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, noradulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals ... shall inherit the kingdom of
God. And such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified,
but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit
of our God."
The Greek language (in which Paul was writing) is a very precise and descrip-
tive language -- perhaps moreso than any other language past or present. In theabove passage there can be no doubt about what the word here translated "homo-
sexual" means. The word is _arsenokoites_. It is from the two words _arsen_ (a
man) and _koite_ (a bed). The word means "to lie with a man in a bed".
The word translated "effeminate" is _malakoi_. Dr. Vincent defines it as
meaning "luxurious and dainty"; he comments, "The word was used in a darker and
more horrible sense, to which there may be an allusion here."
There is a passage in the book of Job which says, "Take heed, regard not
iniquity: for this have you chosen rather than affliction." Brothers, let us
be careful. Apparently homosexuality is a compulsion with roots deep within
a person, but the spirit of God is telling us we can be washed even from a sin
such as this. Don't choose the iniquity of homosexuality (either by living in
it or by urging its acceptance as an acceptable lifestyle) over the affliction
of working to be free of this tragic condition. It is no doubt difficult to
work oneself free from homosexuality, but the same is true of alcoholism, cocaine addiction, and abusive behavior; but God can make us free of such things, if
if we humbly accept his help and don't give up. We should nopt
We should not let people think homosexuality is merely a "sexual orientation";it is a condition which is making millions of people miserable in self-hatred,
lonliness, jealously, and disease. In compassion and love we need to show
people there is a way out of it. With gentleness we need to restore them.
The scriptures were I Corinthians 6:9-11 (NASV) and Job 36:21 (KJV). The
quotation from Dr. Vincent was from his _Word Studies in the New Testament_,
vol. III, p. 215.
Steve Born
[Michael has gotten a number of requests for these references. He
tells me he'll be writing something up. He's been delayed by other
business. I'm going to ask people to avoid commenting on his evidence
until they've seen it, though of course that doesn't prevent other
discussion of the subject.
Those of you who have been with this group for a few years may well
share my lack of enthusiasm for yet another goaround. However it's
been long enough that I'm going to allow it.
After having read all these arguments a zillion times, my conclusions
are (1) that a number of passages quoted as against homosexuality are
not. The best example is the destruction of Sodom. It is not due to
homosexuality, but to attacking visitors. Even if the attack had been
heterosexual rape it would have been just as unacceptable. Also, a
number of the words in Paul's lists of sins are rather ambiguous.
With all due respect to the supposed clarify of the Greek language,
there have been arguments of varying degrees of persuasiveness made
against a number of the terms sometimes thought to refer to
homosexuality. The problem is that word roots are not always a
completely reliable basis for judging meaning, particularly in this
area, where slang tends to abound. (2) but even after incorrect and
questionable references are omitted, there is no serious question that
both the OT and Paul are opposed to homosexuality. In fact most
scholars do agree with you that I Cor 6:9 refers to homosexual
activity. NRSV translates "sodomites". TEV translates "homosexual
perverts". I think the clearest is Rom 1:26ff., since there's no
serious question about what it means. (3) The only argument for
accepting homosexual activity that has much hope seems to me to hang
on the concept that (a) the OT laws involved are not binding on
Christians, and (b) Paul's comments are based on a specific social
context, in which homosexuality typically included abuse of minors and
slaves, as well as cultic prostitution. I am not entirely persuaded
by these arguments, but they seem more promising than the endless
discussions on the meaning of arsenokoitai. (4) The Bible alone does
not seem sufficient to explain the degree of horror people feel for
homosexuality. Adultery is clearly far more serious, in both OT and
NT, but does not create nearly the same reaction as homosexuality. I
doubt that most of our readers will be persuaded that homosexuality
was instituted by God in the same way as heterosexual marriage, but I
would ask people to think carefully about their attitudes to fellow
Christians who find that they are homosexuals.
I'm making these comments to try to provide some context for the
detailed discussions. I'd prefer it if you didn't respond to the
points until someone who believes them makes them in a more detailed
way.
--clh]hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) (07/05/90)
Given that there is growing evidence that homosexuality
has a biological basis similar to imprinting, isn't all
of this focusing on "sin" passe? In other words, if
it is the case that homosexuality is not a matter of
choice then why not accept that Paul's admonitions are
cultural relics of little more than historical interest?
--
paul hager hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
"I would give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety's sake."
--from _A_Man_for_All_Seasons_ by Robert BoltJMS111@psuvm.psu.edu (Jenni Sheehey) (07/08/90)
In article <Jul.5.01.03.07.1990.29931@athos.rutgers.edu>, hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) says: > >Given that there is growing evidence that homosexuality >has a biological basis similar to imprinting, isn't all There is indeed *growing* evidence that a *tendency* toward attraction for people of the same sex might have a *partially* biological basis. There is still very little evidence either way, as far as I can tell. It is a very difficult subject to study, as research on animals is difficult (there really are very few instances of homosexuality in the non-human part of the animal kingdom - if you define homosexuality as a lack of desire for heterosexual relations which is accompanied by a desire for homosexual relations). Research on humans is also difficult, as it is very difficult to separate the effects of biology and environment. The only really feasible way it to study this is to use twins - and that's not particularly easy or accurate, either. Even if there is a biological basis for the *attraction* to members of the same sex, we still control our own *actions*. I don't believe that it is written anywhere in the Bible that the attraction to members of the same sex is a sin. It does, however, state (at least in the versions that I've read) that acting on that attraction *is* a sin. On a similar note, however, it seems that the biblical prohibition against homosexuality is not the sole cause for the sometimes fanatical reaction that some Christians have toward homosexuals. I think that this is partially due to the possibility that we tend to see homosexuals as "homosexuals" rather than "people with homosexual tendencies". We all have weaknesses toward certain types of sins, and it seems to me that this is not particulary different from weeknesses toward sinful heterosexual relations (adultery is a good example). I have never really heard someone say "Remarriage! Ugh! How *unnatural*!" although *that* is prohibited by Jesus himself... "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." (Mk. 10:11-12) This difference in treatment could be the result of the fact that it's easier to dislike someone if you refer to them as a member of a group that you do not belong to (anybody remember the nasty connotations that "divorcee" used to have? I don't, (I'm only 21) but my mother, whose mother *was* divorced, remembers this well). It could also be the result of the fact that for most of us, no matter how difficult it is to imagine committing adultery, it is even *more* difficult to imagine being a "practicing" homosexual. It is a sin that we know we are safe from, so we can feel safe in condemning people who commit it. Perhaps it's the "I commit that sin, so it's not *really* sinful" mentality. I guess the point that I'm trying to make is: homosexuality is a sin, but so is persecuting homosexuals. Perhaps the people who are so *violently* against homosexuality need to be ministered to as much as the homosexuals do? --Jenni -----------------------***************************************************** JMS111@PSUVM - Bitnet ** The fool takes no delight in understanding, but * JMS111@PSUVM.psu.edu - Internet *** rather in displaying what he thinks. * These opinions are not the property or ********************** Prov. 18:2 * responsibility of Penn State or the Center for Academic Computing *********
wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (07/08/90)
In article <Jul.5.01.03.07.1990.29931@athos.rutgers.edu> hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) writes: >Given that there is growing evidence that homosexuality >has a biological basis similar to imprinting, isn't all >of this focusing on "sin" passe? In other words, if >it is the case that homosexuality is not a matter of >choice then why not accept that Paul's admonitions are >cultural relics of little more than historical interest? > Suppose I accept the notion that homosexuality 'has a biological basis' -- although I am inclined to reject it -- , does that contradict what scripture says about sin? David says, in Psalm 51: "Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." If homosexuality is really from birth, doesn't that confirm the doctrine of inherited, or 'original' sin (which, BTW, we all have, not just homosexuals)? David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran "All mankind fell in Adam's fall, One common sin infects us all; From sire to son the bane descends, And over all the curse impends. Thro' all man's pow'rs corruption creeps And him in dreadful bondage keeps; In guilt he draws his infant breath And reaps its fruits of woe and death. But Christ, the second Adam, came To bear our sin and woe and shame, To be our Life, our Light, our Way, Our only Hope, our only Stay." My opinions and beliefs are not likely to coincide with any held by The University of Houston.
max_jedroom@oxy.edu (Jedidiah Jon Palosaari) (07/10/90)
David Wagner writes... >If homosexuality is really from birth, doesn't that confirm >the doctrine of inherited...sin...? I would think also that even if homosexuality is completely biological it could still be considered a wrongful act, as, following Paul in Romans 9, some are created as vessels of wrath. We are all predestined to do either right or wrong, as God sees fit, and maybe biology and genetics is just one of the agents of his direction.
kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) (07/13/90)
In article <Jul.5.01.03.07.1990.29931@athos.rutgers.edu>, hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) writes: > Given that there is growing evidence that homosexuality > has a biological basis similar to imprinting, isn't all > of this focusing on "sin" passe? In other words, if > it is the case that homosexuality is not a matter of > choice then why not accept that Paul's admonitions are > cultural relics of little more than historical interest? I believe evidence grows in proportion to the amount of effort expended in trying to find it. As homosexuality gets sold in this country as an "acceptable lifestyle" there will be more people scurrying around universities looking for "technical support" for this idea. The more dollars put in to fund "sexual orientiation projects", the more researchers looking for a connection (and wanting to find one) there will be. Man hasn't changed since Adam. After Adam ate the fruit offered to him by Eve, rather than repenting from his sin and accepting the fact that he was guilty he says "The woman YOU PUT HERE WITH ME-she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it." Sounds a little bit like "The sexual orientation YOU PUT HERE IN ME...". Man has always tried to blame God for his mistakes. He has done it in the Garden, in Sodom, now in the USA. -- 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
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (07/13/90)
Whether homosexuality is an inborn tendency or not is really irrelevant. We all have a fallen human nature, with tendencies towards all kinds of sins. What is objectionable is trying to call vice virtue. Joe Buehler
tom@dvnspc1.dev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) (07/16/90)
In article <Jul.13.05.03.34.1990.12057@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes: >Whether homosexuality is an inborn tendency or not is really irrelevant. > >We all have a fallen human nature, with tendencies towards all kinds of >sins. > >What is objectionable is trying to call vice virtue. I must strongly agree with Joe. The problem we face today is largely brought about by a militant homosexual community that wishes to desensitize society to its particular vice. Unfortunately, many of the oldline, liberal churches have gone along with the agenda of the homosexual community, and are now engaged in the active harassment of those within their communion who would challenge the "progressive" idea that homosexual conduct is acceptable for a Christian. Homosexual groups are also using negative tactics to turn the opinion of young people in our society. They are demanding the right to present their case in our public school under the guise of wanting to "help youngsters with their latent homosexual feeling." This is happening even in the church. At a recent gathering of PCUSA young people, that denomination's gay and lesbian advocacy group passed out literature to young people on this matter of homosexual rights. I understand the uproar over the matter was felt in the denominational offices as well as at a recent General Assembly. Clearly there is an attempt by homosexuals to do an end run around the parents in order to get at the kids. Their hope being that if they can get 'em while they're young they won't make the same "mistakes" as their parents. Liberal churches are in this mess because they have abandoned the only true basis of Christianity, the Bible. They can wink at sin, abominable sin, because they don't believe the Bible is the word of God. Unrepentant sinners in the pulpits won't help matters. -- Tom Albrecht [Since this posting uses the PCUSA as an example in an article complaining that the "liberal" church now accepts homosexuality, one could easily infer that the PCUSA accepts homosexual activity. It does not, although it does oppose "homophobia". The PCUSA does not permit ordination of homosexuals. Because of the nature of Reformed polity, this restriction is somewhat more severe than it would be in other denominations. All leaders of local churches are ordained as elders or deacons. Over time, most active members end up being ordained. Thus prohibition of ordination effectively bars homosexuals from normal participation in the church. This issue, like many other issues involving sexuality, is very controversial. A number of proposals have been made to change it. There are groups such as the ones Tom describes, attempting to promote acceptance of homosexuals in the Church. I don't think I'd call them "homosexual groups", because that seems to imply that they are made up of homosexuals. There are certainly non-homosexuals active in promoting the acceptance of homosexuality. Whether this is an "end-run" around the parents depends upon your attitudes towards exposure of youth to controversial topics. There is to be a major report on sexuality at the next General Assembly, and discussion of homosexuality has been tabled until then. I'll be very interested to see how that discussion develops. My current feeling, based on experiences in one of the more liberal presbyteries, is that there is not likely to be any official acceptance of homosexuality. --clh]
gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham) (07/16/90)
Kenneth J. Kutz writes:
----------------------------------------
Man hasn't changed since Adam. After Adam ate the fruit offered to
him by Eve, rather than repenting from his sin and accepting the fact
that he was guilty he says "The woman YOU PUT HERE WITH ME-she gave me
some fruit from the tree, and I ate it." Sounds a little bit like
"The sexual orientation YOU PUT HERE IN ME...".
Man has always tried to blame God for his mistakes. He has done it in
the Garden, in Sodom, now in the USA.
----------------------------------------
I think this is an oversimplification. If we assume that homosexual
preference is not God's intention (which I do assume) we can still see
it as both the result of sin and something the person who has it has
relatively little control over. It is possible to read Paul's
discussion of homosexuality diagnostically, saying that that is the
kind of thing that happens when a society starts denying God. It is
possible that a person can be no more responsible for his or her
homosexuality than someone with a birth defect.
The problem stemming from this observation is the issue of
self-justification. But it is a problem that exists on both sides.
Someone with a homosexual orientation can try to justify it as being
OK for one reason or another. Someone with a heterosexual preference
can say, ``I'm not a homosexual (I thank God that I am not like other
men, even this homosexual...??) so I'm OK.''
Seems to me that we miss the point of what Christ came to do if we
take either of these positions. Christ came to call ``sinners to
repentence.'' He specifically says that he did not come to call the
righteous. If we try to make ourselves righteous apart from him, we
are disqualifying ourselves from his calling. Does it matter how we
do it, whether by justifying homosexual preference or by boasting of
heterosexuality (or other qualities that make us righteous)?
Besides this, we follow one who ``came not to condemn the world, but
that the world might be saved.'' If we are so interested in
condemning, are we really following him?
--
Fred Gilham gilham@csl.sri.com
So long as the heaven of THOU is spread out over me the winds of
causality cower at my heels, and the whirlpool of fate stays its
course. -Martin Buberalan@jts.com (alan sinclair) (07/16/90)
>What is objectionable is trying to call vice virtue. > >Joe Buehler And vice, or sin, seems to be such a subtle subject. I prefer to think (realizing that I may be way off target) that the problem with homosexuality is not primarily concerned with the physical sexual aspect, as revolting as it is for heterosexuals. Of significance is the fact, to quote a cliche, that when Adam was incomplete God created Eve, not Steve. Implied in that story is that God made humans in two complimentary natures: masculine and feminine. And that masculine/feminine complimentation is MUCH more than physical. The complimentary union of masculine and feminine is God's building block for the family, society, the church, ... God designed masculine and feminine to fit together. In the marital sense, masculine and masculine do not fit together. Trying to fit them together can only lead to frustration, as God never meant this to happen. Is this vice? At the risk of starting a fire storm, it seems to me that homosexuals realize this. Is it not true that in homosexual couples one assumes the masculine role and the other the feminine? All the homosexual men who are effeminate - the "obvious" ones - are they not just those men who assume the feminine role in the couple? Whatever we do, if we are not meant to do it, we will pay the price, now and later. God never intended homosexuality, but neither did He intend a lot of other things. It is just as pitiful when in a heterosexual relationship the man assumes a feminine role and the woman reacts by moving into the masculine role, the "wearing the pants" syndrome. May we, by God's grace, do what we are meant to do, and bring pleasure to God. Alan
mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) (07/18/90)
I can't let this pass without comment; I'll be brief: (Tom Albrecht) writes: > Homosexual groups are also using negative tactics to turn the opinion > of young people in our society. They are demanding the right to > present their case in our public school under the guise of wanting to > "help youngsters with their latent homosexual feeling." This is Tom's charge is nonsense. It a conflation of two highly biased and competely unfounded stereotypes used constantly against us -- that we "recruit" and that (or so the conservatives seem to think) hordes of American youth would become gay overnight if there were any trace of social acceptance. For the record, sexual orientation is set quite young, and will not be affected by anything taught in schools. And the teaching we advocate just might keep those who *are* homosexual from despair, self-hatred induced by the violent negativity around them, and suicide. The moderator commented > The PCUSA does not > permit ordination of homosexuals. Because of the nature of Reformed > polity, this restriction is somewhat more severe than it would be in > other denominations. All leaders of local churches are ordained as > elders or deacons. Over time, most active members end up being > ordained. Thus prohibition of ordination effectively bars homosexuals > from normal participation in the church. I find that horrifying. You are saying that gay men and lesbian women can have no full part in your church unless they deny themselves or (what you *will* have, since you insist on it) become hypocrites? Do these so easily excluded Christians have any voice at all? Do you also debar moneylenders from participating in your church? -- Michael L. Siemon We must know the truth, and we must m.siemon@ATT.COM love the truth we know, and we must ...!att!sfsup!mls act according to the measure of our love. standard disclaimer -- Thomas Merton [There are in fact taskforces for gay and lesbian concerns at several levels in the PC(USA). So gays have some voice. However they are certainly in a precarious position, since to a large extent these voices are present only because people wink at our official policy. It's not a good situation, whichever position you advocate. Depending upon your view, you would be concerned about either fairly widespread violation of the policies against ordination of homosexuals, or about the fact that whatever taskforces there may be, homosexuals are still largely being forced to stay "in the closet". I wish I could honestly say that this issue was going to be resolved soon, but I don't think so. As an indication of our somewhat ambivalent views, a year or so ago, our Presbytery passed and then retracted at the next meeting a statement saying that we would not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in hiring non-ordained staff (in practice, clerical positions). --clh]
mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) (07/18/90)
Oh, God! there is such ignorance in this world. alan@jts.com (alan sinclair) writes: > At the risk of starting a fire storm, it seems to me that > homosexuals realize this. Is it not true that in homosexual > couples one assumes the masculine role and the other the > feminine? All the homosexual men who are effeminate - the > "obvious" ones - are they not just those men who assume > the feminine role in the couple? In words of one syllable -- No, it is not true. None of it. > Of significance is the fact, to quote a cliche, that when Adam > was incomplete God created Eve, not Steve. Implied in that > story is that God made humans in two complimentary natures: > masculine and feminine. And that masculine/feminine > complimentation is MUCH more than physical. The complimentary > union of masculine and feminine is God's building block for > the family, society, the church, ... You read too much of your own cultural hangups about sex into the story. God made woman *coequal* with man, as helpmate; you are quite right that the spiritual complementation with our helpmates is far more important than physiological conformation. That is exactly what *we* say. The physiology doesn't much support you either. Americans *hate* the idea of indeterminate sex -- so much so that thousands of children are surgically butchered to make their parents more comfortable. Neither nature nor God are as simple you seem to think. If you are trying to make inferences from "God's design" of our human nature, you might want to have some helpful soul show you how intensely pleasurable stimulation of the prostate gland is. You may then speculate on the use and abuse of pleasure. > May we, by God's grace, do what we are meant to do, and bring > pleasure to God. I agree with the sentiment, but I think you are woefully ignorant of God's world and far too ready to tell me what God means for me to do. -- Michael L. Siemon We must know the truth, and we must m.siemon@ATT.COM love the truth we know, and we must ...!att!sfsup!mls act according to the measure of our love. standard disclaimer -- Thomas Merton
kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) (07/18/90)
In article <Jul.16.02.41.29.1990.14483@athos.rutgers.edu>, gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham) writes: > It is possible to read Paul's > discussion of homosexuality diagnostically, saying that that is the > kind of thing that happens when a society starts denying God. It is > possible that a person can be no more responsible for his or her > homosexuality than someone with a birth defect. Then why are there exhortations in Scripture which say "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. That is detestable"? This is clearly telling the reader that he is RESPONSIBLE for the CHOICE he makes about who he has sex with. > Besides this, we follow one who ``came not to condemn the world, but > that the world might be saved.'' If we are so interested in > condemning, are we really following him? Probably not. So when does "identifying sin" stop and "condemning" start? So often, when someone *identifies* sin as sin, people assume the person doing the identifying (identifying sin and turning a sinner from the error of his ways *is* scriptural - James 5:20) must be self-righteously condemning the sinner. It becomes so easy for one to label another who does the best he can to identify sin in order "to cover over a multitude of sins" a self-righteous Pharisee. Oftentimes, in so doing, the labeler is guilty of his own charge. -- 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
hwt@.bnr.ca (Henry Troup) (07/18/90)
In article <Jul.16.03.01.03.1990.14962@athos.rutgers.edu> alan@jts.com (alan sinclair) writes: >homosexuals realize this. Is it not true that in homosexual >couples one assumes the masculine role and the other the >feminine? All the homosexual men who are effeminate - the >"obvious" ones - are they not just those men who assume >the feminine role in the couple? I was going to respond to this: Well, no, it's not true in general. Then I thought I'll just add this to my kill file. Then I thought I'd ask OFM to kill the thread. But finally I decided that I should try to respond to this. Well, no, it's not true in general. Several friends of mine have told me that they are homosexual. This has always been the only way to tell. I've known two long-term homosexual couples, and in neither one was there a masculine or a feminine 'relationship' role. I'm worried that Alan probably thinks he doesn't know any gays, and believes in the 'swish' stereotype as fifty percent of (male?) homosexuals. It's not so, it's an evil stereotype, and it should be stamped out. Honest or reliable figures are really hard to come by, but as a rule of thumb 10% of the population is gay. This may not apply to your congeration, but it almost certainly applies to your workplace. Odds are good that several of your acquaintances are gay - but you don't know. Will you change your behaviour towards them if they 'come out' to you? If so, why? More so or differently than towards a mixed-gender couple living together unmarried? More than to the guy (married) that everyone knows is sleeping with his secretary? -- Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | Not one of 100% of ..uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 HWT@BNR.CA 613-765-2337 | Americans [I think it's more useful to deal with stereotypes openly than to suppress the discussion. --clh]
miken@mirror.tmc.com (Mike Nappo) (07/18/90)
In article <Jul.13.05.03.34.1990.12057@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes: >Whether homosexuality is an inborn tendency or not is really irrelevant. > >We all have a fallen human nature, with tendencies towards all kinds of >sins. > >What is objectionable is trying to call vice virtue. > >Joe Buehler How can you say that it is irrelevant that homosexuality is an inborn tendency or not? If it is inborn, then acting upon those tendencies are only natural to that person. It is neither vice nor virtue. Also, I don't think that the Church has EVER said [please correct if wrong] that homosexuality isn't inborn. It has only stated that acting on those feelings is objectionable. In fact, as far as I know, the Church has clearly said that homosexual orientation itself is not the issue: acting on that orientation is. Convoluted? You bet. It sort of reminds me of those good nuns who used to torment [actually brutalize] their left handed students into becoming right handed. To be otherwise, was deemed a defect. *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- - Mike Nappo miken@mirror.TMC.COM * * {mit-eddie, pyramid, harvard!wjh12, xait}!mirror!miken - - Mirror Systems, 2067 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02140 * * (617)661 - 0777 - -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
mike@turing.cs.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (07/18/90)
In article <Jul.16.03.01.03.1990.14962@athos.rutgers.edu> alan@jts.com (alan sinclair) writes:
Of significance is the fact, to quote a cliche, that when Adam
was incomplete God created Eve, not Steve.
Adam and Eve were, as well, likely to have been of the same race.
Interracial marriage was considered horrendous throughout most of
history. Do you find it so?
Implied in that
story is that God made humans in two complimentary natures:
masculine and feminine. And that masculine/feminine
complimentation is MUCH more than physical. The complimentary
union of masculine and feminine is God's building block for
the family, society, the church, ...
And how do you know this? Special dispensation? Magic? I always
thought the building block for the family, society, and the church was
human beings. What about societies where women have no part? What
about churches where women have no voice?
God designed masculine and feminine to fit together. In
the marital sense, masculine and masculine do not fit
together. Trying to fit them together can only lead to
frustration, as God never meant this to happen. Is this vice?
You say this, but I suspect, with all due respect, that you've never
tried. Two men can "fit" together, physically and emotionally, and,
if you have no experience with that possibility, you have no right to
decide whether it leads to frustration or not.
At the risk of starting a fire storm, it seems to me that
homosexuals realize this. Is it not true that in homosexual
couples one assumes the masculine role and the other the
feminine? All the homosexual men who are effeminate - the
"obvious" ones - are they not just those men who assume
the feminine role in the couple?
No, it is not true. No, they are not "just those men." Effeminancy
has virtually nothing to do with the sexual role one plays. In the
majority of gay relationships today, there is really no "masculine"
partner and no "feminine" partner. And then there's the legions of
straight effeminate men.
Before you tell us all how homosexuals are, or what we do, find out
for real. Get to know some gay people. Find out what their lives are
like. Talk to them. Become their friends on their own terms. Come
back in a few years, and *then* explain to us how gay people are and
what their relationships are like. If you aren't willing to do that,
then give us the minimum of Christian charity and accept our
self-definitions as fact.
One final note. I've recognized in myself some painful spiritual
problems. As I work through them, and as I reflect on the way I
conduct discussions like this one, I need the peace to be away from
the net. I will still be reading this newsgroup, but this will be my
last post for a while. "Laters, dudes."
--
Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true
LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day,
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man.
CARPE DIEM / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!carroll@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) (07/18/90)
In article <Jul.16.02.38.14.1990.14433@athos.rutgers.edu> tom@dvnspc1.dev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes: >In article <Jul.13.05.03.34.1990.12057@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes: >>What is objectionable is trying to call vice virtue. Amen. People in my parish take all kinds of positions on this issue; the one thing, however, on which we are all able to agree, is that "All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God." ... >the oldline, liberal churches have gone along with the agenda of the >homosexual community, and are now engaged in the active harassment of >those within their communion who would challenge the "progressive" >idea that homosexual conduct is acceptable for a Christian. This is somewhat unfair. What I have observed to be true is that each of the "oldline, liberal" churches have militant *minorities* who engage in such harassment. These minorities usually tend to be well enough connected within the appropriate denominational hierarchies that it can feel as though the whole church is coming down on you (Lord knows that many of us are susceptible to vague guilt feelings which can be aroused by anyone with an axe to grind). All the "oldline, liberal" churches with democratic polity that I know of have steadfastly refused to ordain avowed homosexuals, because the rank and file remain opposed. (The Episcopal Church is the exception that comes to mind; there such an ordination has been performed by a maverick bishop who has bucked the traditional but not constitutionally mandated practice of coordination with the House of Bishops on such matters.) >Homosexual groups are also using negative tactics to turn the opinion >of young people in our society. They are demanding the right to >present their case in our public school under the guise of wanting to >"help youngsters with their latent homosexual feeling." This is >happening even in the church. At a recent gathering of PCUSA young >people, that denomination's gay and lesbian advocacy group passed out >literature to young people on this matter of homosexual rights. I >understand the uproar over the matter was felt in the denominational >offices as well as at a recent General Assembly. Clearly there is an >attempt by homosexuals to do an end run around the parents in order to >get at the kids. Their hope being that if they can get 'em while >they're young they won't make the same "mistakes" as their parents. This much I believe. I had several such experiences in the United Methodist Church. There, as in this case, there was an *advocacy group* within the denomination which operated to the dismay of most of the membership; and, I might add, most of the youth that the homosexual lobby would recruit. >[Since this posting uses the PCUSA as an example in an article >complaining that the "liberal" church now accepts homosexuality, one >could easily infer that the PCUSA accepts homosexual activity. It >does not, although it does oppose "homophobia". The PCUSA does not >permit ordination of homosexuals. Because of the nature of Reformed >polity, this restriction is somewhat more severe than it would be in >other denominations. All leaders of local churches are ordained as >elders or deacons. Over time, most active members end up being >ordained. Thus prohibition of ordination effectively bars homosexuals >from normal participation in the church. This issue, like many other ... >develops. My current feeling, based on experiences in one of the more >liberal presbyteries, is that there is not likely to be any official >acceptance of homosexuality. > >--clh] The moderator would seem to imply that the PCUSA rejects or declines to accept homosexuality to a greater degree than other denominations. Though I would not presume to accuse him of disingenousness, I would suggest that it is naive to assume that practicing homosexuals are "effectively barred" from participation in the clergy or laity of *any* church by its regulations. I am personally aware of the existence of "gay" ordained people in several denominations, including the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, *and* the Presbyterian Church, USA; and I do not have many contacts in the "gay community". These people can only very imaginatively be said to be "in the closet". The refusal of the Church to deal with homosexuals in our midst has forced many of them into lives of hypocrisy and shame; perhaps they would not be so adamant that their lifestyles be recognized as "normal" were we all to admit that we are people in a state of forgiven sin; that clergy who commit homosexual acts are no more "homosexuals" than, say, clergy who drink too much are "alcoholics", or clergy who cheat on their spouses are "adulterers", or clergy who fail to practice what they preach are "hypocrites". First and foremost, we are all human beings; and God loves each of us, sinners though we are. Deep inside, each of us knows his own sinfulness, and each of us needs the saving grace of Christ to escape the sinful habits that hold us prisoners. Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com [I am in no position to compare PC(USA) attitudes with others, and intended no such comparison. Like you, I have no reason to suspect any difference between us, Methodists, and the rest of the "mainline". I simply didn't want the impression left that the PC(USA) accepts homosexuality. I am not so naive as to believe there are no homosexuals in the denomination. I know there are. There are even homosexuals who openly admit to being homosexuals. But there are enough official bars to strongly discourage homosexuals from identifying themselves in public. This is a very significant fact, because it prevents most members from normal contact with people that they know to be homosexual. --clh]
tom@dvnspc1.dev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) (07/20/90)
In article <Jul.18.03.28.16.1990.15502@athos.rutgers.edu> mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) writes: > >> Homosexual groups are also using negative tactics to turn the opinion >> of young people in our society. They are demanding the right to >> present their case in our public school under the guise of wanting to >> "help youngsters with their latent homosexual feeling." This is > >Tom's charge is nonsense. It a conflation of two highly biased and >competely unfounded stereotypes used constantly against us -- that we >"recruit" and that (or so the conservatives seem to think) hordes of >American youth would become gay overnight if there were any trace of >social acceptance. My charge is not nonsense. You just misread what I wrote. I did not say the things you are attacking. I said nothing about recruiting youngsters to be homosexuals. Whether homosexuals are born with or learn their orientation later in life (actually I believe it's a combination of both) is irrelevant. My point was that there is an ongoing attempt by some homosexuals to invade the school systems of our country to desensitize heterosexual children to the aberrant nature of homosexuality. They are attempting to build up a new generation of heterosexual people without all the "hangups" of their parents. It's happening in the schools, on TV and in the movies, in the music children listen to, in virtually every area of society that affects our children. I understand that even the advertising on billboards in San Francisco has become place for equal access by homosexual groups. It's sad to see this happening in our public schools, it's even sadder to see it happening in the Church of Jesus Christ. That was the gist of my comment on the PCUSA. BTW, I understand the PCUSA General Assembly has voted to remove the section of its constitution dealing with advocacy groups, thereby eliminating their "official" voice from within the denomination. If it passes the presbyteries and next year's assembly, several pro-homosexual groups will find themselves out on the street (as will pro-life and conservative/evangelical groups). But I hope you will not deny that homosexuals try to get access to school under the pretense of helping the "10%" of youngsters that are already homosexual. To our moderator, Michael writes: > You are saying that gay men and lesbian women >can have no full part in your church unless they deny themselves or >(what you *will* have, since you insist on it) become hypocrites? Do >these so easily excluded Christians have any voice at all? I don't think it's asking too much for believers in Jesus Christ to give up their old, sinful habits for the sake of the Kingdom. As Paul told the Corinthians, "Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, drunkards, ... For such WERE some of you. But you have been washed; but you have been sanctified; but you have been justified in the name of our Lord Jesus, ..." Unfortunately many churches don't sing that tune anymore. They're more interested in the broad path of accommodation. But the broad path leads to destruction. The oldline churches are in a real catch-22 situation. Most are loosing members at an alarming rate. The PCUSA, for instance, lost 43,000 within the last few years. Their (combined) membership has gone from about 4.5 million in the mid-60s to under 3 million this year. There are expecting to loss even more as the deadline draws near for congregations to leave with their property. (This deadline was a result of the merger of the northern and southern Presbyterian churches). Do they continue to drift to the left making room for the homosexuals in their pulpits and denominational hierarchy and further alienate the mostly conservative members? How do they put a stop to the trend and cause the unrepentant homosexuals into another, more accommodating denomination? It will be interesting to see how things develop. I for one would like to see at least one major Protestant denomination get off the fence on the issue and use some biblical terminology on the matter. How refreshing that would be. >Do you also debar moneylenders from participating in your church? If the moneylender wished to remain a moneylender AFTER professing faith, he has a serious problem that needs further repentance. Certainly some serious discipleship is in order. -- Tom Albrecht
jchale@attmail.att.com (Jeffrey C Hale) (07/20/90)
[I commented that the PCUSA does not ordain ordination of homosexuals, and explained the implications of this. Because of the nature of the presbyterian form of government, policies on ordination affect not just pastors but most active church members. Mike Siemon commented: > I find that horrifying. You are saying that gay men and lesbian women > can have no full part in your church unless they deny themselves or > (what you *will* have, since you insist on it) become hypocrites? Do > these so easily excluded Christians have any voice at all? > Do you also debar moneylenders from participating in your church? --clh] Michael's choice of words in the above posting couldn't have been chosen better, in my opinion. To say that homosexuals must deny themselves is to agree with Jesus' own teaching. In fact, ANY disciple of Chirst must deny himself/herself in order to truly follow Christ! We each have two choices when we're confronted with sinful desires from whatever source: Say YES to self (and deny Christ) or say YES to Christ (and deny self). The on-going attitude of willingness to deny ourselves and our natural passions is the core of discipleship (not salvation, mind you, but discpleship). "Then He said to them all: 'If anyone would come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me.'" Luke 9:23 Jeff Hale
ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (07/24/90)
In article <Jul.18.05.06.31.1990.16215@athos.rutgers.edu> miken@mirror.tmc.com (Mike Nappo) writes: > Convoluted? You bet. > > It sort of reminds me of those good nuns who used to torment > [actually brutalize] their left handed students into becoming > right handed. To be otherwise, was deemed a defect. > A number of people seem to have this habit of pointing out something that some nuns did or some priests did, and equating that with Catholic Doctrine. Hey people, we are all sinners!! What *some* catholics *DO* (whether they are clerical/religious or not) has absolutely *NOTHING* to do with what the Catholic Church *teaches* as being infallibly true. And even among the truths that the Catholic Church teaches, some truths are more central to salvation that others. So even in discussing certain truths, we need to keep them in perspective. I will be the first to admit that there have even been some popes who were scandelous public sinners. This proves only one thing: some people are hypocrites (or hold beliefs which are loftier than their ability to conform to them, which is weakness not hypocrisy). But statements which claim that the sinful behavior of certain persons of any particular denomination somehow have anything to do with the truthfulness of the ideas held by that denomination are confused at best and malicious at worst. With all it's troubles, the Catholic Church has *never* reversed it's teaching with regard to infallible truths. Maybe if we confine our discussion to *ideas/truths* and not *people* we will make a little more progress. Put simply, no more ad hominem attacks, ok? This is certainly a sin against charity. chris -- First comes the logo: C H E C K P O I N T T E C H N O L O G I E S / / \\ / / Then, the disclaimer: All expressed opinions are, indeed, opinions. \ / o Now for the witty part: I'm pink, therefore, I'm spam! \/