Original_To:  CHRISTIA
Original_cc:  HUTTER
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 11:09:00 N
From:         Wolfgang Hutter <HUTTER@DULRUU51.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: "Homophobic? Re-read your Bible"

In a message of Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:24:24 GMT
Received on Tue, 25 Aug 92 19:06 N
78witherspoo@CUA.EDU wrote:

>               "Homophobic? Re-read your Bible"
>
>                       by Rev. Peter J. Gomes

[stuff deleted...]

>       Two others (Leviticus 18:19-23 and Leviticus 20:10-16) are part of what
>biblical scholars call the Holiness Code. The code explicitly bans homosexual
>acts. But it also prohibits eating raw meat, plainting two different kinds of
>seed in the same field and wearing garments with two different kinds of yarn.
>Tattos, adultery an sexual intercourse during a woman's menstrual period are
>similarly outlawed.
>
>       There is no mention of homosexuality in the four Gospels of the New
>Testament. The moral teachings of Jesus are not concerned with the subject.
>
>       Three references from St. Paul are frequently cited (Romans 1:26-2:1, I
>Corinthians 6:9-11 and I Timothy 1:10). But St. Paul was concerned with
>homosexuality only because in Greco-Roman culture it represented a secular
>sensuality that was contrary to this Jewish-Christian spiritual idealism. He
>was against lust and sensuality in anyone, including homosexuals. To say that
>homosexuality is bad because homosexuals are tempted to do morally doubtful
>things is to say that heterosexuality is bad becuase heterosexuals are likewise
>tempted. For St. Paul, anyone who puts his or her interest ahead of God's is
>condemned, a verdict that falls equally upon everyone.

I don't know if the author doesn't * want * to see it, or if he just
missed it, but Paul clearly states:

ROM 1:27  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the
 woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men
 working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that
 recompence of their error which was meet.

So the intercourse of man with woman is called  * natural *  whereas the
intercourse of men with men is called  * unseemly *. He's not dealing
with lust in the first place, but with homosexuality, sorry.

>       And lest we forge Sodom and Gomorrah, recall that the story is not
>about sexual perversion and homosexual practice. It is about inhosipitality,
>according to Luke 10:10-13, and failure to care for the poor, according to
>Ezekiel 16:49-50: "Behold, this was the iniquity of they sister Sodom, pride,
>fullness of bread and abundance of idleness was in her and her daughters,
>neither did she strengthen the hand fo the poor and needy". To suggest that
>Sodom and Gommorrah is about homosexual sex is an analysis of about as much
>worth as suggesting that the story of Jonah and the Whale is a treatise on
>fishing.

Whereas it is true that the story of Sodom deals not  * only *  with
homosexuality, but with all of their sins - among which homosexual
practices was one kind - the interpretation of Luke 10:10-13 is really
far from being obvious to say the least (maybe it wasn't cited because
of that):

LUK 10:10  But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you
 not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say,
LUK 10:11  Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us,
 we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this,
 that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
LUK 10:12  But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in
 that day for Sodom, than for that city.
LUK 10:13  Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for
 if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have
 been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in
 sackcloth and ashes.

The rest of the text doesn't provide information or arguments, but is
simply repeating very emotional accusations over and over again, so I don't
find it woth to resond to it.

>Hope you get something out of this!

Yes. Another sad example of how you can appear to be refuting errors
without providing appropriate arguments. Sorry, but just re-read this
article (or better the Bible as the author says) and test how many lines
really provide solid arguments and how many just state the authors
dislike for the 'homophobics'.

Still loving homophiles (and homophobics).
Wolfgang <><
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia