21597

神经网络昆斯林的新闻组分类2006

Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu soc.religion.christian:21597
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!concert!rutgers!igor.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: [e-mail] (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: FAQ essay on homosexuality
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 14 May 93 06:10:21 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 201
Approved: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>this came from.  Here's his response: Kinsey (see below) is the source
>of the figure 10 percent.

There was an article in USA today a few months ago showing the results
of a study that actually only about 1% were homosexual.  I saw another
figure that listed 2% as the figure.  Of course, even if it were 99%
that would have little bearing on whether or not it is a sinful behavior.
How many people have commited other acts of fornication?  How many
people have lied or sinned in other ways?

>But in all fairness, the "shameless" nature of their acts is a
>reflection of the general spiritual state of the people, and not a
>specific feature of homosexuality.

Why isn't it a specific feature of homosexuality?  Paul describes
"men with men working that which is unseemly" to describe the acts.  
Sure, there spirtual nature was depraved also, and like the other
sins, the idolatry, the other sexual immoraity, and the other sins
sprang from their depraved spiritual state which was a result of 
man's not glorifying God as God and being thankful.  Still, their
acts were shameless.

>homosexuality or even considered it acceptable in some cases.  On the
>other hand, none of these passages contains explicit teachings on the
>subject.  Rom 1 is really about idolatry.  It refers to homosexuality
>in passing.

Is everything sinful specifically elaborated on in the New Testament?
Scripture does not condemn being a drug dealer.  Being ruled by the
Spirit rather than the letter not only frees from legalism, it also
protects us from sins that are against the Spirit.  The word is a
two edged sword that cuts both ways.  

I think we must be careful before we totally throw out Leviticus.  
If the Law is reflection of God's character and true holy nature, then
those who say that God endorses homosexuality run into a problem.  
If homosexuality were "natural" (whatever that means) wholesome, 
endorsed by God, and those who oppose sexual behavior are narrow-minded
biggots, as some would have us believe, why is there a condemnation of
it in Leviticus.  This condemnation is in the midst of all the other
sex sin condemnations, and there is nothing in the text to say that this
law was limited to temple prostitution, and no good reason to believe that
this was the case.  Furthermore, male homosexual sex was a death-penalty
crime!  

Is every sin elaborated on in the New Testament?  Take a look at
I Corinthians 5.  Paul said that one of the Corinthians had broken a
law not even heard of among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's
wife.  There is a prohibition against having your father's wife in 
Leviticus.  No other new Testament verse clearly condemns it (besides
this one.)  Notice that Paul did not say that the sin was in commiting
adultery, etc.- he spoke against having one's father's wife.  

Notice also that this sexual condemnation in Leviticus is not mentioned
in the specific context of paganism either.  And there was no pagan 
coustom mentioned in I corinthians either.  As a matter of fact
taking one's father's wife wasn't even done among the Gentiles.  It was
just a plain blantant sin, whether worshipping idols was involved or
not.

>One commonly made claim is that Paul had simply never faced the kinds
>of questions we are trying to deal with.  He encountered homosexuality
>only in contexts where most people would probably agree that it was
>wrong.  He had never faced the experience of Christians who try to act
>"straight" and fail, and he had never faced Christians who are trying
>to define a Christian homosexuality, which fits with general Christian
>ideals of fidelity and of seeing sexuality as a mirror of the
>relationship between God and man.  It is unfair to take Paul's
>judgement on homosexuality among idolaters and use it to make
>judgements on these questions.

One of the reasons that some of us do not accept that common argument
is because Paul probably did face this and other problems.  Sin can
be tough to over come, especially without supernatural power.  Is
homosexual sin any more difficult to overcome that heterosexual sin,
like lusting after a married woman, or sleeping around with people of
the opposite sex?  I doubt it, and even if it is, that is no excuse.
God is greater than all of it. 

Another reason we reject it is because it ignores the supernatural
power of God to intervene in this kind of situation.  How many 
people have been set free from sin by the power of God?  Sure there
may be any groups that have tried to change homosexuals and failed.
That is a reflection on the people involved in the program, and not
God's willingness and ability to change a sinner.  Any program that
uses formulas may fail.  What people need is the power of God to
change them, whether they are involved in homosexual sin, or any other
sin.

>I claim that the question of how to counsel homosexual Christians is
>not entirely a theological issue, but also a pastoral one.  Paul's
>tendency, as we can see in issues such as eating meat and celebrating
>holidays, is to be uncompromising on principle but in pastoral issues
>to look very carefully at the good of the people involved, and to
>avoid insisting on perfection when it would be personally damaging.
>For example, while Paul clearly believed that it was acceptable to eat
>meat, he wanted us to avoid pushing people into doing an action about
>which they had personal qualms. 

I don't see how you come to that conclusion.  Paul's dealings with
pastorial issues encouraged people to give up their liberties in order
to spare others- not to allow people to continue in sin because it
was just too difficult.  Take the example of eating meat offered to idols.
Paul felt that there was nothing wrong, in an abstract sense, with
eating the meat.  Yet he advised believers to sacrifice their liberty
to eat meat in order to spare others.  

But Paul never allowed people to sin because living holy was just to
tough.  Paul wrote to "make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts
thereof."  (Romans 13:14)  Then he goes in to a discourse on how we
should sacrifice our own liberty in order to spare the consciences of others.

Suppose it were not a sin for people to practice homosexual acts.  
Since others consider it to be a sin, then using Paul's approach
on pastorial issues, those who would otherwise be homosexuals should 
sacrifice their liberty and be celbate or monogamously married to a
member of the opposite sex.  Paul never offers a lesser sin (homosexual
"marriage") to prevent people from engaging in what may be considered 
a more damaging sin.

>For another example, Paul obviously
>would have preferred to see people (at least in some circumstances)
>remain unmarried.  Yet if they were unable to do so, he certainly
>would rather see them married than in a state where they might be
>tempted to fornication.

Yet marriage itself is not a sin.  marriage is holy in all- and something
that God ordains, and Paul recognizes this.

> Note that in the
>creation story work enters human life as a result of sin.  This
>doesn't mean that Christians can stop working when we are saved.

Actually, Adam was put in the garden to tend to it before he fell.
After he fell he would have to toil over the ground.

>The dangers of trying to cure it are that the attempt most often
>fails, and when it does, you end up with damage ranging from
>psychological damage to suicide, as well as broken marriages when
>attempts at living as a heterosexual fail.

That is why we are dependent totally on God- what a vunerable and glorious
position to be it.  We all must be transformed by the renewing of our
minds- and that is the only way homosexuals can walk in freedom, just
like anyone else.

>but I can well imagine Paul
>preferring to see people in long-term, committed Christian
>relationships than promiscuity.  As with work -- which Genesis
>suggests wasn't part of God's original ideal either -- I think such
>relationships can still be a vehicle for people sharing God's love
>with each other.

I'm sure you can see how people with the opposing view see this 
conclusion.  It's like saying, "How should I kill myself, with gun or
aresenic?  What about the person who just is overcome with a desire to
sleep with goats?  Would it be better for him to sleep with one goat,
or all of them?  What about the person who wants to sleep with his aunts?
Would it be better for him to sleep with one aunt or all of them?  

In all these cases, the more people or animals one sleeps with, the higher
the chance that they will get a disease.  But this only deals with 
physical aspects of the question.  Whichever sin is commited, it all 
leads to spiritual death.

>Cent. actions are the same.  When Christian homosexuals say that their
>relationships are different than the Greek homosexuality that Paul
>would have been familiar with, this is exactly the same kind of
>argument that is being made about judicial oaths and tax collectors.

The issue that is most often addressed in Scripture seems to be the
actual act.  Second, isn't it historical snobbery to say that
only homosexuals of this century are capable of having "loving
relationships?"  There are ancient writings glorifying homosexual "love."
(btw, I am one who believes in refraining from making oathes.  Also,
where do you get that tax collectors are sinners.  That's certainly not
explicit.  Jesus didn't tell Zachias to quit his job.)

Link Hudson.


[I'm reluctant to comment in this in detail.  Our basic concepts of
the intention of Jesus and Paul are greatly different.  As I indicated
in the article, whatever the ambiguities of various words (and I still
think they are significant), it does seem clear that Paul considered
the homosexuality he saw around him wrong.  What you do with this fact
depends upon your basic approach to the Bible.  I'm afraid that
communication between legalist and anti-legalist Christians is even
harder than between Protestants and Catholics in the 16th Cent.  Since
you disagree with my starting point, obviously you're going to
disagree with all of the intermediate discussion and conclusions.
Sometimes discussion is still useful.  I've seen some very interesting
work on Paul done by Jews.  Obviously they don't agree with him, but
they sometimes have helpful insight into what he meant.  But I don't
see much sign for hope here.  In talk.religion.misc there's an axiom
that by the time Hitler's name is invoked, all hope for sensible
discussion is gone.  On this subject, when sleeping with goats is
invoked, I don't think there's enough basis for understanding to be
worth pursuing.  --clh]