Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:02:00 GMT
From:         Z_STAFF_CL@SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE.AC.UK
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality

I am obviously not explaining what I mean about the difficulties of
being "gay" in a "straight" society very well.  I did preface this
series of comments with "language sometimes lets me down."  Sorry to go
over the ground again but what I am trying to get across is difficult
and I have discovered that it is important for us to understand what it
is like to stand in someone else's shoes when we say of something about
them "it is sinful".    Later in the posting I'll also address what Jason,
Bernice and MAKS have said about the tone of this debate.


Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 11:11:29 -0500
From: Carl William Baum <cwbg9049@edu.uiuc.cso.uxa>
Subject: Re: Homosexuality
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia

>I still think there is no real difference.  An alcoholic also does not fit
>well into society.  Anytime he goes to a social event where alcohol is
>present, he feels things that others do not feel.  And he is prohibited
>from acting on them, because he knows what will happen.  Someone who is
>gay is similarly tempted when attractive males are present.

>As for psychological damage, the alcoholic is equally susceptible.  Without
>God, abstinence is hard for some and impossible for others.  But with God,
>all things are possible.  He will not give you more than you can bear.

Carl,

The difficulty in society is not just revolving about sex as it does with
alcohol for the alcoholic.  The "straight" reaction is assumed to be there
and is part of every social structure.  An alcoholic doesn't have the same
reactions as far as drink related events are concerned.  A gay person has
a whole series of different reactions in every day situations.  It is *not
only manifest* when an attractive person is about. ****It is like talking
a different language.***  A gay person doesn't fit his/her family structure,
doesn't react as one of the boys/girls in the office, can't partisipate in
socials (e.g the Christmas dance - can't take their partner and behave as
a couple as their colleguges will, certainly can't dance together.)  Actually,
the only other parallel I can draw that makes any sense to me is being a
Christian in a non-Christian environment - many things those about you see
as part of life you find questionable or alien to you.

The psychological damage I was talking of was not that resulting from giving
up and addiction but of trying to live a life that you feel in your heart of
heart is not you.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Date:     Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:16:23 -0500
From:     Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@EARN.RHODES>
Subject:  One little comment and question

>Why is it that homosexuality is treated as a bigger sin
>than lying or pride?
>
>Here is my point conservative Christians have no problem
>harping on homosexuality, but leave other sins alone.
>
>If homosexuality is a sin, isn't that something that the
>Spirit should handle with the individual, just between the
>two of them?
>
>         *stuff deleted for clarity*
>
>A scripture I haven't heard in a long while is from the book of James,
>I believe, which says something about each individual working out his
>own salvation with God.  The way I'd always heard this interpreted
>is that what is sin for one person may not be such for another--also
>like the eating of meat dispute.

Jason,

Unfortunately, I agree.  Homosexuality does seem to get a bigger
proportion of condemnation than a lot of other things.

Yes, to a certain extent we should butt out but we have a duty to point
where we believe others are going astray. (Isn't there anyone out
there who can quote what Paul said about speak to someone about their
sins 3 times and then drop the subject and the Gospel about beams and
splinters.)  The trouble is we don't keep to these.  This discussion
is part of the educational process about these issues not a "pointing
out" (as long as it remains a discusssion about the subject and not
a "you can not.." session) and should help everyone work out their
beliefs.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Date:        Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:58:36 EDT
From:        Bernice Tennant <U1A9A@EARN.WVNVM>
Subject:     Re: One little comment and question

> Paul said there is no other sin that affects the body as much as sexual
> sin.  When a couple enter a marriage,  they are entering a union   with
> God.  Just as you should  not bring a prostitute  to the union between your
> wife and you and God, you should not bring in a homosexual  relationship  with
> God.  Sex is not just a body function.  It is blessed and sanctified by God
> between a man and a woman and he is at the head (figuratively) of that
> union.   I hope you understand.  Maybe someone can explain what Paul was
> trying to tell us better than I.

Bernice,

All of that which you have said about marriage between man and wife I can
find some agreement with.    However, if the gay person is not ever
going to have a relationship with the opposite sex should they by these
rules be prevented from *any* relationship ?

A relationship is not just about sex but sex is part of a relationship
with one, stable, long term, loved and loving partner.

I suppose where thee and I disagree is on one premise only.  You assert that
homosexual sex is a sin full stop.  I question if it is *intrinsically*
sinful rather than sinful in certain contexts.

Did you have to bring the loaded point of prostitution in *and* draw a
parallel with homosexuality?  Wouldn't "another partner" have been a more
realistic term?  I think it rather muddied your point.



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Date:     Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:24:02 EDT
From:     MKLINE%VDH.BITNET@EDU.VT.CC.VTVM2
Subject:  Re: One little comment and question

***bits have been edited out to save a total repost ***

>      This tells the liar that "You are in sin. I am not. I am
>      better than you." The biggest difficulty is that most of
>      the homosexuals are saying "I don't have to repent."

.....
>      A little leven spoils the whole loaf and this person must be
>      spoken to, and if they won't repent, may be have to be turned
>      over to Satan and not spoken to.

.....
>      Now let's take the same scripture that you have just used, in
>      particular the meat. If your faith is strong, go ahead, if not
>      don't, but then Paul goes on to say that if his eating meat were
>      to cause his brother to fall into sin and go to hell, he would
>      never eat meat.

.....
>      Many have a REAL problem with homosexuals. We've also seen the
>      posts about it not being natural, posts that to some of us say
>      it is an abomination, and many points along this line. Yet, we
>      are the ones at fault, and like those that don't eat meat, it
>      doesn't matter if we perish, it's time we grow up and accept
>      the meat eaters, eating meat at our table, knowing how we feel,
>      and told to keep our mouth shut. (I'm not flaming, nor am I
>      angry, I'm just trying to portray what it looks like.)
>
>      Another example I could use would be Dan, our Wicca person(?)
>      We accept him, he can inject comments from time to time, and
>      participate in our conversations. If he were to start posting
>      how wonderful Wicca was and how our God has given His blessing
>      upon him, he would solicite exactly the same reaction from
>      the majority of us. I don't know how long most of those posting
>      on the pro-homosexual side have been here, but there have never
>      been any flames posted if you were talking about prayer, tithing,
>      giving to beggers, or other subjects. They have only got flamed,
>      unfortunately, for their beliefs in this one area.

MAKS,

I thought this debate was about if homosexuals do indeed have to repent and
if being homosexual is sinful in itself.  If they are, then such pride is
wrong.  However, Jason's point that homosexuals to "get yelled at" and are
"shouted down" more is valid.  We are proving it.

To turn someone over to Satan is extemely serious and not to be done lightly.
To be certain and have proof of their sin is, from memory, a part of all the
related passages in the bit of Paul you speak of.  I still have not seen
irrefutable proof of the intrinstic sinfulness of being homosexual.

I can't quite get the point of what you are tyring to say about homosexuals
abstaining so that they do not cause other Christian brothers to fall.  Was
Paul talking as an everyday Christian or as a religious teacher setting
examples ?  (Sorry I don't have a Bible handy!)   Was Paul talking about
eating meat in public?  In which case, is it O.K. to be gay in private ?
Incidently, I don't think is is possible to be "gay" in private and "straight"
in public without breaking the "let your yes be yes and no mean no" rule.

As for gays condemning brothers, maybe there was some while I wasn't listening
but the most I have seen is "you cannot be gay and love/follow god" type
comments that I flamed about (sorry, but I still don't agree that anyone has
the right to make that judgement of another's relationship with God); some I
seriously do not agree with you; some "you guys aren't hearing me"; some
"will you stop condemning us".  It does appear rather one sided.  Agreed there
may have been some spirited "how can you say that" but it has often been in
response to a "You are wrong"  rather than a "I don't agree" which is somewhat
understandable.

I don't think anyone has posted "how wonderful" being gay is.  If anything
it has be about how difficult life can be for gay people.  Nor is anyone
trying to convert anyone.  We are merely debating if it is sinful much as
the church has talked things over since "meat".

Incidently, I believe we have discussed a little of Wicca in the past few
months but I cetainly don't recall the same condemning tone as I have seen
in some of the exchanges.  (Dan, if you're listening, was there the same tone
directed at Wicca as there is now at homosexuality ?)

I have said enough for now.   Sorry it is so long. There is much to say.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Carol A Long,  					DISCLAIMER - unless otherwise
IT Service,					stated this message contains
Southampton Institute of Higher Education	my opinion...probably only mine
East Park Terrace,
Southampton	SO9 4WW,   England		RELEASE - Repost at will, with
						acknowlegements to author.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Z_STAFF_CL@UK.AC.SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia