Original_To:  CHRISTIA
Original_cc:  HUTTER
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:16:00 N
From:         Wolfgang Hutter <HUTTER@DULRUU51.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Sponged

In a message of Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:57:02 GMT, received on Thu,  3 Sep 92 01:17 N
Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kilroy@GBORO.GLASSBORO.EDU> wrote:

[citing Robert Weiss]
>>      I realize that Louie pointed readers to _Living in Sin?_ and not to
>> _Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism_.  However, I think that pointing to
>> what Spong teaches will help one to discern whether he is a teacher of truth
>> or an apostate teacher.
>
>And this is, of course, a paradigm example of the fallacy known as _ad
>hominem_.  Instead of attacking the opponent's arguments about homosexuality,
>the writer has attacked the man himself.  But Bishop Spong's personal
>attributes -- whether he is apostate, inspired, brilliant, idiotic, insane,
>immoral or saintly -- are irrelevant.
>
>All that matters is the quality of his argument: does his claim have good
>evidence and valid reasoning to back it up?

I understand what you want to say. But there were people who tried to
show that the Bible calls homosexual practices sin. And there were
others who claimed that the Bible can be interpreted in such a way that
this conclusion is not valid. One source cited was Spong. So if someone
claims that Spong interprets the Bible in a way that allows for
homosexual practices it must be allowed to examine the way he works with
Scripture. If what was cited about Spong is true then his authority in
matters of biblical doctrine has to be heavily doubted by those of us
who think that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. If Spong really
says that the Gospel of John contains no word spoken by Jesus and His
miracles are just tales - then we have indeed to doubt that the
conclusions he draws from the Bible can be of any value for those of us
who accept the Scriptures as our guideline.

>Attacking his character or his faith or his morality may make you feel good,
>and it may bias your audience against him, but it has no bearing whatsoever on
>Biblical exegesis.  If his conclusions on homosexuality are sound, then they
>are sound no matter what he's said about other issues.  (And, of course, if
>his conclusions about homosexuality are baseless, they are baseless no matter
>what he's said about other issues.)

I presume that the citation were not given to discredit Spong's faith
or character, but simply that you can't cite him for biblical exegesis.
His arguments from common sense, psychology or whatever may be faultless
and sound, but that was not the issue.


In a message of Wed, 2 Sep 1992 11:51:51 GMT, received on Thu,  3 Sep 92 01:18 N
Ann Carlson <carlson@AB24.LARC.NASA.GOV> wrote:

[quote of Robert Weiss deleted...]
>I hope that those interested in this discussion will not take the above
>quotes lifted at random from the book as a representative example of Spong's
>beliefs and writings.  I have read both books in question and was, more than
>anything else, impressed with Spong's love of and reverence for Scripture.

How can a man love and revere Scripture and then go on to say things as
those cited by Bob? Either his citations or your impressions seem to be
false.


In a message of Tue, 1 Sep 1992 23:32:17 EDT, received on Thu,  3 Sep 92 01:18 N
Tim Bieling <QAA@PSUVM.PSU.EDU> wrote:

>I recall (forgive me, I didn't note verse) a statement to the effect
>that "man left the natural use of woman...." etc.  This is the strongest
>potential reference to homoesxuality (the rest are even weaker).
>However, if you accept this statement (fully written out) as inerrant
>fact, then it says NOTHING about homosexuality.
>
>Think about it - as a gay man, my "use of women" would be quite unnatural,
>but my relations with other men would be quite natural to me.  I assert that
>this passage is vague at best, and refers to prostitution rather than
>what we now see as comitted loving same sex relationships.

Maybe I am too prejudiced to see it, but I can't help to think it does
indeed talk about homosexuality - and not about prostitution. I read the
whole paragraph (I'll cite only what I find essential at the moment).
The first relevant statement seems to be v. 18:

ROM 1:18  For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
 ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
 unrighteousness;

So the passage talks about the 'ungodliness and unrighteousness of men'.
I would paraphrase it with the sinful nature of man. He is not speaking
of prostitution, but of 'the world'.

Then comes the passage you referred to:

ROM 1:26  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for
 even their women did change the natural use into that which is
 against nature:

Paul here defines the 'natural use' not as being according to my
feelings or whatever, but as being according to nature!

ROM 1:27  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the
 woman, burned in their lust one toward another; ...

Again: the "natural" is heterosexuality, whereas those practicing
homosexuality are designated as having left the natural way.

 ...men with men
 working that which is unseemly, ...

So is not homosexual behavior said to be "unseemly"?

 ...and receiving in themselves that
 recompence of their error which was meet.

And Paul goes so far as to say that the error (homosexual practice) will
be recompensed.

I don't see any reference to prostitution here. Paul is talking about a
whole lot of sins. And one of them (it seems to me) is homosexual
practice.

Maybe I've missed your (plural) explanations on these verses, but it
seems so plain to me...

Sorry, maybe I'd better keep silent now.

Wolfgang <><
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU