From: John W Burgeson (jwburgeson@juno.com)
Date: Wed Jul 09 2003 - 11:05:37 EDT
George commented (in part): "I think you are reading Romans too narrowly.
1:18-31 is not about one group of
manifestly bad people as distinguished from a group of better people who
don't do
obviously bad things. It is about the fundamental sin of idolatry -
i.e., violation of
the 1st Commandment. ... This is just the beginning of a section that
continues
through 3:20 & that concludes that all are sinners. "
I disagree that I am reading Romans too narrowly, for I agree with your
point above. What I am doing is simply using it as a measure, pointing
out that it cannot be used as a warrant for the position that same-gender
domestic living arrangements are necessarily sinful. That's all. A very
narrow argument.
"... the fact that all persons sin stems from
a tendency to wickedly suppress the truth - i.e., in one way or another
to put something
other than God ahead of God. That's true of me, you, and your friends,
independently of
our sexual activities."
Yes.
"Now Paul may indeed have had in mind only particular types of what we
call today
homosexual practices and he probably did not have the concept of
"homosexual
orientation" as it's developed in recent years."
I'd word it a little more strongly than that, (the word "probably" I'd
not use). Otherwise, agreed.
" (& by the same token one can't argue that he intended to _omit_
homosexual acts within a committed loving relationship from the negative
statements he does make about same-sex relationships.) "
I did not argue this. Only that we have no warrant for insisting that he
did intend to include them The subject is simply not addressed. When
people argue that he DID intend to include them, they are, IMHO, guilty
of adding to scripture -- of reading into scripture their own
preconceived ideas.
The defenders of slavery 150 years ago were guilty of this. With much
"clearer" scriptures to cite.
BTW, I will agree that we are all prone to do this, me as much as
(perhaps more than) anyone. That is one reason I dislike proof texts as
reasons for taking a position on moral matters.
"But I think it's clear that he lists homosexual activity, to the extent
that he was aware of it, as one
of the sins consequent upon the fundamental Sin."
Again, agreed. The operative phrase is "to the extent he was aware of
it." Most of us (me included) have been fed a distorted view of the
gay/lesbian community. Gay men in movies are generally "soft," limp
wristed, pansies. Not the ones I know. Lesbians are "dykes." Not the ones
I know. When I saw and heard the Denver Gay Men's Choir at a service in
Montview Presbyterian Church last month, they looked (to me) like a bunch
of ordinary folks. Of the 50 or so in the choir, I don't think even one
resembled the Hollywood image. Not one I would have "suspected" of being
gay. Just normal men, black, white, Hispanic, young, old, short, tall,
bearded, clean shaven, stocky, skinny, etc. All in love with Jesus Christ
and His church.
It is highly unlikely that Paul had any concept of homosexual activity
beyond that which was a daily "feature" of the local pagan temples. Which
is justly condemned.
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 : Wed Jul 09 2003 - 11:09:42 EDT