From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 22:07:34 EDT
RFaussette@aol.com wrote:
>
> 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
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
I'm sure that your arguments seem clear to yourself and that you think you're
being civil but I assure you that that isn't how it appears to others. As I said, I
didn't think it would be helpful to continue the debate & you've confirmed my view. I
will not respond to any further posts of yours on any topic.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 22:11:04 EDT