From: aiden@NCoast.ORG (Steven Otlowski)
Subject: Re: condemnation of homosexual acts is (un)necessary...
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 06:21:29 GMT

In article <C1Iz07.A9t@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>In article <C1I2BF.FyC@NCoast.ORG> aiden@NCoast.ORG (Steven Otlowski) writes:
>>In article <9301261417.AA132672@oldgwenbnc> mlj@EVOLVING.COM writes:
>>>
>>>         Let's assume, for a moment ( and a moment only :-) ), that the "Spirit"
>>> > is calling on us to set aside yet another of our prejudices
>>>
>>>How would you explain the Burst of insanity that the "Spirit" would move/stir
>>>the hearts of men to engage in an act that is detrimental and non-productive
>>>to the human race?
>>
>>I know a number of homosexual couples who are involved in monagomous
>>loving relationships.  They are church goers and are active on a civic
>>level.  
>>
>>I find it hard to describe them as "detrimental" or "non-productive"
>>to the human race.
>>
>>I fail to see the damage done by any relationship founded in love
>>and mutual respect.
>>
>>Perhaps you should invest more than (a moment only :-) )  and search 
>>that inner part of yourself where the Spirit speaks to the hearts of
>>mankind.  
>
>   This poster seems to be saying that homosexual acts are not sinful,
>and that the Holy Spirit leads him and others to this belief.
>
>   It's dangerous to attribute to the Holy Spirit that sinful acts are
>in fact not sinful.  Especially when one is claiming that one knows
>better than the Church which Jesus promised would have the Holy Spirit
>to protect her from error.  If you are wrong it could very well be
>blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
>
>Steve Creps, Indiana University
>creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu

Once more... the nature of what is perceived as sin changes over time.
This is an established fact.
Awareness of the fact that a given act may or may not be in keeping
with the spirit of the Gospel seldom comes from the "Church".

Revolutionary ideas are usually the result of the gifted insight of
a few individuals.  This insight may stem from reason or from the 
gift of the Spirit.  The end result is that these individuals make 
others avare of a need to re-examine what they hold to be true.
This can only be done in contemplation of the Spirit within.
We were promised that the Spirit would lead us.  The Spirit speaks to 
who he will.  We were promised that the Spirit would guide the Church, 
not that the Spirit would lead the hierarchy of the Church.  
We are ALL part of the Church.  Thoughout history are examples
of lowly Christians and hermits chastizing the heirarchy for their errors.
Often these people cause the hierarchy to see the light.
Ladership often (usually?) comes from below and not from above.
The structure of the Church changes to reflect the insight and needs
of those who make it up.

What is sin?  Is it a list of things that we shouldn't do?
Is that in the spirit of the New Testement?  

The important thing is WHY we do something.  If we make a rule more
important than what it is supposed to stand for we are guilty of
Idolatry.  

Sexual regulations were designed to uphold the Sanctity and Human Dignity
of the Individual.. to help make sure that peole were not USING
each other as things, contrary to their human dignity.

The time has come for another change.  As previously posted by another
person (sorry I don't recall who), it is time to grant homosexual couples
the human dignity that current regulations deny them.  A chance to 
find themselves, and not hide in shame what they can not help.
The Church admits that it is not wrong to be Homosexual.  This
is how they have been created... and thus it is right for them to have
been created that way.   
The inconsistancy in Church teaching lies in (supposedly) recognizing
them for what they are, and forcing them to lie about themselves
to the both themselves and the world.  This is to deny them the basic
human dignity to accept who they have been made.

Perhaps the time has come to grant them the dignity of marriage
or "union" if you prefer...     

The opportunity to live out a loving relationship.
n
Don't quote me rules... don't think about accepted norms...
instead contemplate the message (not the words) of the Gospel.

Would it be right of you to deny them the dignity you hold for 
yourself?


Think about it.

Think!

Steve Otlowski -


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU