From: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 24 Jul 92 13:35:58 GMT
Reply-To: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) in Message-ID: 
<1992Jul23.220100.13716@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> writes to me:
>
>...I would have to conclude that all sins...are sins...

Brilliant!  You thought that some sins weren't really sins?
Which sins aren't sins?  the ones you don't want to give up?

>...do you just use the convient homohaters reference guide...
Whoa!  Gee whiz kids.  I've been labeled a homophobe and now maybe even 
a homohater.  Even in this modern day and age, one can get labeled so fast.  
How slow civilization advances!  What ever happenned to 
   "Be quick to listen and slow to speak"?

>>>How do you know that homosexuality is a sin? 
>>...the same way we would know that anything else is a sin.  If sin is 
>>a separation from god and homosexuality departs from this god's design 
>>specifications on us humans, if we reflect his image, then this behavior 
>>departs from him.  By the transitive property, it is sin.  
>
>How do you know that homosexuality wasn't part of Gods plan?
What plan is it a part of?  What biology course tells you that a penis 
doubles as a rectal thermometer?

>>I know that staying focused on this god (ie worship) is my main priority.  
>>Otherwise, it would not be right to call him my Lord.  
>
>So why should someone else (a homosexual)...be any different?
should?  Who said they "must" not make him their Lord?  That's everyone's
own choice.

>>>How do you know its ok for women to evangelize (sp?)
>>I don't.  What is our criteria for what is ok and what is not ok?
>
>My personal criteria is that which doesn't injure others is ok, and
>that that does is only ok if it prevents much greater harm.
Where did you get this?  Star Trek?  Regardless, why then, if there is 
no question of god's existence, do you still consistently break your 
own criteria?  You fail by your own standards.  Why don't you make your 
own criteria more obviously selfish to make the words fit the actions?  

>...I would have to conclude that...a life of celibacy would be best,...
>I must keep kosher, and not allow women to evangelize.
basically.  (I still don't know about that last part.)

>If I took only the Gospels as the word of God then I would have to 
>conclude that only things that broke the great commandments were sins,
>and I would place the word of the Gospels above the teachings before
>and after. 
Why?  (1) I think that *any*thing that broke *any* commandment was a sin, 
especially the *greatest* commandment. (2) I think that the word of the 
Gospels are kind of just an option to the above teachings.  That's why 
they're sometimes called the "good news."

>>>Don't tell other people that a passage applies to them when you conviently
>>>ignore the commandments only paragraphs away.
>>Why not?
>It's hypocrisy.
Since everyone's a hypocrite, we shouldn't tell each other anything?

You haven't answered this following question yet:
>>...[paraphrased for brevity:]  Why are commandments issued?

>I hope judges arn't supposed to enforce old testement commandments, not
>to[o] many people [correction--NO ONE] would be left alive...
You think only the mass murderers should be put to death?

>Surely you have read leviticus...
Actually no, I haven't.  Have you?  I just know what's supposed to
be in there.

>Homosexuality cannot be changed, even psychologists in the 1950's
>realized this. 
What kind of psychologists would say that?  They were obviously not logists.
Because exceptions exist, no serious logist would make such a blanket 
statement like that.

>Your demands that someone change what cannot be changed
>and what should not be changed results in suicide.
I believe that one's persistence of straying from god results in suicide.



Please learn the message of the cross.

Terence
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc