From: RFaussette@aol.com
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 20:29:55 EDT
In a message dated 7/29/03 7:21:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, gmurphy@raex.com
writes:
> As I have said numerous times, I am not arguing for homosexuality, though I
> do
> think that the church needs to deal in a sensitive way with people who have
> a
> non-volitional homosexual orientation.
There are very few people I would imagine with a "non-volitional" homosexual
orientation and that is the first time you used that qualifier in this long
thread. That's like saying I defend the nazis and later saying onbly the nazis
who were forced at gunpoint to don nazi uniforms. changes the argument.
What I have been arguing here is simply that the
> non-procreative aspect of homosexual activity, while not irrelevant to
> theological &
> ethical issues, cannot in itself determine the church's theological or
> ethical position
> or its pastoral practice. I doubt that it will be helpful for the 2 of us
> to debate the
> matter further here.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
I did not restrict myself to the non-procreative aspect. As a lack of self
discipline and a perversion of the body for functions that provide no biological
purpose other than pleasure, it is a failure of self discipline totally at
odds with the example the Master gave us of a being totally in command of his
physical being.
homosexuality negates the self sacrifice and negates personal and quite
natural religion.
I'm not debating. I'm speaking what I believe to be the truth. I'm doing it
with a civility you haven't mustered and a clarity we do not share.
rich faussette
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 20:30:24 EDT