Re: Proof?

From: Stuart d Kirkley (
Date: Fri May 17 2002 - 14:19:10 EDT

  • Next message: Stuart d Kirkley: "Re: Change of subject"

    Forgive me Shuan, but I have to say that your interpretation of the
    scriptures is curious to say the least.

    > He also thinks it is unnatural
    >for men to wear long hair, and for women to be in churches with their heads
    >uncovered.(I Cor 11:1-16).

    I agree with you that Pauls observations here seem to stem from
    cultural conditioning. Obviously his ideas are a bit old world and OT
    here, but I would argue that in verse 16, Paul admits that this is
    not really that big a deal. OTOH his denunciation of sexual
    immorality, both heterosexual and homosexual, is unequivocal, and I
    don't think there is any way to gloss over the scriptures that
    specifically deal with homosexuality (which Kamilla provided, namely
    Romans 1:21-27, I Corinthians 6:9-10 and I Timothy 1:10). but you
    have obviously tried.

      That beign said, my difficulty with your interpretation is more
    with the other scriptures you quote:

    He does not oppose the institution of slavery( I Cor 7:20-24)

    This is quite a stretch, Shuan, verse 21, clearly states you
    shouldn't care for being called a slave, but should hope for freedom
    from slavery. The next two verses adopt the word servant in
    connection with the grace of God, and I think most Christians
    celebrate being a 'servant', or 'waiting' on the Lord. And in verse
    23, Paul quite clearly states 'be not ye the servants of men'. How
    can you possible re-interpret this to mean that Paul does not
    denounce slavery??? YOur statement is baffling to say the least.

    >clearly advocates speaking in tongues and prophecy as a norm ( I Cor 12)

    I don't see this as being clear at all. Paul only once mentions both
    prophecy and speaking in tongues. And he is clearly stating that only
    some have these peculiar gifts, not all, so how can that be the norm.
    Also, I don't know how you define 'speaking in tongues', I know that
    the term is steeped in superstiton and mystery, but I think it is
    simply referring to the ability to understand and communicate with
    other people regardless of how obscure their language is. As for
    prophecy, that also has it's share of mystery attached to it, but
    again, I think it refers to those who have the wisdom to understand
    the truth, and to perceive the direction events may take as the truth
    is further revealed.

    >opposes revolution against the government( Rom 13 :1-5)

    I'm quite sure that Paul is referring to being subject to the higher
    power of God (or good) here. He clearly states that 'there is no
    power but of God', and that resisting this (God's)power only leads to
    damnation, so that it is better to do good and abide with God, for
    terror, or evil, can never dethrone goodness.

      I really can not for the life of me see how you arrived at these

    > can also figure out Gal 3:26-28, where we are told (1) that we are no
    >longer under that Law that you love so much, and (2) that there is no longer
    >any male nor female in Christ!
    >Thanks for pointing that passage out to me!

    As for finding any justification for homosexuality in Gal 3:28, which
    is what you seem to infer by your statement above, I would point out
    that the liberation that is promised in verse 28 is prefaced by the
    requirement in verse 27 that the baptism unto Christ ( the surrender
    of self will to follow Christ) and to put on Christ (or Christliness)
    is a pre-condition of this liberation. The promise has need of
    fulfillment which is met through purification (or becoming
    Christlike) and, as Christ said in John 10:1-18, he (Christliness)
    is the door, and there is no other way in to the fold but through him
    (being Christlike), and any other attempt to gain the 'sheepfold' is
    vain and ultimately immoral.

    All this said, I am heartened that you closed with 1 John 4:7,8,
    since this is the divine principle of all Christian charity, but
    there is no excusing sin merely by adopting this as a catch phrase.
    Christ is a lot smarter than that.

    With regards,
    Stuart Kirkley

    On Thu, 16 May 2002 18:46:40
      Shuan Rose wrote:
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: []On
    >Behalf Of Kamilla Ludwig
    >Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 7:33 AM
    >Subject: Proof?
    >I seriously doubt I can "prove" the case against homosexuality to someone
    >who has already accepted the pro-homosexual rhetoric (whether out of
    >"Christian love" or not) and I won't even bother to try with those who
    >characterize the blindingly obvious as an argument that is "weak to
    >nonexistent". Nevertheless, the following sources provide a good basis
    >for those interested in learning more about homosexuality, the homosexual
    >lobby and the devastating physical and social consequences of accepting
    >their demand to be embraced and celebrated.
    >Shuan wrote:
    >I I don't know anything about such characterizations. Do you have
    >Your state's Public Health Department and Bureau of Vital Statistics
    >should be able to provide you with the statistics regarding the relative
    >life expectancies of homosexual men and the general male population.
    >They should also be able to provide you with statistics about the greater
    >incidence of mental illness, suicide, domestic violence, drug and alcohol
    >abuse in the homosexual population.
    >Shuan wrote:
    >There was stuff on my state's public health site about AIDS. Nothing
    >specifically about gays. Do you have any references? Moreover, I Googled
    >some sites, but found nothing specifically about gays from objective sources
    >Apparently, there is not much out there, except a huge amount of anti and
    >progay propaganda. But I did see evidence that gays were highly likely to be
    >the victim of hate crimes
    >2 volumes edited by Christopher Wolfe
    > "Homosexuality and American Public Life" and "Same Sex Matters"
    >(In the second volume, Chapter 13, by Rabbi Barry Freundel Chapter 14 by
    >Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz both give a better explanation of how to love
    >the sinner while hating the sin than I have ever seen come from any
    >Evangelical source)
    >Thomas Schmidt
    > "Straight and Narrow?"
    >(Particularly pp. 116-122 on the health affects of sodomy, however it is
    >defined. The book gives ample notes to original sources)
    >Jeffrey Satinover
    > "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth"
    >(especially Chapter 10: The Unnatural Natural)
    >Stanley Grenz
    > "Welcoming But not Affirming"
    >(the best Evangelical source on the subject I've found)
    >And a few Scriptures:
    >Genesis 2:18-24 ( we were designed to fit together as male and female)
    >P Shuan wrote:
    >Correct, male and female were designed to fit together, but what about the
    >situation where people may be genetically unable to do so. You don't KNOW
    >that this is not the case. If you do, lets see some references
    >Genesis 19:4-8 (if we are to believe the revisionist account that the sin
    >of Sodom was inhospitality, we must also accept some rather spectacular
    >gymnastics with the verb "to know" changing meaning between verse 5 and
    >verse 8.
    > Shuan wrote:
    > The only thing this passage teaches me is that if I am
    >attacked by men bent
    >on raping me, I should have a virgin daughter available to give them! I
    >don't think this is what you have in mind
    >Romans 1:21-27 (God allows perversion to breed further perversion)
    >I Corinthians 6:9-10 and I Timothy 1:10 (both passages refer to
    >"arsenokoitai", literally meaning "men who bed men"
    >Shuan wrote:
    > Paul clearly thinks homosexuality is wrong. He also thinks it
    >is unnatural
    >for men to wear long hair, and for women to be in churches with their heads
    >uncovered.(I Cor 11:1-16).
    >He does not oppose the institution of slavery( I Cor 7:20-24), clearly
    >advocates speaking in tongues and prophecy as a norm ( I Cor 12) and
    >opposes revolution against the government( Rom 13 :1-5). It is fair to say
    >that Paul has a number of ideas about right and wrong that would be
    >different from the average Christian today. its not clear to me that some
    >of Paul's positions are not culturally conditioned. One of them is arguably
    >his blanket condemnation of homosexuality. note that no other NT writer
    >appears to single out homosexuality, although all condemn sexual immorality
    >And, just for you Shuan, Galatians 3:23-25 (I think you can figure that
    >one out on your own)
    >S Shuan wrote:
    > I can also figure out Gal 3:26-28, where we are told (1) that we are no
    >longer under that Law that you love so much, and (2) that there is no longer
    >any male nor female in Christ!
    >Thanks for pointing that passage out to me!
    >I'm not going to spend anymore time defending the obvious. When people
    >who identify themselves as gay or lesbian embrace this identity they
    >have made a choice to act on desires that are, by definition, disordered.
    > The sexual activity they embrace is inherently dangerous and unhealthy.
    > Shuan wrote:
    >All this may be obvious, but you haven't provided a single reference to show
    >this. On this listserv, we like references to evidence, not repeated bald
    >assertions. Anyone can make bald assertions. I can assert that anyone with a
    >German name is by nature anti-Semitic, or has a secret desire to rule the
    >world, but without evidence , that would simply be an unfair accusation-kind
    >of like ones that you insist on throwing around.
    >It is contrary to the telos, design, end and purpose of the human being
    >to engage in sexual intimacy with a person of the same sex.
    >Shuan wrote:
    > Now how on earth do you know the telos, design, end and
    >purpose of every
    >human being?
    > Do you know something the rest of us don't?
    > Moorad
    >started us off on that road by giving us one passage of Scripture. Human
    >beings were designed as male and female to come together as one flesh.
    > Shuan wrote:
    > There is a long list of people I know who did not fulfill that design,
    >starting with Jesus and St. Paul. Guess they were failures.
    >If that is something I must "prove", I have to admit I cannot. I cannot
    >prove it anymore than I can prove that God exists. If that is a weakness
    >on my part, then I celebrate that weakness!
    >I Corinthians 10:13, II Corinthians 12:7-10,
    > Shuan wrote:
    > More pointless hand waving. you have only celebrated your
    >closemindedness.Here's a Scripture for you. I John 4:7-8
    >Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
    >Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:

    Outgrown your current e-mail service?
    Get a 25MB Inbox, POP3 Access, No Ads and No Taglines with LYCOS MAIL PLUS.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 17 2002 - 14:43:46 EDT