Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tuesday, 14 Apr 1992 19:19:09 EDT
From: Tim Bieling <QAA@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Are XXX Christians?
 <1992Apr14.202959.4521@athena.cs.uga.edu>

In article <1992Apr14.202959.4521@athena.cs.uga.edu>, hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu
(Paul Hudson Jr) says:
>
>In article <MIB.92Apr14144142@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu
>(Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>
>>The attack on gay people consisted of the bigots trying to prove that
>>gay sex is sinful.
>
>Calling people who believe homosex is sinful "bigots" does not change the
>fact that the Scriptures condemn homosexual sex.  I believe murder is
>sinful.  Am I bigotted (is this a word?) against murderers.
>Christian teaching, as found in the Scriptures (e.g. Romans 1:27) is
>that homosex is sinful.

First - the fact that you use the term 'homosex' makes me want to
put you at the level of a infamous character with the pseudo-name
of 'Art*m*s P*g*'.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and
assume you are thinking with more than a peanut for a brain.
(Not trying to flame you, but your poor choice of words)

Others much more informed than I have demonstrated that calling
these "clear passages" is an oxymoron.  Others have pointed out
various passages which condemn things which you brush off now.
(the worn out "mixed fibers", "unclean meats", etc, etc ad nausium)
Now, let's look at society existed at that time (from what various
historical documents can possibly show).  At best guess, marriages
were arranged by the parents.  Love was not part of the "mate selection",
but rather it was "You and she are to be joined - no if, ands, or buts).
Ok - Well, any homosexual contact would most likely occur outside of
said "joining" - That's fornication.  Joinings of same sex couples
wouldn't generally occur because the parents wanted grandkids (within
the "joining")

Traditionally, the wife stayed at home, and took care of the family
things, the husband was the breadwinner.  Oh, and slaves were perfectly
ok (the Bible only warns to be good to them).

Given this scenerio of society, it is clear that same sex LOVING couples
as we see today were foreign to that society.  Well, society has changed
a lot (for the better IMHO), but for some reason, there is a clinging
to PARTS (not all) of the "teachings" in the Bible.  (re: the aforementioned
"unclean meats", "mixed fibers", "owning slaves", etc.)

Are you so blind to accept the thought that perhaps the (weak at best)
references to homosexuality in the Bible were culturally induced, rather
than some "inspired word"?  Remember, we are reading the words of PEOPLE,
not a magically (I use that lightly) produced text.  The best example
of this is: if I tell you something (like a story), I can bet that when
I read it back from what you remembered, it will not be exactly what I
intended.  See my point?

You are sooooooo ready to be positive about what the Bible says about
one thing, but when shown other "problems", you back down and claim
that it's (cultural/symbolic/OT (and not relevant) pick one, ad nausium).

I've really grown tired of this whole thread.  I wonder if this, and other
"arguments" won't be the downfall of the Christian faith - that, or God
will slam his fist upon us and demand to know why we're acting so
stupidly - abusing what He created.  Gotta wonder.

-Tim

P.S. - Please don't be such a stuck up moron, so smug with your self
rightousness - it'll only serve to burn you in the end.  (flame intended
with a big *sigh* at the ignorance flowing freely here)
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:7034 soc.culture.jewish:8003