From: Graham E. Morbey (gmorbey@wlu.ca)
Date: Fri May 30 2003 - 09:59:39 EDT
Let me suggest an excellent work that will probably go a long way in
helping to bring clarity to the issues you are discussing below. I am
referring to Richard B. Hays THE MORAL VISION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT A
Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics.
Graham
Don Winterstein wrote:
>Sondra Brasile wrote:
>
>
>>So what part about the word "abomination" are you not grasping?
>>
>>
>
>Scientific discoveries force us to reinterpret the Genesis creation
>accounts, the Flood account, the Tower of Babel account, etc., etc. All
>this necessary reinterpretation means the Bible and its inspiration were not
>what a lot of conservative Christians thought they were.
>
>Where does the need to reinterpret end? In heaven. On earth we need to
>integrate our experience of the world with our personal knowledge of God
>through the guidance of his Holy Spirit. When our world changes as
>drastically as it has over the past several centuries, we can't expect
>directives to people thousands of years ago necessarily to apply in fine
>detail today.
>
>What does apply today? God has given us his Spirit and minds to integrate.
>Inspired by his Spirit we should not look at religion as a set of laws and
>rules but instead as guidance for living lives pleasing to him. The number
>one moral principle that Jesus gave was that we love one another. This
>principle transcends all other laws and rules, and all other laws and rules
>need to be interpreted in terms of it.
>
>Just as we have looked in detail at evidences for the great age of the
>world, and that look forces us to reject a strictly literal interpretation
>of the Genesis creation accounts, so also Christians have looked in detail
>at sexuality and the lives and motives of homosexuals and have concluded
>that some of the directives from thousands of years ago are less consistent
>with the law of love than certain revisions of those directives.
>
>If behavior is approved by a proper application of the law of love, no one
>should call it an abomination.
>
>Don
>
>
>
>
>>>Rich Faussette wrote in part:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>There is no such thing as a gay Christian.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>As a young man I agreed, because the homosexuals I knew were very
>>>promiscuous, and the acts they engaged in seemed to epitomize perversion.
>>>
>>>Later I loosened up a bit, because I came to understand that married
>>>heterosexuals commonly engage in analogous acts, and I was no longer so
>>>sure they were perverse. Nothing in the Bible prohibits any kind of
>>>
>>>
>loving
>
>
>>>physical interaction between man and wife.
>>>
>>>At present I'm looser yet, because I believe the law of love trumps any
>>>individual law. Homosexuals I know now have lived in committed
>>>relationships practically their whole adult lives. To me, commitment is
>>>the important thing. The acts themselves may not be so perverse after
>>>
>>>
>all.
>
>
>>> And I see no chance the world's population is in danger of falling to
>>>zero any time soon. (Where I live a substantial drop is the stuff of
>>>dreams.)
>>>
>>>Whether the state of being gay is genetic or not is kind of irrelevant
>>>
>>>
>when
>
>
>>>gay people time and again claim their orientation is not within their
>>>
>>>
>power
>
>
>>>to change. From what I've heard, they find heterosexual relationships as
>>>personally repulsive as I find homosexual ones; I believe I have no
>>>
>>>
>control
>
>
>>>over my feelings of repulsion, so I suspect they have no control over
>>>theirs.
>>>
>>>So.I'd still rather the whole topic didn't exist, and I'm still not what
>>>you'd call supportive, but I'm sympathetic and definitely question the
>>>validity of Rich's assertion.
>>>
>>>Don
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
>>http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>>
>>
>>
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri May 30 2003 - 10:00:51 EDT