JB: I did argue that since it is NOT a "chosen" orientation, and
that seems to be fairly well established now with he probably exception of
the Exodus people, that arguments for "rehab" and "you can refrain from the
behavior" are only valid if one can show that the activity , itself, is
sinful in God's eyes. And to do this one needs to argue from the scriptures.
Don P: Again you contradict yourself. You say it is not necessarily
environmental or genetic, but you say it is not chosen. Then what is it? In
fact, it is a well established psychological fact that problems caused by
genetics can be reduced by both pharmaceutical and psychological treatments.
It is usually the "chosen" ones that are not. The reason of course is
obvious to anyone open minded. If you choose not to accept the treatment
then it won't work. The same holds true for alcoholism and drugs abuse. You
do make a good point though, in that scripture is the most powerful tool.
This of course only works if the person believes in the bible. And even some
the do believe will just say that God forgives or that it is only against
the OT and therefore obsolete as so many refer to the OT. I am not judging
those that are "afflicted" but unless you tell them they are wrong then so
are you. To help someone commit a sin is a sin. And the same holds true when
you look the other way while sin is committed. Even our laws reflect this
idea. Christ did not say forget sin, he said forgive sin. He too pointed out
the evil ways of people. It was his loving grace that guided them, not his
ignorance.
JB: I bagan a study last week on the support the Bible gives to the
pro-slavery
position held by many not only before, but during and, indeed, after the
Civil War. I'm only a short way into it -- this much seems clear -- the
Bible supports slavery a lot more emphatically with more citations,
statements of approval, and examples than it does a blanket condemnation of
all homosexual behavior.
Don P: First of all, you are right. The bible does not condemn slavery. But
the word used in the bible does not necessarily refer to captured slaves. As
was the case in our history. Indentured servants would be a more appropriate
term to what is acceptable to God. Even in our history, slavery began with
contracts for free services for a given time. In fact many of the rich black
families in Virginia come from these descendants. Where it went wrong is
when they started taking them unwillingly and abused them. This is against
the bible. Eph 6:9- "And masters, treat your slaves in the same way(well).
Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master(God)
and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism within him." I feel sorry
for those who do not see the difference between a "true" slave and a slave
servant. Some come into slavery by volunteering, due to lack of income. They
may do this for a set period of time or even a life time. For some this is
the only way to survive. What does one get from working at minimum wage? Not
enough to put a roof over your head and feed your family. By giving oneself
over as a "slave" you have all the necessities. Some may even, as in
pre-colonial Virginia, have contracts that provide them with a piece of land
at the end of the contract. Lesson here is that one should not treat every
situation the same based on a single word. Especially when the word used
brings bad connotations and people's ignorance of the facts is high. In
today's society servants is not needed. We have social programs to make up
for injustices in income levels. Liberals have seen to that. I agree with
it. BUT make no mistake, God does condemn the "slave" issue you refer to. If
he didn't he would have left the Hebrews in Egypt.
With faith in His word
Don Perrett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 14 2002 - 00:02:09 EDT