Thanks for these comments. Some thoughts arise. In somewhat random order
(1) I still don't know how one is supposed to witness ones faith to a
homosexual. With the example I gave of my past experience, I felt that I
could not pretend the verses in Romans and Leviticus didn't exist. If I'm
to share my faith, I can't really cover up the points that I might feel are
unacceptable to the other person. If I did just tell the essentials, and
they became a Christian, and then subsequently came across the Romans verse
(for instance), then I think they might well feel a sense of betrayal "why
didn't you tell me about this before?".
(2) I think much of the reason for prejudice against homosexuals is that
many people feel a strong sense of disgust at what they do. My wife is not
at all a prejudiced person, but the idea of two women engaging in intimate
sexual contact is one that disgusts her. She can't help the way she feels
about this - it is inborn. I, as it happens, do not feel the same sense of
revulsion about the idea of two men having similar intimate contact, but I
know plenty of heterosexual males who do (my father used to be totally
revolted by such ideas). The point I would make is that the sense of
disgust is so common that it can't be just written off as a blind
prejudice - it is a violation and affront to what people regard as natural
(i.e. the way they happen to be) - it is, using one of the translations of
St. Paul "Inborn". Having said this, the question also has to be asked as
to whether homosexuals feel the same sense of disgust at the idea of
male/female sexual contact. Many of the moral issues revolve around the
question as to whether homosexuality is "a condition" or a choice. Is a
heterosexual who could not tolerate the idea of a homosexual relationship
any different from a homosexual who could not tolerate the idea of a
heterosexual relationship? We should not let our sense of disgust turn into
prejudice. At the end of the day, disgust is not a good indicator of how to
make moral decisions.
> A. Say that scripture clearly proscribed ALL same-sex sexual activity
> B. Say that scripture did proscribe some same-sex sexual activity, but
> was silent about monogamous relationships.
> If I chose A, and was wrong, then I would do grievous harm to innocent
> If I chose B, and was wrong, I could be fairly accused of misreading
> scripture, but that's about it. I suggest that we all are guilt of this
> to some extent! < G >
I'm still not so sure about this ... as I outlined above, if you remained
silent on what scripture says about homosexuality, and the person concerned
subsequently found the passage concerned, would they not feel betrayed?
Would it not thereby cause much more harm, and a total rejection of
scripture? On the other hand - suppose they made a Christian commitment
beliving (because you told them so) that it's OK to be a homosexual in a
monogamous and loving relationship, and it turns out that statement A. is
actually the correct interpretation of scripture - that ALL homosexuality is
perversion. Then would you not be doing harm by hiding this possibility?
All these questions are difficult. They may seem easy until you ask
yourself the question how you are supposed to share your faith with a
homosexual. Such a person has encountered prejudice all their lives.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 13 2001 - 17:49:47 EDT