Re: No!

Janice posted: "you had no complaint about
it being "off-topic" for this group until I posted Holding's
irresistible counter to Burgy's claim that Paul did not address homosexuality."

I have read comments similar to those you posted, of course. Thomas Schmidt and Prof Gagnon do a credible job of arguing against my particular position.

It is my claim, of course, that Paul did not address homosexuality; he may (or may not) have been addressing all homosexual activity, which is a horse of a different flavor. I think he was not, but I do not state that as a claim; if my sometimes imprecise writing appears to imply such a claim, I apologize.

My own position, which is called "wishy-washy" by many on both sides, is to be found at

www.burgy.50megs.com/gay1.htm

Good Christians are to be found on both sides of the issue; that fact leads me to hold that none of the arguments are "irresistible."

Don wrote: "The same sort of argument that Janice makes to justify the
condemnation of homosexual behaviour can and has been made to
justify anti-Semitism, slavery and the subjugation of women."

Don -- that is true enough, but (speaking as the devil's advocate) that does not make them invalid. It is a good argument, to be sure, but it does not go far enough.

Janice -- I understand and respect your position (while, of course, disagreeing with it). It is held by many good Christians. I just happen to believe that the arguments are not conclusive enough to convict.

Blessings

Burgy
Received on Thu Jun 1 21:30:33 2006