From: Debbie Mann (deborahjmann@insightbb.com)
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 11:37:35 EDT
Tell me - where does an anti-sodomy law apply? I've heard of a couple of
arrests lately- but didn't hear the details. Does this mean that the courts
can issue a search warrant to see if this is going on?
Religion is one arena. Civil liberties another. What two adult people do
willingly is not a matter of concern for the courts of this or any other
country. The same moral righteousness that is driving this, I believe, is
driving Canada to put laws on the books that could be just as detrimental to
Christians in their discussions of issues like this.
God gives incredible freedom to choose in the New Testament. The judgement
is after this life and will be determined by the heart - not by unwilling
adherence to laws that violate the freedom of choice.
For the record, I think sodomy is germy and something I don't even want to
think about. But, I feel totally violated that that law is being upheld. Are
they going to come peeking in my window next? I had a religious woman
chastise me at some length because I admitted to her that I had used
something other than the missionary position. Where she got that that was
the only way ordained by God I do not know. None of hers or anyone else's
flippin business. Where does it stop?
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Robert Schneider
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 7:52 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Sin?
A propos the on-going discussion on homosexuality, the Bible and moral
theology, there is a most informative piece in the Sunday NYT on-line on the
historical development of legal strictures against any form of
non-heterosexual intercourse in America, beginning with the colonial era.
The authors of the study reported on here argue that sodomy laws against
same-sex intercourse are a 20th century phenomenon as are increasing acts of
legal oppression against homosexuals. The legal brief that presented all of
this material is thought to have significantly influenced the majority on
the Supreme Court in its recent decision on the Texas sodomy law. For the
article, go to
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/20/weekinreview/20WORD.html?ex=1059736497&ei=
1&en=685038b6ebaa78ef
Bob Schneider
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: <RFaussette@aol.com>
Cc: <sbrasile@hotmail.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: Sin?
> RFaussette@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 7/21/03 12:32:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > gmurphy@raex.com writes:
> >
> > > Taking evolution seriously does not answer the question of whether or
not
> > > the church should give some degree of acceptance to active
homosexuals. But
> > > it part of
> > > the reality that has to be taken into account in dealing with the
question.
> > >
> > > Shalom,
> > > George
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Taking evolution seriously is a reason for a church to reject the
behavior
> > totally. It is pretty clear from the Bible, Herodotus, H.W.F. Scaggs
(The
> > Babylonians) that religions began as ethnic religions, whose gods
promoted the
> > fertility of the people they protected. Differential reproductive
success is the
> > essence of natural selection. Any behaviors that decreased reproductive
success
> > in a milieu of competing ethnic religions would jeopardize the future
of the
> > people practicing that behavior. Religion and intentionally engaging in
> > behavior that lowers birth rates are incompatible in light of the way
religions
> > evolved in the first place. Judaism arose in that very ethnically and
religiously
> > bound milieu of the Mesopotamian basin, in fact Ezra was a Babylonian
high
> > priest dedicated to the law and determined to see the law obeyed in
Jerusalem.
> > If you cling to religious absolutes, you must totally reject
homosexuality.
> > To the extent you elevate homosexual behavior above its traditional
place, you
> > compromise religion and that has been done in many churches already,
which is
> > fine if that's what they choose to do, but those churches no longer
serve
> > their evolved purpose which is the genetic survival and material
prosperity of
> > its practitioners.
> >
> > rich faussette
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > In a message dated 7/21/03 12:32:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > gmurphy@raex.com writes:
> >
> > Taking evolution seriously does not answer the question of
> > whether or not
> > the church should give some degree of acceptance to active
> > homosexuals. But it part of
> > the reality that has to be taken into account in dealing
> > with the question.
> >
> > Shalom,
> > George
> >
> > Taking evolution seriously is a reason for a church to reject the
> > behavior totally. It is pretty clear from the Bible, Herodotus, H.W.F.
> > Scaggs (The Babylonians) that religions began as ethnic religions,
> > whose gods promoted the fertility of the people they protected.
> > Differential reproductive success is the essence of natural selection.
> > Any behaviors that decreased reproductive success in a milieu of
> > competing ethnic religions would jeopardize the future of the people
> > practicing that behavior. Religion and intentionally engaging in
> > behavior that lowers birth rates are incompatible in light of the way
> > religions evolved in the first place. Judaism arose in that very
> > ethnically and religiously bound milieu of the Mesopotamian basin, in
> > fact Ezra was a Babylonian high priest dedicated to the law and
> > determined to see the law obeyed in Jerusalem.
> > If you cling to religious absolutes, you must totally reject
> > homosexuality. To the extent you elevate homosexual behavior above its
> > traditional place, you compromise religion and that has been done in
> > many churches already, which is fine if that's what they choose to
> > do, but those churches no longer serve their evolved purpose which is
> > the genetic survival and material prosperity of its practitioners.
>
> Your argument assumes that Judaism & Christianity are to be understood as
> "religions" which human beings have constructed to ensure their survival,
well-being,
> &c. If one takes seriously the belief that it is God who saves us in
Christ, that we
> are saved not by what we do (including "religion") or are but by receiving
God's gift in
> Christ, then Christianity is not a "religion" in this sense. This is of
course not to
> deny that historical Christianity has many features which have been
developed by human
> beings for good or less than good reasons, or that Christianity has needed
and still
> needs such structures in order to carry out its mission. But if that's
all Christianity
> is then its fundamental claims are false.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@raex.com
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 22 2003 - 11:34:08 EDT