RE: An interesting essay for evangelicals

From: Alexanian, Moorad (
Date: Wed Jan 22 2003 - 13:43:10 EST

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: I didn't think Adam had the capacity for error until Eve was created..."

    Perhaps you can explain these verses to me. "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. " Lev. 18:22. Also, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." Rom. 1:26-27.


    -----Original Message-----
    From: John Burgeson []
    Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 11:30 AM
    To: Alexanian, Moorad;
    Subject: RE: An interesting essay for evangelicals

    >>Erotic love is limited to different sex partners; anything else is an
    >>abomination to God. >>

    That's a claim, of course. And it is that claim which is in question. And it
    is that claim that Roy Clements asked to be debated with civility and with

    Stating the claim without addressing the issue is simply stating an opinion.
    As such, simply not interesting.

    John W. Burgeson (Burgy)

    >From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <>
    >To: "Keith Miller" <>, <>
    >Subject: RE: An interesting essay for evangelicals
    >Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:13:10 -0500
    >In ‚EURoeThe Four Loves,‚EURĚ C.S. Lewis describes four basic kinds of human
    >love----affection, friendship, erotic love, and the love of God. Erotic
    >love is limited to different sex partners; anything else is an abomination
    >to God. Moorad
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Keith Miller []
    > Sent: Mon 1/20/2003 8:37 PM
    > To:
    > Cc:
    > Subject: Re: An interesting essay for evangelicals
    > > For instance, gays are often damned with the adjective "unnatural".
    > > They,
    > > not unreasonably reply "unnatural for whom?" The potential for same-sex
    > > covenant love to exceed heterosexual marriage in its capacity to
    > > generate
    > > personal devotion and self-sacrifice is clearly attested in story of
    > > David and Jonathan. Was their friendship "unnatural"? The Church
    > > replies
    > > that by "unnatural" it does not mean homophile affection as such, but
    > > the
    > > genital acts to which such affection may lead.
    > For what its worth, I did not interpret the above as claiming that the
    > relationship of David and Jonathan was homosexual. It seems the author
    > is asking for a clear distinction between a deep and profound brotherly
    > love between people of the same sex, and a homosexual love proscribed
    > by scripture. What exactly is being condemned by scripture? Is it
    > just the sexual act? How do we respond to those who feel attracted to
    > someone of the same sex but remain celebate? How do we distinguish
    > between deep feelings of love toward a fellow brother or sister, and an
    > affection that is homosexual? I think that these are all valid
    > questions. I also think, that as in all of life, we may not find
    > clear black and white answers.
    > Keith

    The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jan 22 2003 - 13:44:22 EST