From: jdac (jdac@alphalink.com.au)
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 02:46:55 EST
Well said Michael. The centurion and his slave homosexual lovers? This guy
needs to get real! There is not one shred of evidence for such a silly
suggestion.
We have arguments such as these in Oz, mainly from the hierarchy of the Uniting
church, less so in the Anglican and Catholics (although still present). Once we
are tolerant of homosexuality as people's God given gift to some people what is
next on the reform agenda? Pedophila? Incest? The same cultural,
sociological, and biological arguments can be used to justify these behaviours
as well. There are already groups lobbying for change in these areas.
Jon
Michael Roberts wrote:
> I dont why it should be so quaint if the writer is english!
>
> Usual questions - has it been proved that homosexuality is innate?
> Behaviours (correct spelling) are made up of innate, chosen and acquired
> aspects. I write on the hoof and use the word acquired to mean both learned
> and habitual behaviour. It is not always easy to decide whether behaviour is
> one or the other or a mixture.
>
> The question is whether homosexuality is right or wrong. And to a Chrsitan
> what the bible actually teaches. One cannot get round what Paul says.
>
> To say David and Jonathan were actually gay is pathetic and cannot be
> justified from any intelligent reading of the text. The latest English and
> Anglican suuggestion is that the centurion whose slave was healed had a
> homosexual relationship with him.
>
> One aspect I am sick of is the constant implication that one is homophobic
> if one considers homosexuality to be morally wrong. I t prevents any
> reasonable and considerate discussion - at least in the Church of England.
> Things will probably get more polarised with Rowan Williams obfuscating
> style of theological and moral discourse.
>
> I can't say that I am surprised by Roy clements essay but it fails to
> convince.
>
> Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 20 2003 - 02:49:43 EST