Re: Response to Wally Hicks post made June 12th

From: John W Burgeson (jwburgeson@juno.com)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 16:11:57 EDT

  • Next message: Josh Bembenek: "RE: The Aphenomenon of Abiogenesis"

    Wally wrote, engaging my basic argument, in part:

    "I respectfully disagree with Burgy -- regardless of which position is
    actually wrong. I believe that that the logic should be reversed ... ."

    I figured you'd say that. I had written:

    > In the end, I have to say my position is not 100% sure; I could be
    wrong.
    > I have two choices:
    >
    > 1. I can side with fundamentalist Christianity, Dobson and his FOTF
    being
    > one source I might follow, and declare that all homosexual activity of
    > any kind anywhere is a "sin" in God's eye's, or
    >
    > 2. I can declare that I find no reason to include the specific case I
    > cite above as "sin."
    >
    > If I take position 1, and I should have taken position 2, I do grievous
    > hurt to some of God's people, falsely accusing them of sin where there
    is
    > no sin as far as God is concerned. When I do this, I have read into
    > scripture what is not there; I have added to God's word.

    Wally wrote: "To think that something is sinful when it not, is merely a
    sign of a weak
    faith. Paul discusses it in 1 Corinthians, chapter 8. Paul's advice is
    to
    abstain from what others consider to be sin, even if they are wrong."

    That's an interesting argument, and one I had not considered. I think
    what you are saying is that a person who is homosexual ought to live a
    celibate life because to do otherwise might hurt the faith of a "weak
    Christian" who thinks that all homosexual unions are sinful. Romans 8:13
    reads ". 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin,
    I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall." You
    would argue that if it were modified into ". 13 Therefore, if my
    same-gender relationship causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never
    engage in a same-gender relationship again, so that I will not cause him
    to fall."

    Maybe. Paul is speaking of meat offered to idols, pagan "gods." There is
    no particular religious action in a same-gender relationship. I cannot
    really see that Paul (God) meant EVERY possible action in the verse. I
    have known people who sincerely believed that if a male did not wear a
    beard, he was sinning -- should I, therefore, refrained from the morning
    shave? Secondly, it is the norm (I think) for heterosexual persons to
    view homosexual acts with some repugnance. I know that is true for me, at
    least. So my gay friend's relationship with his partner certainly does
    not entice me to try out the same thing! For me to do so would be clearly
    "sin." Even if I were not married.

     I had written:

    > If I take position 2, I may, indeed, be wrong, but I have done no harm
    to
    > anyone. I have failed, it might be argued, to have studied and
    understood
    > God's word as much as I should, but then, that is probably true of all
    of
    > us anyway.

    Wally continues: "If wrong, you have done immense harm. You have openly
    advocated doing sinful
    acts and basically encouraged it by your statements. "

    I understand this argument. It is a strong one. I must measure it, of
    course, against the harm I have done if I take position 1 and I am wrong.
     Either way I must run the risk of doing harm. But whether (or not) it is
    "immense harm" is problematical. I am only one voice. Any harm I may do
    is general in nature, spread among many. If I take position 1, I do
    direct harm to identified people. I encourage homophobia, violence
    against gays and lesbians, intolerance. I cannot do this.

    Wally veers off into another topic, when he writes: "What this leads to
    is the situation that exists in the liberal public schools in
    Kennedyland. Children are taught that homosexual life styles are
    acceptable (and they do
    not restrict it to "loving relationships") and homosexual teachings are
    creeping into the sex education classes. This would classify as one of
    the worst things a person could do."

    Worst? Surely you jest. But education issues, particularly in your
    hamlet, are not exactly within my knowledge base. I understand you are
    not going to vote for Ted Kennedy in the next election.

        Wally ends by quoting Matthew 5:19: "Anyone who breaks one of the
    least of these commandments and teaches
    others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven"

    I don't see the relevance of that verse here so I'll close w/o comment.

    Peace

    John Burgeson (Burgy)

    www.burgy.50megs.com

    ________________________________________________________________
    The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
    Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
    Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Aug 01 2003 - 09:56:44 EDT