When Christians say that we are all sinners it means everyone is entitled to
at least one sin. Homosexuality is a sin just like any other sin that we all
commit. C.S. Lewis was right when he said that the sins of the flesh are
not the worst. Pride (conceit, arrogance, self-love, etc.) is the greatest
of them all. However, one thing is to breaks God's laws but another is to
encourage and/or deceive others into doing the same. Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: John W Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com>
To: iain.strachan2@ntlworld.com <iain.strachan2@ntlworld.com>;
asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: Homosexuality (a condition) and homosexual activities
>Iain posed some interesting points. I'll try to respond.
>
>He wrote: >>>(1) I still don't know how one is supposed to witness ones
>faith to a
>homosexual. With the example I gave of my past experience, I felt that I
>could not pretend the verses in Romans and Leviticus didn't exist. If
>I'm
>to share my faith, I can't really cover up the points that I might feel
>are
>unacceptable to the other person. If I did just tell the essentials, and
>they became a Christian, and then subsequently came across the Romans
>verse
>(for instance), then I think they might well feel a sense of betrayal
>"why
>didn't you tell me about this before?".>>>
>
>No reason to "pretend." If you have my outlook on those 2 verses, no
>problem. If you don't, then talk about them -- tell him of alternate
>views to yours.
>
>>>>(2) I think much of the reason for prejudice against homosexuals is
>that
>many people feel a strong sense of disgust at what they do. My wife is
>not
>at all a prejudiced person, but the idea of two women engaging in
>intimate
>sexual contact is one that disgusts her. She can't help the way she
>feels
>about this - it is inborn. I, as it happens, do not feel the same sense
>of
>revulsion about the idea of two men having similar intimate contact, but
>I
>know plenty of heterosexual males who do (my father used to be totally
>revolted by such ideas). The point I would make is that the sense of
>disgust is so common that it can't be just written off as a blind
>prejudice - it is a violation and affront to what people regard as
>natural
>(i.e. the way they happen to be) - it is, using one of the translations
>of
>St. Paul "Inborn". >>>
>
>I don't think it is "inborn" at all, but taught. Just the way race
>attitudes are taught. We pick it up from the society we are part of.
>
>>>> Having said this, the question also has to be asked as
>to whether homosexuals feel the same sense of disgust at the idea of
>male/female sexual contact.>>>
>
>I really don't know about this. There may have been some surveys on it
>though. I suspect not, because persons with a homosexual condition are
>"taught" by society, as everyone else.
>
>Some of the lesbian couples I know are older ladies who were married,
>raised children, then after losing their spouses found a female partner.
>I have never heard any of them express revulsion at heterosexual
>activity, although none of them engages in it anymore.
>
>>>>Many of the moral issues revolve around the
>question as to whether homosexuality is "a condition" or a choice. Is a
>heterosexual who could not tolerate the idea of a homosexual relationship
>any different from a homosexual who could not tolerate the idea of a
>heterosexual relationship? We should not let our sense of disgust turn
>into
>prejudice. At the end of the day, disgust is not a good indicator of how
>to
>make moral decisions.>>
>
>Quite agree, of course. Personally, I find the concept of male-male sex a
>"turnoff." That is what I was taught in my society, and that prejudice is
>deep in me. That may be one reason I hesitated so long before taking a
>stand as I have done (still getting interesting mail). I think I can
>better understand the attitudes of those who supported segregation in our
>society. That attitude was certainly not "inborn," but taught. I was
>fortunate in that respect; I was not "taught" that skin color was an
>attribute to hold in contempt.
>
>>>>... if you remained silent on what scripture says about homosexuality,
>and the person concerned
>subsequently found the passage concerned, would they not feel
>betrayed?>>>
>
>Probably. That's why a discussion of the issues is probably needed.
>
>>>> On the other hand - suppose they made a Christian commitment
>believing (because you told them so) that it's OK to be a homosexual in
>a monogamous and loving relationship, and it turns out that statement A.
>is actually the correct interpretation of scripture - that ALL
>homosexuality is
>perversion. Then would you not be doing harm by hiding this
>possibility?>>>
>
>I think you are asking if you would be "leading them into sin?" I think
>the answer must always be that we witness to Christ to others in order
>that they may have a God-relationship. How that works out for them must
>be between them and God. If they subsequently decide that their
>homosexual activity is sinful, they will (I hope) stop.
>
>In any case, I would not tell them -- on my say so -- that I have a final
>answer. All I can tell them is how I come down on the issue at the time
>of our discussion. That is why discussion id needed, and "hiding" is a
>bad idea.
>
>Thanks for the stimulus.
>
>John Burgeson (Burgy)
>
>http://www.burgy.50megs.com
> (science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
> humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 15 2001 - 10:25:10 EDT