In article <May.11.05.06.28.1993.5458@geneva.rutgers.edu> hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu writes:  >this came from.  Here's his response: Kinsey (see below) is the source >of the figure 10 percent.  There was an article in USA today a few months ago showing the results of a study that actually only about 1% were homosexual.  I saw another figure that listed 2% as the figure.  Of course, even if it were 99% that would have little bearing on whether or not it is a sinful behavior. How many people have commited other acts of fornication?  How many people have lied or sinned in other ways?  >But in all fairness, the "shameless" nature of their acts is a >reflection of the general spiritual state of the people, and not a >specific feature of homosexuality.  Why isn't it a specific feature of homosexuality?  Paul describes "men with men working that which is unseemly" to describe the acts.   Sure, there spirtual nature was depraved also, and like the other sins, the idolatry, the other sexual immoraity, and the other sins sprang from their depraved spiritual state which was a result of  man's not glorifying God as God and being thankful.  Still, their acts were shameless.  >homosexuality or even considered it acceptable in some cases.  On the >other hand, none of these passages contains explicit teachings on the >subject.  Rom 1 is really about idolatry.  It refers to homosexuality >in passing.  Is everything sinful specifically elaborated on in the New Testament? Scripture does not condemn being a drug dealer.  Being ruled by the Spirit rather than the letter not only frees from legalism, it also protects us from sins that are against the Spirit.  The word is a two edged sword that cuts both ways.    I think we must be careful before we totally throw out Leviticus.   If the Law is reflection of God's character and true holy nature, then those who say that God endorses homosexuality run into a problem.   If homosexuality were "natural" (whatever that means) wholesome,  endorsed by God, and those who oppose sexual behavior are narrow-minded biggots, as some would have us believe, why is there a condemnation of it in Leviticus.  This condemnation is in the midst of all the other sex sin condemnations, and there is nothing in the text to say that this law was limited to temple prostitution, and no good reason to believe that this was the case.  Furthermore, male homosexual sex was a death-penalty crime!    Is every sin elaborated on in the New Testament?  Take a look at I Corinthians 5.  Paul said that one of the Corinthians had broken a law not even heard of among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.  There is a prohibition against having your father's wife in  Leviticus.  No other new Testament verse clearly condemns it (besides this one.)  Notice that Paul did not say that the sin was in commiting adultery, etc.- he spoke against having one's father's wife.    Notice also that this sexual condemnation in Leviticus is not mentioned in the specific context of paganism either.  And there was no pagan  coustom mentioned in I corinthians either.  As a matter of fact taking one's father's wife wasn't even done among the Gentiles.  It was just a plain blantant sin, whether worshipping idols was involved or not.  >One commonly made claim is that Paul had simply never faced the kinds >of questions we are trying to deal with.  He encountered homosexuality >only in contexts where most people would probably agree that it was >wrong.  He had never faced the experience of Christians who try to act >"straight" and fail, and he had never faced Christians who are trying >to define a Christian homosexuality, which fits with general Christian >ideals of fidelity and of seeing sexuality as a mirror of the >relationship between God and man.  It is unfair to take Paul's >judgement on homosexuality among idolaters and use it to make >judgements on these questions.  One of the reasons that some of us do not accept that common argument is because Paul probably did face this and other problems.  Sin can be tough to over come, especially without supernatural power.  Is homosexual sin any more difficult to overcome that heterosexual sin, like lusting after a married woman, or sleeping around with people of the opposite sex?  I doubt it, and even if it is, that is no excuse. God is greater than all of it.   Another reason we reject it is because it ignores the supernatural power of God to intervene in this kind of situation.  How many  people have been set free from sin by the power of God?  Sure there may be any groups that have tried to change homosexuals and failed. That is a reflection on the people involved in the program, and not God's willingness and ability to change a sinner.  Any program that uses formulas may fail.  What people need is the power of God to change them, whether they are involved in homosexual sin, or any other sin.  >I claim that the question of how to counsel homosexual Christians is >not entirely a theological issue, but also a pastoral one.  Paul's >tendency, as we can see in issues such as eating meat and celebrating >holidays, is to be uncompromising on principle but in pastoral issues >to look very carefully at the good of the people involved, and to >avoid insisting on perfection when it would be personally damaging. >For example, while Paul clearly believed that it was acceptable to eat >meat, he wanted us to avoid pushing people into doing an action about >which they had personal qualms.   I don't see how you come to that conclusion.  Paul's dealings with pastorial issues encouraged people to give up their liberties in order to spare others- not to allow people to continue in sin because it was just too difficult.  Take the example of eating meat offered to idols. Paul felt that there was nothing wrong, in an abstract sense, with eating the meat.  Yet he advised believers to sacrifice their liberty to eat meat in order to spare others.    But Paul never allowed people to sin because living holy was just to tough.  Paul wrote to "make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof."  (Romans 13:14)  Then he goes in to a discourse on how we should sacrifice our own liberty in order to spare the consciences of others.  Suppose it were not a sin for people to practice homosexual acts.   Since others consider it to be a sin, then using Paul's approach on pastorial issues, those who would otherwise be homosexuals should  sacrifice their liberty and be celbate or monogamously married to a member of the opposite sex.  Paul never offers a lesser sin (homosexual "marriage") to prevent people from engaging in what may be considered  a more damaging sin.  >For another example, Paul obviously >would have preferred to see people (at least in some circumstances) >remain unmarried.  Yet if they were unable to do so, he certainly >would rather see them married than in a state where they might be >tempted to fornication.  Yet marriage itself is not a sin.  marriage is holy in all- and something that God ordains, and Paul recognizes this.  > Note that in the >creation story work enters human life as a result of sin.  This >doesn't mean that Christians can stop working when we are saved.  Actually, Adam was put in the garden to tend to it before he fell. After he fell he would have to toil over the ground.  >The dangers of trying to cure it are that the attempt most often >fails, and when it does, you end up with damage ranging from >psychological damage to suicide, as well as broken marriages when >attempts at living as a heterosexual fail.  That is why we are dependent totally on God- what a vunerable and glorious position to be it.  We all must be transformed by the renewing of our minds- and that is the only way homosexuals can walk in freedom, just like anyone else.  >but I can well imagine Paul >preferring to see people in long-term, committed Christian >relationships than promiscuity.  As with work -- which Genesis >suggests wasn't part of God's original ideal either -- I think such >relationships can still be a vehicle for people sharing God's love >with each other.  I'm sure you can see how people with the opposing view see this  conclusion.  It's like saying, "How should I kill myself, with gun or aresenic?  What about the person who just is overcome with a desire to sleep with goats?  Would it be better for him to sleep with one goat, or all of them?  What about the person who wants to sleep with his aunts? Would it be better for him to sleep with one aunt or all of them?    In all these cases, the more people or animals one sleeps with, the higher the chance that they will get a disease.  But this only deals with  physical aspects of the question.  Whichever sin is commited, it all  leads to spiritual death.  >Cent. actions are the same.  When Christian homosexuals say that their >relationships are different than the Greek homosexuality that Paul >would have been familiar with, this is exactly the same kind of >argument that is being made about judicial oaths and tax collectors.  The issue that is most often addressed in Scripture seems to be the actual act.  Second, isn't it historical snobbery to say that only homosexuals of this century are capable of having "loving relationships?"  There are ancient writings glorifying homosexual "love." (btw, I am one who believes in refraining from making oathes.  Also, where do you get that tax collectors are sinners.  That's certainly not explicit.  Jesus didn't tell Zachias to quit his job.)  Link Hudson.