From: Walter Hicks (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed May 28 2003 - 13:30:20 EDT
I think, John, that one can argue for any one of a number of things based
upon so called logic. The question to me is what does one define as "sin".
Are we free to make our own definitions or do we believe that there is a
higher standard set down by God and described in what we call our holy
scripture? I don't think that any Christian can make his or her own
I don't say that gay people are horrible sinners and should be avoided.
Instead I say that the Bible calls it sin and so I must agree. It does not
say that being black is a sin so I think that your argument there is entirely
Can gays be Christians? Of course. But does that say that they should follow
there compulsions? I believe not.... no more that a "born killer" should be
condoned when he follows his natural instincts.
John W Burgeson wrote:
> I know how you feel, John, but it certainly is true that color of skin
> sexual "orientation" are not in the same category. Changing skin color is
> not an option.>>
> The argument is, of course, that they ARE in the same category -- neither
> is a chosen characteristic but is part of the individual, either genetic
> or as a result of environment or (most likely) both. I have yet to meet a
> homosexual brother or sister who affirms that the characteristic was
> chosen in any sense. Bluntly, Wally, they can no more change than a
> person of color can choose to change skin color. Michael Jackson has, I
> think, tried to do this but I understand the effort was not successful.
> >>However, I too know some people who admit to a homosexual inclination
> they resist it and behave according to sexual norms and much of what the
> Bible teaches. That is an option.>>
> I agree, and it may, indeed, be an option for some people. But I am
> convinced, not all, not even many.
> I know two persons who are transgendered. They have their own problems to
> deal with, and they are substantial. One was female when I met her three
> years ago -- today he is male. Not his choice at all -- the change had to
> be made. HE is also studying for the Christian ministry.
> "At what threshold is someone's appetite one to which a person should not
> yield in your opinion?>>
> Let me ask you the reverse question. Suppose homosexuality were the norm,
> and you wished to be a minister but would have to renounce your
> heterosexual union and repent of it to do so? Think of how hard that
> would be. I have tried this thought experiment, assuming that I really
> really felt the call of our Lord to ministry. The real thing would tear
> me up.
> Trying thought experiments like this (putting yourself in the other
> person's shoes) is a useful exercise. Such experiments prove nothing, of
> course, but they do -- partially -- get to the feelings involved.
> Scholars disagree on the issue, I know. That is why my position statement
> (on page 2, section 10 of my web site) reads as it does. And why I do not
> "celebrate" homosexual orientation as necessarily a "good thing." There
> are five levels possible (see my web site). I am somewhere between level
> 3 and 4. I consider level 1 to be a non-Christian stance. And level 5 to
> be somewhat wooly-headed. I could be (as my position statement affirms)
> John Burgeson (Burgy)
> The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <email@example.com>
In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed May 28 2003 - 13:34:30 EDT