From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Biblical perspectives on homosexuality -- and Paul
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 05:36:20 GMT

In article <BxB0LF.FC7@da_vinci.it.uswc.uswest.com> ron@eatdust (Ron Schweikert) writes:
>>Sorry, the passage in Romans is very clearly Paul's personal opinion.
>>(And not a teaching of Christ, whom Paul never met, nor of some
>>divine inspiration.)

>>The only "word of God" condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible
>>is in Leviticus, right beside the laws of God against wearing
>>clothing made from mixed materials, eating un-kosher foods, etc...

>You can choose to believe or disbelieve the Bible as being the word of
>God.  But if you do so, either reject it all, or accept it all.

You seem to have just rejected most christians in America, (and in the
entire world, for that matter.) The accepted theological view 
(accepted, that is, by all but a few fanatics) is that the
Bible was written by men _inspired_ by God. But they did _not_
necessarily get the message completely correct.

>The Bible was not DIRECTLY PENNED by God.  That is, his hand did not hold
>a writing instrument and write everything down himself.  However I do
>believe that it was DIRECTLY AUTHORED by God.  He used approximately
>40 men over a period of 1500 years to preserve his word for us.  The
>personalities of each writer come through, but the ideas are from God.

In which case, God has serious memory problems, changes His mind
frequently and isn't too familiar with His own universe. 
Consider the two _contradictory_ versions of creation in Genesis One
and Two. Consider the practices banned in Leviticus, but accepted in
the New Testiment. Further, God seems to think the mathematical
constant, pi, is exactly equal to three: I Kings, 7:23, describes an
item in King Solomon's Temple as being perfectly circular, 10 cubits
in diameter and 30 cubits in circumference. Either God's agents 
got a few details wrong when thet wrote the Bible for Him, or 
God knows less about geometry than the average college student.

In specific, we are discussing the Book of Romans, and how accurately
it reflects God's views. The full title of the Book is: "The Epistle
[open letter] Of Paul the Apostle to the Romans." That is, a copy
of a sermen Paul preached in Rome. The primary reason it is part
of the Bible is because Paul's followers were the ones who 
compiled the New Testiment, and they (perhaps out of personal 
bias) felt Paul was inspired by God. They weren't necessarily 
right (in fact, I don't believe the Greek Orthidox Church accepts
Paul's epistles.) To argue that, simply becuase it was included in
the New Testiment, it is automatically the Word Of God, is to 
ignore all of the known history of the Bible and how it was put
together.

>The Bible claims divine inspiration for the writings.  A most interesting
>endeavor is to decide whether or not the divine authorship of the Bible
>is in fact true.  I used to not believe it, but now do.  

Inspiration and accuracy are not the same thing: Paul might have been
inspired, but still inserted in his personal biases. I certainly 
find his teachings very different (and inferior, morally) to the
teachings of Christ. Further, some authors of various parts of
the Bible may have been inspired by God, and others not.

>In any case, your dismissing of the Biblical teaching against homosexuality
>as penned by Paul because it was "not a teaching of Christ...nor of some
>divine inspiration" is clearly only YOUR opinion.  In fact, Paul DID meet
>Christ.  This resulted in his conversion.

I'm not totally sure Paul's vision on the road to Damascus counts as
"meeting" Chirst. Certainly, Paul never met Christ before the Crusifiction.
However the details of the event on the raod to Damascus are described
in detail, in the Acts of the Apostles. There is no mention, what so
ever, of homosexuality or of any other specific theology, prohibition,
etc... Christ simply appeared to Paul, asked him why he had was
lynching christians, and told him that (despite his past actions) he
had been chosen to deliver the word of God and should now start
preaching it. Christ didn't offer any details of what, exactly,
the Word of God was. And there isn't any particular reason to think
Paul got all the details right.

>If you believe in the divine
>inspiration of the Bible as it claims, then the teaching also was in
>fact Christ's.  
>If you don't believe in the Bible, don't use it as an argumentative point.

If you don't believe every single word in the Bible is absolute 
fact, then you are not entitled to have any opinion on the subject?
That is so pathetically narrow minded, that it isn't even worth
debating.

>Those who do believe in the Bible as divinely inspired, divinely preserved
>and making strong claims about itself will, if they search with an open
>heart and mind, find everything they need in their quest to learn about God.

Fine, but many people who _don't_ believe that every word in the
Bible is accurate, have also had the same experience. The "open heart
and mind" is the important part, and a part you seem to lack.

>He has written his law upon our hearts, has declared his righteousness in
>the heavens and all are without excuse when the time comes to stand before
>him.  

If all this is written in our hearts, why should we care what Paul
said to the Romans? 

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.politics