mcgrath@tully.berkeley.edu (Roland McGrath) (05/29/89)
I think Mr. Shippen's article is an example of a common misconception among Christians struggling with the concept of homosexuality. I should point out that I am not an authority on this matter, being neither homosexual nor Christian, but I respect the beliefs of others, and I believe I can make my argument within a Christian frame of reference. Mr. Shippen argued that the Christian God hates homosexuality just as He hates fornication and adultery. This is a valid argument for His hatred and nonacceptance of homosexual sexual practices, inasmuch as they are performed outside of a legitimate marriage situation, just as He hates heterosexual sexual practices outside of marriage, and all autosexual practices (since one cannot be married to oneself). These arguments do not validly state that the Christian God hates homosexual love. The Christian God is love, is He not? How can He hate a form of love? It seems to me that the Christian God would accept homosexual sexual practices in the same context in which He accepts heterosexual sexual practices: between a married couple, as an affirmation of their mutual love. That then leaves the issue of homosexual marriage. Marriage is an affirmation of the love a couple has for each other and for their God; why should this not extend to couples of the same sex, who love each other and their God as much as any heterosexual couple? -- Roland McGrath Free Software Foundation, Inc. roland@ai.mit.edu, uunet!ai.mit.edu!roland
hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (05/29/89)
Roland McGrath asks how a homosexual relationship could be wrong, since it is an expression of love and God is love. I've commented enough about homosexuality. I'm not going to again. However I see a more general problem with this posting. You could replace homosexual with adulterous, etc., and not change the force of the article. The problem I think is that it fails to tke into account the kind of complex things that can happen in human lives. Christians believe that people are made in God's image, and that our love is an image of his. It's possible for that image to become tarnished, but still be visible. There are unfortunately many human relationships that are damaging. And yet, from time to time in them we can still see the image of God's love. An adulterous relationship may have moments of self-giving love, in which God's love shows forth. Yet in the long run the relationship is damaging, and will cause great harm. You may, depending upon your viewpoint, take this as an example of the fact that God lets the rain fall on both the just and the unjust, or you may go further and see it as a special action of God's grace. When love is expressed inappropriately, the relationship can become damaging, yet to the extent that love is still present (using love in the Christian sense) it may still be a channel through which God can act. Note the "when expressed inappropriately". It is not the love which is wrong. It is not wrong to love someone else's wife, and even those who oppose homosexuality do not say it is wrong to love someone of the same sex. What is wrong is for the relationship to develop in certain ways. Ultimately the shape of the relationship threatens the existence of love in it or elsewhere in the people's lives. Yet even if a relationship goes in the wrong direction and becomes damaging, to the extent that there is still any love present in it, that love is a gift from God. So my problem with the article is this: you can't say that homosexual love is OK just because it is an expression of people's love for each other. It could be a self-defeating sort of expression, that ultimately turns back on the love that started it. Adultery is an example of such a thing. The question is whether homosexual relations are or not.
TTAERUM@ualtavm.gatech.edu (05/30/89)
> You could replace homosexual >with adulterous, etc., and not change the force of the article. Not a bad statement of the problem. We now have christian playboys, christian robbers, christian murderers, christian anything. When you can put a word in front of any attribution then you know that word has lost its meaning. The question of whether a church accepts somebody is mote when we know that the Church is the bride of Christ. The question is not who we accept but who Christ accepts. On one of the festivals at Yom Kippur, Lamentations is read. It includes this verse (Lamentations 2:14) The visions of your prophets were false and worthless; they did not expose your sin to ward off your captivity. The oracles they gave you were false and misleading. One consistent characteristic of prophecy is that it exposes sin. There is no prophetic book in the OT, whether one of the Twelve, or one of the major prophets which does not expose sin. In the NT, and historically, the Church has always had this job of prophecy. One way in which the Church maintains its integrity, and avoids hypocracy, is to reject from the Church those people who refuse to acknowledge that the activity they are engaged in is wrong. It is pure hypocracy to say with the lips "something is wrong with this activity" and then to accept, as a member someone who refuses to acknowlege that it is wrong. "How well Isaiah prophesied about you when he said, these people acknowledge me with their lips but their hearts are far from me." Especially pernicious is the mixing of the words 'love' and 'sex'. Is it lawful for two men to live together and love each other? Of course it is. Is it lawful for two men to live together and have sex? Of course it isn't. It is neither natural (as defined by what occurred before the fall) nor is it fruitful. It is, to use an OT term, confusion. Perhaps a paraphrasing of Christ's words are appropriate here, "the ax is already at the root of the tree, if men do these things when the tree is green, what more will they do when it is dry." Terry Taerum
wpg@mendel.acc.virginia.edu (William Gardner) (05/30/89)
The moderator criticizes a too simplistic argument for the acceptability of homosexual relationships. Briefly, you can't simply point to the love in a gay relationship, since there is often love in adulterous relationships. He points out that you can love someone else's spouse, but you can't let the relationship develop in certain ways. Right. You are injuring both partners in that marriage and, if married yourself, betraying your own spouse. In violating your vows, you inflict grave harm on yourself. These damages aren't limited to specific persons: a christian marriage involves the whole community of faith, so we all lose. But I don't see how this clarifies our thinking about gay relationships. I can't distinguish faithful gay partnerships from childless heterosexual marriages except anatomically and I don't perceive any damage to anyone. I think the moderator was right the first time: there isn't any reason to question gay relationships except a disputed reading of scripture. -- [][][][][][][][][][][] William Gardner [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] [] /_ o / / Department of Psychology wpg@virginia.edu [] [] /__) / / / University of Virginia 804-924-0669 [] [][][][][][][][][] Charlottesville, VA 22903 FAX: 804-924-7185 [][] [At least one person has misinterpreted my response as being in opposition to homosexual activity. I see that implication here as well. In fact, I specifically disavowed any intention of commenting on homosexual activity. I am trying to allow that discussion to die down. I believe I have already made my views clear. My concern was that the argument being used to support it was wrong, and if taken seriously could lead to other conclusions that everyone agrees are damaging. I can reject an argument even if I agree with its conclusion. --clh]
dhawk@lll-crg.llnl.gov (David Hawkins) (06/01/89)
In the referenced article, TTAERUM@ualtavm.gatech.edu wrote: >> You could replace homosexual >>with adulterous, etc., and not change the force of the article. >The question of whether a church accepts somebody is mote when we know >that the Church is the bride of Christ. The question is not who we >accept but who Christ accepts. > >One consistent characteristic of prophecy is that it exposes sin. And one sin that gets exposed a lot is pride. ;-) Ezekiel says that the number one reason for the destruction of Sodom was pride. Maybe there's a message there that could apply to us? As I said in an earlier posting, love has to be number one on my list of things to practice. Not a self-righteous and condeming love (which is indestinguishable from hate at the other end of the pipe), but a listening and accepting love. Prophecy isn't a club for beating up others -- it's a description of my sins first. If others read it and are convicted of their sins, that's fine. The Holy Spirit convicts people of their sins -- I don't. If I work on my sins first then I don't have time to work on others. later, david -- David Hawkins {apple,pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax}!well!dhawk It is better to encounter one's existence in disgust than never to encounter it at all. - William Barrett