From: Sondra Brasile (sbrasile@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jul 08 2003 - 22:42:54 EDT
George,
So what you're saying is that lack of procreation is not valid for the whole
basis for it being wrong?
Well, yeah, I can see that. I would rather accept the fact that if He SAID
it was "wrong" that's good enough for me, but I CAN see Rich's point even if
I'm not sure if I agree with the "degree" of importance that he pins on that
one aspect of it.
It's a new angle though to look at the issue from.
Sondra
>From: George Murphy To: Sondra Brasile CC: asa@calvin.edu Subject: Re: Sin?
>Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 22:27:37 -0400
>
>Sondra Brasile wrote: > > For the record; I don't "get" the part about the
>Christian's being displaced > as butchers, etc... But I "get" the rest of
>Rich's post. Although I think > his argument is a bit weaker than the
>obvious quotes in the Bible where it > explains homosexual behavior word
>for word and follows it with "is an > abomination to the Lord" and others
>that lump homosexuals with liars, > murderers, idolaters, etc, etc...that
>will not be permitted into heaven and > whatnot. I do think Rich has a
>point though if you want to get down to the > basics and show even without
>"religion" if possible. I think (sorry if I'm > wrong Rich) what he is
>talking about is that (homosexual) union is NOT > profitable, not prolific,
>not "blessed" with children therefore not even in > the simplest, most
>basic (nitty gritty) sense is it "ok". You seem to be > taking everything
>he's saying to the furthest possible extreme, on purpose, > just to be
>argumentative. > > George; sorry, but talk about two wrongs not making a
>right, your reply > sounds more like a pot shot. How could a homosexual
>union be made "ok" by > adding on another sexual sin ("fornication")? I
>don't really see the > connection from what Rich said to that response.
>What you were supposed to > be talking about is "sin" right? So how could
>you possibly suggest a > "remedy" that includes more sin? > > Sorry if I'm
>missing the point guys, but this is just the way it seems to > me.
>
>Sondra - I'm sorry but you have missed my point. I repeat - & I'm sure you
>can understand this though some apparently can't - that I am NOT arguing
>here that homosexual activity is OK. Nor am I arguing that "2 wrongs make a
>right." My point is rather that "fruitfulness" is not an adequate basis
>upon which to judge homosexual activity sinful.
>
>The argument is quite simple. If the ONLY thing wrong with homosexual
>behavior is that it does not lead to offspring, then there is nothing wrong
>with it as long as the person who engages in such behavior also has
>heterosexual intercourse in order to have offspring. I do not agree with
>the conclusion because I don't agree with the major premise. But the
>argument itself is very clear.
>
>Shalom, George
>
>
>George L. Murphy gmurphy@raex.com http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 22:43:01 EDT