From: Sondra Brasile (sbrasile@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 11:08:27 EDT
Debbie,
Amen!
I cannot accept the fact either that active unrepentant homosexual's are not
sinning (I also admit that it's no worse a sin than any other, but it is sin
nonetheless). The Bible says MUCH about continuing to sin after rebirth, but
it also explains God's offer of forgiveness *when* we fail. BUT how
repentant can a person be that refuses to admit that what they are doing is
sin?
Sondra
>From: "Debbie Mann" <deborahjmann@insightbb.com>
>To: "Asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
>Subject: RE: A response to Burgy
>Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 08:43:41 -0500
>
>I cannot make the Bible say that homosexuality is not sinful. However, I
>will not attend a church that does not welcome sinners. We all sin and come
>short of the glory of God. In our own church, they would not be allowed to
>become members while actively living in sin. However, they would most
>certainly be welcome. God alone convicts. Faith cometh by hearing the word
>of God. The most damning passage on homosexuality, in my opinion, in the
>Bible is the one in Roman and it nails everyone for something and ends with
>Romans 2:1 and the commandment to not judge. The church SHOULD set up
>standards for members and certainly for officials. These standards should
>be
>based on the Bible. However, the church should shun no one, NO ONE, who is
>there in all sincerity - except where there is an issue of safety to the
>members.
>
>Visit the prisoners for in doing so you have done it unto me.
>
>I'm sorry I don't have time to look up all my references. I'm fairly sure
>you recognize them all anyway. Jesus sat at dinner with the sinners. I
>imagine you know that not only was this against Jewish tradition but
>sharing
>salt was a broader commitment throughout the region than anything we would
>associate with eating a meal. And what was Jesus' reply when criticized?
>Who
>needs a physician?
>
>Faith, hope, love, these three, but the greatest of these is love.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of Walter Hicks
>Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 7:13 AM
>To: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: A response to Burgy
>
>
>Burgy has asked that we
>consider his web pages in the
>area of gay and lesbian
>relationships. I have
>attempted to do so below.
>
>
>1.)
>http://www.mlp.org/resources/Dissenting.htm
>
>In this sermon, rev. Harold
>Porter criticizes the General
>assembly of the Presbyterian
>Church as follows:
>
>This document lists passages
>from both the Old and New
>Testaments that describe same
>sex behaviour as sinful,
>concluding that “the New
>Testament declares all
>homosexual practice
>incompatible with Christian
>faith and life.” And,
>finally, seeking to offer
>definitive guidance, later
>hardening into ecclesiastical
>law, the Assembly said
>unequivocally “unrepentant
>homosexual practice does not
>accord with the requirements
>for ordination.”
>
>While Porter than criticizes
>this position with lofty
>phases, I cannot see any
>Biblical refutation of the
>above statement within the
>document. I am certain than
>those who support the gay,
>etc. lifestyle would like to
>have the Bible not say the
>things that it does, but the
>words are there and do not
>disappear..
>
>2.)
>http://www.burgy.50megs.com/gay1.htm
>
>In this discussion, Burgy
>presents his position as
>generally favouring the view
>that loving gay and lesbian
>lifestyles (the actions, not
>the inclination) are not
>sinful. His primary reference
>is a book by the Catholic
>Theologian Daniel Helminiak.
>As in the above, this author
>is taking a stand in
>opposition to his own church.
>I notice that he has a
>foreword by Spong. (That says
>a lot.)
>
>Knowing nothing about
>Helminiak, I did a web search
>about him. I’ll just note here
>that Alamo Square Press
>published his book. A Goggle
>search indicates that this is
>an organization that
>dominantly publishes gay and
>lesbian literature. It is not
>a Christian publishing house.
>
>Also from Googol, there is an
>article by the ACLU on
>http://archive.aclu.org/about/transcripts/helmin.html
>At one point Helminiak
>concludes: “I don't know the
>Agnostic gospels, there's a
>similar story in the Gospel of
>Mark the young man runs away
>and they get the sheet from
>him, so he runs off naked.
>Some scholars suggest that the
>man was woken from sleep and
>came out wearing a sheet which
>they slept in in those days.
>What was really going on,
>again, we don't have the
>evidence. I would not want to
>suggest that Jesus was or was
>not homosexual. We simply
>don't know.”
>
>That stuck me as inconsistent
>with his contention that
>opposition to homosexuality
>was a Jewish thing. Jesus
>would not have been accepted
>if he were homosexual in
>actions. I suggest that do
>know that he was not.
>
>3.)
>http://www.burgy.50megs.com/hmoral.htm
>
>In this section, Burgy
>presents the following chart
>from a book by Joretta Jordan.
>The suggestion is that this is
>way we should analyse the
>issues.
>
>Level....HO..........HA.......................How
>to counsel
>
>1
>Unnatural...Evil
>Change behaviour.
>
>Both HO and HA are immoral
>
>2 Diseased....Not
>justified
>Partners have no moral blame
>
>Abstinence is recommended
>
>3
>Defective...permissible
>HO and HA are morally neutral
>
>"Don't ask, don't tell" policy
>
>4
>Imperfect...justified
>Do not attempt to influence
>
>HO and HA are morally neutral
>
>5
>Natural.....good
>HO being natural, HA is OK
>
>Affirm and celebrate the
>relationship
>
>I have a real problem with
>this in that it does not
>include what most evangelicals
>would describe as their
>position. Namely, that is that
>a homosexual inclination is
>not evil in itself but that
>yielding to that inclination
>is sin. That is not to say it
>is the worst of sins but just
>that it is sin. Similarly,
>heterosexual sex outside of
>marriage is considered to be
>sin also.
>
>4.) Liberals and Conservatives
>
>Burgy, God bless him, is one
>of my favourite Liberals.
>However, the conclusions are
>those drawn by a classic
>Liberal and typify what exists
>here in my State
>(Kennedyland). In the school
>systems, sex education is
>taught. It used to be
>conventional heterosexual
>relationships but that is
>changing. Now the gay and
>lesbian techniques are
>penetrating (excuse the word)
>the teachings as well. Young
>people are given telephone
>numbers that they may call to
>get information without their
>parents knowing. All this is
>good clean work in the minds
>of a liberal but is a reason
>to adopt home teaching, going
>to a private Christian school,
>or a moving to another State
>(in the minds of some
>Christians).
>
>I still have a lot of trouble
>with the notion of canned
>philosophies. A liberal or a
>conservative will rarely
>consider the data objectively.
>Instead, a notion consistent
>with that canned philosophy is
>arrived at and the search for
>corroborating data is
>constantly expanded. I would
>suggest that this is not a
>good way to arrive at the
>truth in any matter. It is
>especially bad for scientists
>who are supposed to objective
>pursuers of the truth.
>
>In this situation being
>considered, the Bible clearly
>labels homosexuality as sinful
>and really has to be twisted
>to say the contrary. To argue
>that a gay couple is
>acceptable within the
>Christian Church simply sets
>aside the Bible as being
>outdated in this respect. Why
>not just argue thusly and
>avoid the slight of hand? At
>least then there can be a
>sincere debate that might
>eliminate the artificiality of
>canned philosophies.
>
>
>--
>===================================
>
>Walt Hicks
><wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>
>In any consistent theory,
>there must
>exist true but not provable
>statements.
>(Godel's Theorem)
>
>You can only find the truth
>with logic
>If you have already found the
>truth
>without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
>===================================
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 11:08:53 EDT