From: "Moorad Alexanian" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> When Christians say that we are all sinners it means everyone is entitled
> at least one sin. Homosexuality is a sin just like any other sin that we
> commit. C.S. Lewis was right when he said that the sins of the flesh are
> not the worst. Pride (conceit, arrogance, self-love, etc.) is the greatest
> of them all. However, one thing is to breaks God's laws but another is to
> encourage and/or deceive others into doing the same. Moorad
I agree that we are all sinners and that homosexuality is no worse than
other sins. However, I can't really agree that everyone is entitled to at
least one sin. Becoming a Christian surely means "repentence", and
repentence means a turning away from sin and endeavouring not to sin any
more. Naturally we fail, and are forgiven because of the grace of Christ.
But the intention to not sin must surely be there. I think it is
significant in the story of the woman caught in adultery not only that Jesus
did not condemn the woman, (though he was the only person there who had the
right to condemn her), but also that he also told her not to sin any more.
If homosexuality is a sin, rather than an inborn condition, that does not
give us the right to condemn it, or to say "oh well, it's just one sin, not
a particularly bad one, that you can get away with".
On "disgust" John wrote
> >I don't think it is "inborn" at all, but taught. Just the way race
> >attitudes are taught. We pick it up from the society we are part of.
Ah, but I think this is the key issue that the argument revolves around.
Society "taught" me homosexuality is disgusting, but I don't feel nearly as
strong a sense of revulsion as others do. Does that mean that the others
have just "learned the lesson" better than I have, or is there really
something biologically inborn that brings out disgust? I don't think you
can prove your assertion here.
And in any case, I think a lot of the revulsion is a fear of pain. And this
is not just a prejudiced society's response based on ignorance. I once
downloaded a copy of the notorious poem "The love that dares to speak its
name", which was a gay "cause celebre", as the magazine that printed it got
prosecuted under the blasphemy laws. On reading the poem (which was of
considerable literary merit), I gained the impression directly from the text
that the homosexual act was excruciatingly painful - one of the "moral
messages" of the poem was that the sacrifices gay men make for each other
was akin to the pain of crucifixion. Since this description came from a gay
author, it cannot have been an ignorant attitude that was "taught" by
John also wrote:
Some of the lesbian couples I know are older ladies who were married,
raised children, then after losing their spouses found a female partner.
I have never heard any of them express revulsion at heterosexual
activity, although none of them engages in it anymore.
This seems to be much the same as my experience; particularly in the case
that the woman had been mistreated by the male partner. However, while one
feels sympathy (all men are Rats), I feel in this case one can't get round
the Romans verse. The only case where it could be possibly justified is in
the case, IMO of "natural born homosexuals", that did not choose to be that
way inclined. I would cite as a possible case of this Benjamin Britten and
Peter Pears. Britten, it appears, was always homosexual, right from early
school days. His relationship with Pears was not just a sexual one, but a
very deep tie; apparently as musicians, they had an almost "symbiotic"
relationship - a deep awareness of what each other was doing in the music.
In the case of a woman who has had a family, this would appear to be not the
case - a deliberate choice was made (albeit perhaps under circumstances of
disillusionment), to exchange heterosexual for homosexual activities, and
therefore would appear to come under the category of Rom 1:26.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 15 2001 - 11:26:56 EDT