Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:50:00 EDT
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: I Am Someone Doing The Best That He Can

> From:         Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kilroy@GBORO.GLASSBORO.EDU>
> Subject:      I Am Someone Doing The Best That He Can
>
> In an earlier article, I asked some questions about how people react to
> homosexuals.  Some people do not want gay men to work in a day care center
> near young boys, but accept straight men working near young girls (and
> straight women working near young boys -- but what about gay women who care
> for young girls?).  I am interested in the thinking that drives these ideas.
> Are there sufficient logical grounds for treating these people differently,
> or are we simply repeating ingrained behaviour without thinking?

  I understand your desire to determine why someone thinks the way that
  they do and if their "rules" are applied across the board to similar
  situations.  Yet, it is easy to compare issues or circumstance that on the
  surface appear to be similar even though they are not once a closer look
  is taken.

  With the issue of homosexuals, male or female, watching same sex children
  the concern is that if one has given into sinfulness and depravity to
  a certain degree what will stop them from going further?  Besides, the
  person in question is drawn to a member of the same sex.  That conditon is
  not acceptable for most christians.  As for heterosexuals watching children
  of the opposite sex, there is a concern about potential for abuse but the
  person's sexual orientation is not abnormal.  Therefore, it seems as if
  there is a concern about individuals that engage in deviant behavior and
  the propensity for that person to engage in other deviant behavior.

> Carl Lahetta replied to some questions semi-sensibly, and then got personal:

   To ask someone a question you usually have to get personal.  Besides most
   of your positions seem to fly in the face of "Traditional Christianity".

> > What are you Darren?  The appointed protector of groups that seek to be
> > called Christians but cannot be validated.  I bet you applauded the move
> > by some churches to approve of homosexual ministers.
>
> Since you asked, I will answer.
>
> I am an extremely suggestible person; I am probably the most gullible person
> any of you will ever encounter.  If told convincingly, just about any lie,
> regardless of details, can take me for a ride.  But.
>
> Being aware of my own suggestibility, I have devoted a lot of time to the
> study of arguments, logic, rhetoric, evidentiary standards, and research.  You
> might be able to get me going with a story about historical figures, or an
> argument for your pet idea, but not for very long.  Eventually I will get
> around to dissecting the argument -- though it may take a while -- and then it
> won't matter how suggestible I am.

   I applaud and admire your efforts at improving yourself and desire to so
   educate myself, once I find the time.  By the way I am glad that you posted
   those books on logic.  I would like to look at them.  As Christians we need
   to educate ourselves.  However, one does not have to be learned to give a
   good defense of the Word.  Peter was a fisherman and did a good job.

> I've spent quite some time rejecting ideas that I was taught from a very young
> age: that the US was founded to be a `Christian Nation', that the Bible is
> Inerrant, that "Sola Scriptura" makes any sense, that the Bible teaches
> "abortion is murder",  ... too many to list them all.  (Some readers will
> recognise these topics as among those I have debated on Christia of late.)
>
> Christia has had some discussion of homosexuality recently; many people are
> expressing ideas that I have believed for a very long time.  This was, in my
> view, an excellent opportunity to analyse those ideas.  Things like
> "homosexuals constitute a threat to Family Values" seem to underlie much of
> the anti-gay-scoutmaster posts which we have seen.  But I'm finding that this
> idea doesn't really have much sound thinking -- if any -- under it.  To
> paraphrase my last quote, it appears that a lot of people here think they are
> thinking -- but they are only rearranging their prejudices.


  Naturally I will disagree with you about some of these topics.  But remember
  logic is also capable of explaining away the reasons to follow God.  Logic
  is not necessarily good in itself, it is merely a tool and whoever best uses
  the tool can achieve the results they desire.

> In reply to this:
>
> > [ Are you ]  The appointed protector of groups that seek to be called
> > Christians but cannot be validated. [?]
>
> You've got it somewhat backward.  I'm the self-appointed critic of groups that
> seek to impose standards on others, but who cannot validate those standards.
> Quite a bit of Christia traffic has gone by that supports ideas as "The Only
> Right Christian Opinion" -- but these ideas have sometimes had no Biblical
> support at all, no sound reasoning behind them, or in some cases only the most
> useless kind of evidence.

  Christians may differ on many points, but there are some foundations that
  should be the Only Right Christian Opinion.  When these opinions are lost
  then the message of God is lost and those Christians that adhere to the
  truths cannot accept those who disregard the truths as believers.  For
  example, adultery is a no no and some  churches are beginning to not condem
  adultery or fornification.  It clearly states in the Bible that these are
  sins and not to be tolerated.  That certainly should be the Only Right
  Christian Opinion on those two matters.  And there are others.

>
> If attacking baseless prejudice amounts to protecting certain groups, so be
> it.  Sometimes the tax collectors and sinners aren't all that bad, despite the
> bad press they get.

   Prejudice is one thing, accepting the sinner is different that approving
   of the sinners sin which is what people are asking Traditional Christians
   to do.
>
> > I bet you applauded the move by some churches to approve of homosexual
> > ministers.
>
> If I were homosexual, I would remain celibate, because I believe that is what
> the Bible teaches on this subject.  I believe this because it's something I
> have always been told -- whether it stands up to careful examination remains
> to be seen.  (Numerous other ideas did not.)
>
> What God wants of somebody else is between him & God.  I will not require
> others to adhere to ideas which I have not critically examined.  What those
> churches did is their business; when I get appointed Saul of Tarsus, then I'll
> write them letters.

    Wrong. It is our business as the body of Christ to do away with false
    teachers and false doctrines.
>
> Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
> `The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say "Here is a glutton and
>  a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and ``sinners.''" ' -- Matthew 11:19

   Jesus accepted the sinner, not the sin.  He sought the sinner out to
   change their hearts, not to ask the Church to approve of their lawlessness.
   When he pardoned Mary of her sins he told her to sin no more.

Carl-----------+
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia