From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: True Gay Christians
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 03:12:57 GMT

In article <WIGGINS.92Nov4213105@hurricane.cs.odu.edu> wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.154018.5191@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>   >Forgot something: "All things are lawful for me, but everything is not good
>   >for me."  So, I would have to say UNLAWFUL.
>   How does that make it unlawful?
>   It may be not GOOD, but as Paul says, not unlawful.
>
>I beg to differ.  It depends on how you want to take unlawful.  With respect to
>the OT Law and the rules and principles in it, these acts are definitely NOT
>lawful.  Jesus having paid the penalty of the Law for Paul, freed him from
>the Law; wherefore, Paul can say he's dead to the law and that all is lawful
>(ina sense).  The OT Law still tells what things are sinful or not.  Thus,
>while Paul argues that Christians are not under the penalty of the Law (freed),
>he says a little later in Romans, "Are we to continue in sin that grace (the
>mercy of God) may abound?  May it never be!  How shall we who died to sin still
>live in it?" (ch. 6:1-2).  Now, the big question is: is homosexuality a sin?
Sound to me like you're just trying to evade what Paul plainly says,
that all is lawful.

>   >as sinners, since they do the same things; stop doing them!"  In the OT also,
>   >homosexuality was punishable by death, Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; this instruction
>   >was given by God Himself.
>   Try rereading.
>   It says that you shall not lie with a man as with a woman.
>   I'm really not sure what that means.
>So, you really think that OT Jews thought it was OK for men to lie with other
>men as long as it was in a different way than with a woman?  Hahahahaha...
I haven't decided.

>YOU reread.  Look at it this way: it is physically impossible for a
>man to lie with a man exactly as he does with a woman, in the first place.
Yep, but it could easily be euphemistic for receptive anal sex as
was proposed earlier. 

>So, why would God tell a man not to do what is physically impossible for him
>to do anyway?  The Hebrew does not imply this meaning; it DOES imply men are
>not to have sex with men.
Maybe to you. Not clearly so to me.

> Don't believe me, believe OT Jewish culture at
>around 1500 BC.  And, the punishment for it was death.
That's funny. I don't remember hearing that. You have some historical
references that imply that this was the case?

>  Even before this Law,
>too, I believe there were some cities named Sodom and Gomorrah...  God
>destroyed these cities for their wickedness, part of which was homosexuality
>(see Genesis 19:5,13).
Really, looked to me like the only thing you know about their homosexuality
or not is that they were going to RAPE Lot's guests, which is something
rather different.

>   >Pauls's letter to the Romans was written in part to gay Christians, since they
>   >made up part of the church at Rome!!!
>   Funny, I see no reason to believe this. Sounds like pure fantasy to
>   me.
>You can, of course, believe whatever you want.  Reality may differ from your
>beliefs, however.
Yes, and from yours, I suspect.

>  There were homosexuals in many churches of that day.  Romans
>chapter 1 gives a long, scathing remark about how bad homosexuals were to Paul,
>especially v. 26-32.  Then, in the VERY NEXT sentence, Paul says, "Therefore
>you are without excuse, all of you who pass judgment; because, in so doing you
>judge yourselves, because you do the same things.  And, we know that God
>rightly judges those who practice such things."
I don't read it that way at all. For one thing, Paul seems to consider
homosexuality a PENALTY for sin. Read v. 26. Secondly, I tend to view
this as Paul condemning those who pass judgement because that sort of
attitude is innapropriate, cf. v 32. That would be you, dude.

"Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgement you
make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure
you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not
notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor,
'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' while the log is in your
own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then
you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye."
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc