From: Debbie Mann (deborahjmann@insightbb.com)
Date: Thu Jul 10 2003 - 13:38:23 EDT
Debating this as an intellectual discussion is one thing.
Considering how we are to behave is something else. People visit prisoners
on death row to give them the chance to repent. They ARE murderers. Yet few
would challenge the validity of this ministry. We all sin. Our lives go much
better when we are celebrating relative victory over sin. God convicts of us
what we need to change. That's quoting Sheila.
And that is the issue involving my behavior as a heterosexual in this
situation.
God convicts - I don't.
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of sheila-mcginty@geotec.net
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 11:09 AM
To: Sondra Brasile
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Sin?
Sondra,
Your beliefs and writing on vices, homosexuality, and sin are right on
target!
You put my thoughts in excellent words. Sin is sin. It is not a vice or an
addiction or a problem to be indulged but something we must each overcome.
I
have participated in different sins and tried to call it "my weaknesses."
This
is completely wrong and the Holy Spirit convicted me of it. God promised
that
He corrects those that He loves. While I may not like the correction, I
have
learned to thank God that He provides it anyway. With correction comes
direction to find our way out of sin. God promised that His grace is
sufficient to see us through all trials and tribulations. He promised to
meet
our needs according to His riches in glory. He is our Source and our
Provider
for everything, including overcoming sin. When we whitewash sin as a
weakness
or natural inclination, we are either lying to ourselves or we are deceived.
We
must turn to God for correction.
Sheila
Quoting Sondra Brasile <sbrasile@hotmail.com>:
> What about natural inclination makes one accept a behavior as
> sanctioned? I
> would bet my right arm that all "vices" are rooted in our genetic code
> somewhere, but where are the studies? One is prone to alcohol and
> another is
> prone to homosexuality, what about that makes it "ok" to indulge in a
> vice?
> My brother-in-law is seriously addicted to crack cocaine and alcohol, I
>
> would be willing to bet he has a natural inclination to become addicted
> to
> these substances, does that mean we should accept his drug use and offer
> it
> to him as hors d'oeuvres at family get togethers, or let him break it
> out
> and use it at the kitchen table? Is our balking at his addiction merely
> on a
> moral basis? Or is there more to it than that? He also has a natural
> inclination for violence, do we allow him to beat people to death
> because he
> can't help it that he gets angry? He's on his way to prison now for the
>
> second time for assault. My sister sides with all of you guys, "he can't
>
> help it, that's the way he is and he can't change, he's tried and tried
> and
> he's still trying" of course we call that a mental illness, she's a
> classic
> "enabler" and is routinely the object of his wrath, and he does "try to
>
> stop" from one binge, and beating, to the next he swears he's trying to
> stop
> and I believe he is, but he repeats it regularly, regardless. You people
> are
> falling into the well prepared trap that people "can't help it". Maybe
> he
> can't help it, I've seen him struggle with it for years, I've seen him
> cry
> and practically have a nervous breakdown from sorrow about what he'd
> done. I
> believe he can't help it, so what do we do, give him our face for a
> punching
> bag? Do we change laws to enable his vices to continue unchecked?
>
> Would someone please show me the difference between any other vice and a
>
> homosexual tendancy? Is it merely studies? I heard they linked
> alcoholism to
> heredity, itsn't that the exact same thing as what they say about
> homosexuality? Are we to let all alcoholics "off the hook" because "they
>
> can't help it"? Has anyone done a study to find out if violence is a
> "natural inclination"?
>
> Think to yourself "what is my vice; my natural inclination?" we all have
>
> them, we're all born with them, can we "help" them? Sometimes we can
> hardly
> stop ourselves, right? Maybe it's true that 90% of the time people can't
>
> help themselves or even 50% of the time, but does that mean that we
> should
> change all laws and moral codes to allow for these inborn vices? For
> some
> reason you people think if you can prove it's a genetic predetermination
>
> then it's allowed, God somehow forgot to mention that when he was
> writing
> the Book that he says is his complete word (many of you don't believe
> this
> and my mind boggles at why you identify yourself, then by the
> "Christian"
> faith, you should start your own religion and stop dragging ours through
> the
> mud).
>
> I have natural inclinations, sometimes I can "help it" and sometimes I
> cannot, but I find my life goes much smoother when I abstain, which
> would be
> a natural result of being obedient to God's laws. God's laws work in the
>
> natural as well as the supernatural.
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again, apparently the concept is
> unpopular (or maybe it proves my point?): What about pedophiles? What is
> the
> difference between a propencity toward same sex and one toward children?
>
> What makes them different? If it isn't based on sex, what is it based
> on?
> What IS attraction? If people are "attracted" to same sex, what makes it
>
> different, then to being "attracted" to children?
>
> So, the people with a homosexual tendancy have "tried to change, but
> can't"
> I tell them to JOIN THE CLUB! Not being able to change is a falling
> short of
> what God has called us to. Although there is forgiveness we must call
> sin
> SIN! Has anyone ever studied the "unforgiveable sin"? It's lack of
> repentance, it's denying or ignoring the promptings of the Holy Spirit,
>
> which changing the rules for our own benefit would fall into. We die in
> our
> sin because we failed to repent (because we changed the rules without
> God's
> permission we tie God's hands, he can't forgive us if we don't ask and
> we
> don't ask because we changed the rules to make it "ok").
>
> If truly we set our eyes on Jesus and like Peter when he began to sink
> realized that if he kept his eyes on him he remained on top of the
> water, we
> can overcome our desires. The idolatry that all of you fail to realize
> is
> our fixation on ME, myself and I. It's whatever "I" want supersedes all?
> NO
> all of you are missing the point. God doesn't really care if you are
> comfortable in your sin or it's "tough to kick the habit" if this were
> the
> old testament we'd all be frying alive or something his anger still
> burns
> because we fail to repent (because we "changed the rules", but he
> didn't).
> That is how you put to death the flesh, by not giving into it's cravings
> and
> desires and if we truly keep our eyes fixed on Jesus, we can be
> "overcomers
> through Christ". What does this mean? That we are no longer in BONDAGE
> to
> the flesh and it's desires, that is the Christian walk, THAT is the
> Christian calling, THAT is the Christian life, it is one of our missions
> in
> life to put to death the sins of the flesh. If we can't even overcome
> the
> sin that rests in our own bodies, how do you think we can make an impact
> on
> the world? Isn't that the bondage that is talked about in the Bible?
> Being
> "yoked" by a behavior?
> You people are SO missing the point! You dont' change the definition of
>
> "BAD" because you fail to measure up, that's cheating! Or the definition
> of
> sin because it makes us uncomfortable or it's hard to do! It's not about
> YOU
> or what YOU want or what you think is right or the way things should be,
> God
> doesn't give a RIP what You think, he wrote the rules and guidelines
> which I
> think are quite clear, you can haggle over them and pick them apart, but
>
> since God is truly the boss, how much does it really matter what you
> think?
> He said it quite clearly and if you want to water it down and mix and
> match
> and change definitions etc, etc... you go right ahead, but I wouldn't
> want
> to be You on judgement day.
>
> What many of you want to do though is call what IS sin NOT sin. We are
> all
> born with sin in our genetic code, it's written in our DNA and I'd be
> willing to bet again my right arm that if they studied it they'd find
> that
> that is scientifically true. We're all genetically flawed, but does that
>
> give us licence? NO! Like Paul was saying because of GRACE we are no
> longer
> under the law, but do we do as we please? No way! I would think that all
> you
> brilliant people would be able to understand that concept, but maybe
> some of
> you are lacking enlightenment, "Having a form of godliness, but denying
> the
> power thereof" which the very next words are: "from such turn away"
>
> Sondra
>
>
>
>
> >From: RDehaan237@aol.com
> >To: gmurphy@raex.com, jwburgeson@juno.com
> >CC: asa@calvin.edu
> >Subject: Re: Sin?
> >Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:06:45 EDT
> >
> >
> >In a message dated 7/5/03 8:41:23 AM, gmurphy@raex.com writes:
> >
> >
> > > 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. (& 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.)
> >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.
> > >
> > > Shalom,
> > > George
> > >
> >George,
> >
> >I was knocked off the Internet on Sunday night by a thundertorm. It
> took
> >me
> >two days and a hundred bucks for technical help to get back on. Now I
>
> >would
> >like to address your comments above.
> >
> >Your post was directed to Burgy, but since he and I are on the same
> page in
> >this discussion, I would like to respond with additional comments and
> >questions, if I may.
> >
> >Your statement is made from a theological perspective, and as usual, is
>
> >well
> >stated. This time, however, I would like your comments from a
> scientific
> >view
> >on how scientific findings re homosexual orientation relate to our
> >interpretation of Paul’s views.
> >
> >Biological factors are looking more and more important as influences
> on
> >homosexual orientation, as David Myers wrote (“Accepting What Cannot
> Be
> >Changed,”
> >Perspectives, June/July, 1999). He refers to studies that provide new
> >evidence
> >that differences exist between homosexual and heterosexual men both in
> >prenatal hormones and in a region of the brain known to influence
> sexual
> >behavior.
> >Myers, who is conservative in these matters, is properly cautious
> about
> >accepting these studies of biological influences, but leans toward
> >recognizing their
> >weight.
> >
> >He, however, is more persuaded that “[E]fforts to change one’s
> sexual
> >orientation usually (some say, virtually always) fail.” After
> reviewing
> >some
> >research findings he concluded:
> >
> > “But this much seems certain. Many gay and lesbian
> Christians
> >have felt
> >called to heterosexuality, but after years
> of
> >effort,
> >prayer, laying on of hands, Christian counseling, and searing
>
> >guilt
> >have found only misery, and in some cases lost faith. This fact of
> life
> >is
> > recognized by my denomination, the Reformed Church in America,
> whose
> >Theological Commission statements have discerned (in the
>
> >words of
> >the church’s 1998 document) that, 'despite the uncertainty
> over
> >its
> >cause, the sexual orientation of a person, in most cases, is
>
> >highly
> >resistant to change.'”
> >
> >I take this to mean that one’s sexual orientation is not a matter of
>
> >choice.
> >Homosexual people do not choose their sexual orientation any more than
> >straight people do. Our sexual orientation is thrust upon us, not
> chosen.
> >
> >You said that Paul “probably did not have the concept of ‘
> >homosexualorientation’ as it's developed in recent years.” Neither
> did
> >he know that our sexual
> >(hetero- and homo-) orientation is probably influenced by our biology
> and
> >that
> >it is “highly resistant to change.” Nor did he have the concept of
> a
> >loving
> >committed relationship between two homosexual people.
> >
> >In Paul’s letter to the Romans he wrote that “women _exchanged_
> natural
> >intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, _giving
> up_
> >natural
> >intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one
> another.”
> >(Romans
> >1: 26, 27; NRSV) I think Paul is referring to people with a
> heterosexual
> >orientation who deliberately engage in homosexual behavior for the
> thrill
> >of it or
> >for whatever other reasons. Such people deliberately choose homosexual
> >activity. That is one of the sins that grows out of the fundamental Sin
> of
> >idolatry,
> >as you point out.
> >
> >But that is not the picture of persons with a homosexual orientation
> that
> >Myers paints, or that I have experienced. Quite the opposite. Many
> people
> >with a
> >homosexual orientation have tried to exchange it for a heterosexual
> one,
> >and
> >by far the largest number of them have failed.
> >
> >Strange as it may seem, I think we need to distinguish between what
> might
> >be
> >called “natural homosexual orientation,” the picture of which is
> >emerging
> >from the work of those who are studying sexual orientation
> scientifically,
> >and on
> >the other hand, the “sinfully chosen homosexual behavior” that
> Paul
> >describes. I find it hard to believe that a “natural homosexual
> >orientation”
> >described by Myers or that is found in a loving committed homosexual
> >relationship of
> >people I have known, is a consequence of the Sin of idolatry.
> >
> >Am I missing something? Thanks in advance for your comments.
> >
> >Peace,
> >
> >Bob
> >
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
> http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>
>
Sheila McGinty Wilson
sheila-mcginty@geotec.net
-----------------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through OnRAMP/GeoTEC Webmail: webmail.geotec.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 10 2003 - 13:34:49 EDT