From: QAA@psuvm.psu.edu (Tim Bieling)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:57:07 GMT
 <1992Apr8.195454.27979@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
 <1992Apr8.221210.20447@apollo.hp.com> <1992Apr9.003701.3902@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Apr9.003701.3902@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu
(John Muehlhausen) says:
>
>I think I posted somewhat of a clarification, but here goes again...
>
>Heterosexual sex was designed by God as a gift to man which would strengthen
>the spiritual bond between man and wife as well as provide for reproduction.
>As with any gift, Satan seeks to pervert it so that it may become a "god" for
>the lost and a stumbling block for the saved.  Most good things that God has
>put in our lives can be warped and twisted - usually by overindulgence.
>Because God did not intend homosexual behavior (or deviant heterosexual
>behavior) I hold that gay persons do not receive the spiritual
>bond-strengthening through sex that a man and a woman do in marriage.  Rather
>the experience is one which satisfies only the fleshly nature of man when we
>should be focusing on the Spirit.  The union between man and woman is blessed
>and has spiritual fortitude while the union between two men is a perversion
>of this inspired by you know who...  Thus the sex act between two people of
>the same sex does not fulfill the purposes of God (obvious or spiritual) and
>should not be practiced by the Christian _for his/her own good_.  This is no
>more damning than any other sin, and was payed for by Christ's death, but the
>homosexual Christian is usually not intent on overcoming this fleshly nature,
>but rather on justifying it.  This is dangerous in that it may decrease their
>effectiveness for Christ, cause them psychological duress, lead others
>astray, etc.  This is why it is worth focusing on more than, say, eating the
>wrong types of meat (OT Law).

Do you really believe this line of BS?  Please open your mind and get a
clue! (I am truely sorry to start this in such a manner, but my off the
cuff reaction was true anger)

Ok, in your last few lines, you begin to place a rating on various sins,
this is bad in itself.  I ask you directly - who are you to "rate" various
sins, tossing out some which look harmless, but steadfastly holding on
to others?  I submit that it is either all or nothing, or we look at
the Bible as an evolving work (basic teaching ok, wording, etc change
with time)

If we accept the Bible as accurate fact (an oxymoron in the best sense
of the word), then we must condemn mixed fibers, eating of "unclean"
meats, ad nausium.  (make up your mind)

PLEASE don't reply with the "real", "symbolic", etc interpretations
of various scriptures - it doesn't wash.  When you pick and choose,
so can I.  (do you have a direct line to God?)  Do me and everyone
else a favor, think for yourself, and open your mind.

>
>All of this assumes that the homosexual has no choice in the matter which I
>am NOT convinced of by any stretch of the imagination. (If you respond to
>this also respond to the above please out of courtesy.)  IF this is correct,
>than these people are called to be as Paul was - single without the burden of
>the world and able to focus on the Spirit.

I had no choice - I am who I am, a male person in love with another
male person.  It's quite simple.

-Tim