From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 16 Sep 92 00:03:09 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <edjans01.716578174@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>, edjans01@orion.spd.louisville.edu (David Jansing) writes:
> In <1992Sep15.121227.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> 
>>In article <edjans01.716570007@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>, edjans01@orion.spd.louisville.edu (David Jansing) writes:
>>> You note that natural and unnatural lust are sinful according to Scripture.
>>> Does this eliminate (in your opinion) the possibility for a consenting, 
>>> monogamous, intimate relationship between two persons of the same sex?
>>> 
>>> Dave
 
>>     I have been trying not to overtly include my *personal* opinion
>>in this discussion -- I've learned that the only thing immoral in
>>these newsgroups is to talk about personal morality.  However, I
>>was trying to present a more traditional interpretation of
>>scripture -- whether anyone believes it right or wrong.  Let me
>>say this: when trying to interpret scripture, it is important to
>>look at *all* relevant passages before any conclusions can be made
>>(which is why I included the passage from Jude). 
>>
>>     C. Perttunen
 
> A noble and valiant response!  It would be nice if the Radical Right could 
> learn the same lesson (i.e., shoving their morality down others throats).  Alas,
> it will probably be the case that we will have to put up with the Jim/Tammy
> Bakkers, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertsons, and Jimmy Swaggerts with their Yankee
> Doodle Yakkee.
> 
> 
> My next question to you is this:  What sort of experience or background to you
> have in Scripture Interpretation?  Just out of curiosity . . . Are you a 
> literalist or do you take a more "Catholic" approach to Scripture, reading the
> text and looking at the historical, fictional, and contextual views?
> 
> Dave

     All of the people you refer to as the "radical right" are
ministers (not all good ones) -- it is a minister's *job* to teach
Biblical morality.  I am not a minister, hence I am not out to
teach morality to peers of mine.  But this does not mean that
I feel any less strongly about moral issues than do ministers.
Also, I do not believe all these guys are out to shove morality down 
others' throats -- have they shoved morality down your throat?

     I am *not* an expert in scripture interpretation since I have
no formal training in the area.  I do view the Bible as the inerrant
word of God.  I'm not sure what your definition of a literalist is,
but I do take the *non-symbolic* passages at face value (unfortunately
being a slave to my English translations here).  For example, I
assume that the beast with ten horns and seven heads is a symbol.
But, I believe that many *non-symbolic* verses cannot be totally 
understood without seeing how they relate to all of scripture, i.e.
the interpretation must be consistent.  I also look at historical 
texts, mainly dealing with world history, to understand 
some of the symbolism given in the Old Testament.  

     Cary
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush