Re: No!

At 09:26 PM 6/1/2006, burgytwo@juno.com wrote:

>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. ...

@ It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is .... of course.

>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."

@ The criteria that makes a biblical argument irresistible is the
use of sound hermenutics. Plenty of "good Christians" couldn't even
define the word let alone engage in them.

The reason why there are so many biblical illiterates is because of
the fact that the church at large has failed in its responsibilities

That's going to change.

Hermeneutics, Legal and Theological: An Exercise in
Integration Prof. Dr John Warwick
Montgomery http://www.jwm.christendom.co.uk/unpublished_essay.html

>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.

@ I didn't want to mention it before, but now I will. The argument
used above is illogical, so it's not a good argument by a LONG
shot.. It's like saying that the best way to stop misspelled words
is to get rid of pencils, and the best way to stop people from being
murdered is to get rid of guns.

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.

@ "Convict"? Of what?

You may have missed it, but the only thing I was addressing was your
claim that Paul didn't address the subject of homosexuality -
(forget the tap dance about the word- it's transparent). And it was
specifically stated at the very beginning that the "social" aspect of
the question wasn't going to be discussed - only the "simple
exegetical question":

No, we're still not going to muck around in the social aspect of this
question; here, we'll just be asking the simple exegetical question,
"What relevance does Romans 1:27-8, 1 Cor. 6:9, and 1 Tim. 1:10 have
to homosexuality?" [snip]
Romans 1:27, 1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10, and Homosexuality James Patrick
Holding http://www.tektonics.org/qt/romhom.html

Dr John Warwick Montgomery would not accept your personal opinion on
the subject as carrying any weight because you haven't backed it up
with sound hermeneutics. I can't either - for the same reason.

~ Janice
Received on Thu Jun 1 22:43:46 2006