bjstaff@uunet.uu.net (07/05/90)
It looks like an issue we'll be discussing in s.r.c. is the one of homo- sexuality and the Church. While I agree that this is an important issue, I see it as part of a bigger issue, the issue of sexual sin and the Church. Is ongoing, heterosexual, premarital sex (fornication) any less sinful than ongoing, homosexual sex? Is ongoing, heterosexual, extramarital sex (adultery) any less sinful than ongoing, homosexual sex? I understand that at one time each of these activities was considered evidence of a spiritual problem. Are things really any different today? Donning asbestos clothing, Brad Staff ...uunet!zds-ux!bjstaff
stq@cbnewsi.att.com (Scott T Questad) (07/08/90)
[In article <Jul.5.01.52.13.1990.190@athos.rutgers.edu>, zds-ux!bjstaff@uunet.uu.net comments that he sees homosexualiy as part of a bigger issue, sexual sin in general. He asks whether it is any less sinful than premarital sex or adultery. > I understand that at one time each of these activities was considered > evidence of a spiritual problem. Are things really any different today? > Donning asbestos clothing, --clh] No need for the asbestos wardrobe as far as I'm concerned. Your point is well taken. One step further: Is ongoing lying less sinful than extramatital or homosexual sex? -Scott Questad
wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (07/08/90)
In article <Jul.5.01.52.13.1990.190@athos.rutgers.edu> zds-ux!bjstaff@uunet.uu.net writes: >Is ongoing, heterosexual, premarital sex (fornication) any less sinful than >ongoing, homosexual sex? Is ongoing, heterosexual, extramarital sex (adultery) >any less sinful than ongoing, homosexual sex? I understand that at one time >each of these activities was considered evidence of a spiritual problem. Are >things really any different today? I, and the church body I belong to, certainly believe that all of these activities are sinful. Those whom we know to persist in them, and who do not repent, are excommunicated -- after we learn of the sin, and after a number of meetings between the sinning party and the church elders and/or pastor. Premarital, heterosexual sex can be resolved by the marriage of the two individuals, although I do not think that is necessarily the best counsel the church can give in every case. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran. "O blessed home where man and wife Together lead a godly life, By deeds their faith confessing! There many a happy day is spent, There Jesus gladly will consent To tarry with his blessing." My opinions and beliefs do not necessary coincide with any held by The University of Houston.
bob@morningstar.com (Bob Sutterfield) (07/08/90)
In article <Jul.5.01.52.13.1990.190@athos.rutgers.edu> zds-ux!bjstaff@uunet.uu.net writes:
Is [X] any less sinful than [Y]? Is [Z] any less sinful than [Y]?
I understand that at one time each of these activities was
considered evidence of a spiritual problem.
We all have a spiritual problem: sin. Lots of activities, like being
born a human being, are evidence. One activity is only more sinful
than another if we let it keep us further away from a relationship
with God. To say that my sin is any less a spiritual problem than
yours sounds like the Pharisee with the trumpets in the temple:
"Lord, I thank you that I am not like one of these!"
Sexual sin, murder, greed, materialism, racist hatred... Sin is sin,
and we all stand in desperate need of God's free (and freeing) grace.
Are things really any different today?
No, just that people think they are all the more clever at
rationalizing away their need for forgiveness. A popular defense
tactic is to compare my own sins with another person's. Have you ever
noticed how the comparison usually works out the comfortable way - so
that his sins are "worse" than mine? Or at least so that he's being
more hypocritical than I?gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (07/16/90)
In article <Jul.5.01.52.13.1990.190@athos.rutgers.edu> zds-ux!bjstaff@uunet.uu.net writes: >Is ongoing, heterosexual, premarital sex (fornication) any less sinful than >ongoing, homosexual sex? Is ongoing, heterosexual, extramarital sex (adultery) >any less sinful than ongoing, homosexual sex? I understand that at one time > >Brad Staff >...uunet!zds-ux!bjstaff Let me tag along on Bert's posting here. Some folks out there know me already. I love the Lord Jesus Christ and out of that love would not deliberately try to harm anyone in word or deed. However, I also know that I must stand for what God says and not the philosophies of man. And please no new Mishnas. That said, here are my thoughts. It seems to me that we Christians tend to rank sin. That sin is greater than that one over there. We will stomp all over one sin and pass lightly to the side of another. In the process, we send out very confusing messages to the world about us. Fact is, sin is sin is sin. Sin acts as a barrier between us and God. Sin keeps us from God. Further, it is important to notice how Jesus dealt with sin and sinners. He never once made any sin acceptable. He never once ranked one sin as greater than another. Most of all, He loved sinners; He loved them in the ultimate manner by dying for us (we are after all, sinners). I am convinced that homosexual activity is wrong and that it is a sin. But then so is adultery, pre-marital sex, stealing, murder, greed, coveting, and many more. I find no basis to rank sins. Let me say it again, sin is sin is sin. Sin separates us from God. Some say that in certain passages a particular sin or sins is marked out. But what puts this in proper perspective for me is realizing that sin, any sin, will keep one out of heaven, unless you repent and turn your life over to Jesus Christ. That is the meaning of salvation. Ranking sin pushes people away. I don't want to push them away. I want to bring them into the church where they can hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ; where they can hear the good news that there is a way to be reconciled to God; where they can hear about how to have peace, the peace that passes all understanding. Church is not some country club of the self-righteous. The sinner is who Jesus came to find and save. Or put another way, the healthy have no need of a doctor, only the ill do. And John reminds us that when we say we have no sin, we are liars and God is not in us. Christians are sinners as surely as are the lost. The difference is that we are saved by grace. It is an act of God's will and decision that allows us to be saved. That act is seen in Jesus Christ who came and died for us. Without that sacrifice there would be no way to be reconciled to God. Grace and Peace, Gene
bjstaff@uunet.uu.net (07/18/90)
Greetings: In an earlier article, I wrote: >Is ongoing, heterosexual, premarital sex (fornication) any less sinful than >ongoing, homosexual sex? Is ongoing, heterosexual, extramarital sex (adultery) >any less sinful than ongoing, homosexual sex? I understand that at one time >each of these activities was considered evidence of a spiritual problem. Are >things really any different today? Apparently several people thought I was intending to compare the relative sinfulness of sins. That wasn't my intention at all. Discussions about homosexuality can very quickly become "queer" bashing. I hoped to point out that sins many of *us* have committed are just as "bad". I am a straight male, and I have committed one of those sins in a "previous" life. I hoped (and still hope) that that realization will lead to a more reasoned approach to the topic, whichever conclusion we may reach. I would like to believe that all sins are equally sinful, but I wonder. An extramarital sex act might actually be more sinful than a premarital or homosexual sex act, because there are one or two completely innocent parties, the spouse or spouses. In any event, I can affirm the statement that "the wages of sin is death". Brad Staff ...uunet!zds-ux!bjstaff
nh0g+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nils Hammer) (07/20/90)
True, I am not following the existing discussion, but:
I wonder if all premarital sex is fornication, I suspect that
someone more learned than I can give us a technical definition. When the
subject is discussed, I always feel there is something wrong with the
standard hardline thinking. After all, consider the sin of Onan, which
was NOT making his brothers wife pregnant, but people used it for the
basis of lots of weird unhealthy "sins" to accuse others of.
I enjoy theological arguments, and I am fortunate in having a Roman
Catholic friend to share them with ;-)
However, if we rigidly examine everything by laws, I don`t think justice
follows. When I look at thing with what I like to think of as my
christian nature, I often get a different answer. I have met
fornicators, and did not enjoy their company. I have also had many
friends who's pre-marital sex seemed completely wholesome, and in fact,
was likely to lead to marriage. My R.C. friend would basically agree
Nils K. Hammer
nh0g@andrew.cmu.edu
[The "Theological Wordbook of the Bible" says that the Hebrew word
means intercourse outside marriage, but in many cases it refers more
specifically to sacred prostitution involved in pagan religion. In
the NT it covers at least adultery (Mat 5:22, 19:9), intercourse
outside marriage (John 8:41), incest (I Cor 5:1), and sodomy (Jude 7),
which seems to justify a fairly general translation such as
"unchastity". The story of Jesus' birth in Mat. implies that having
sexual relations before marriage would be a cause for breaking off the
engagement. Ex 22:16 and Deut 22:14 clearly imply that a woman is
expected to be virgin until she is married. There have been
suggestions that there is a double standard in the OT, but I'd be very
surprised if any Christian would advocate that. In I Cor 7 it seems
clear that one is expected to marry before having sexual relations.
What Onan refused to do was his specific legal duty. According to
Deut 25:5, it would have made her his wife, so I don't see that this
would be fornication. I'll leave it to others to discuss whether
there is any justification for relaxing these requirements. I'm
simply trying to clarify the Biblical usage, as you requested. --clh]