From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Mon Jul 07 2003 - 22:32:07 EDT
RFaussette@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 7/7/03 8:05:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, gmurphy@raex.com
> writes:
>
> > If failure to be fruitful & increase is the problem with homosexual
> > activity
> > then presumably then it is not sinful for a bisexual person to engage in
> > heterosexual
> > intercourse for reproductive purposes and in homosexual behavior for other
> > reasons.
> >
> > Shalom,
> > George
> >
> >
> >
>
> I didn't say it was a problem - I said it wasn't religion - you can dice it
> any way you want - it's simply not religion and to make established religions
> conform to prohibited sexual practices is simply not religious. And you are
> missing a significant portion of the argument. I didn't choose that quote
> carelessly.
>
> "You must be fruitful and increase, swarm throughout the earth and rule over
> it"
> Genesis 9:7.
I don't think I'm missing any part of the argument but that, on the contrary,
you're deflecting it by playing with the terminology. The question is, as the subject
line says, whether or not homosexual activity is - from a Christian standpoint - always
sinful, not whether it's "religious." I am enough of a Barthian to think that religion
+ $1 will get you a cup of coffee.
& as you will see from my other posts on this topic, including my recent ones to
Burgy, I am quite wary of argumnets that homosexual activity is _not_ sinful. But
attempts to base such a position on failure to reproduce fail, & I have just pointed out
an obvious reductio ad absurdum of them.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 22:30:59 EDT