A response to Burgy

From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Thu Jun 12 2003 - 08:12:36 EDT

  • Next message: Denyse O'Leary: "Re: Gap theory and Day Age theory"

    Burgy has asked that we
    consider his web pages in the
    area of gay and lesbian
    relationships. I have
    attempted to do so below.


    In this sermon, rev. Harold
    Porter criticizes the General
    assembly of the Presbyterian
    Church as follows:

    This document lists passages
    from both the Old and New
    Testaments that describe same
    sex behaviour as sinful,
    concluding that “the New
    Testament declares all
    homosexual practice
    incompatible with Christian
    faith and life.” And,
    finally, seeking to offer
    definitive guidance, later
    hardening into ecclesiastical
    law, the Assembly said
    unequivocally “unrepentant
    homosexual practice does not
    accord with the requirements
    for ordination.”

    While Porter than criticizes
    this position with lofty
    phases, I cannot see any
    Biblical refutation of the
    above statement within the
    document. I am certain than
    those who support the gay,
    etc. lifestyle would like to
    have the Bible not say the
    things that it does, but the
    words are there and do not


    In this discussion, Burgy
    presents his position as
    generally favouring the view
    that loving gay and lesbian
    lifestyles (the actions, not
    the inclination) are not
    sinful. His primary reference
    is a book by the Catholic
    Theologian Daniel Helminiak.
    As in the above, this author
    is taking a stand in
    opposition to his own church.
    I notice that he has a
    foreword by Spong. (That says
    a lot.)

    Knowing nothing about
    Helminiak, I did a web search
    about him. I’ll just note here
    that Alamo Square Press
    published his book. A Goggle
    search indicates that this is
    an organization that
    dominantly publishes gay and
    lesbian literature. It is not
    a Christian publishing house.

    Also from Googol, there is an
    article by the ACLU on
    At one point Helminiak
    concludes: “I don't know the
    Agnostic gospels, there's a
    similar story in the Gospel of
    Mark the young man runs away
    and they get the sheet from
    him, so he runs off naked.
    Some scholars suggest that the
    man was woken from sleep and
    came out wearing a sheet which
    they slept in in those days.
    What was really going on,
    again, we don't have the
    evidence. I would not want to
    suggest that Jesus was or was
    not homosexual. We simply
    don't know.”

    That stuck me as inconsistent
    with his contention that
    opposition to homosexuality
    was a Jewish thing. Jesus
    would not have been accepted
    if he were homosexual in
    actions. I suggest that do
    know that he was not.


    In this section, Burgy
    presents the following chart
    from a book by Joretta Jordan.
    The suggestion is that this is
    way we should analyse the

    to counsel

    Change behaviour.

    Both HO and HA are immoral

    2 Diseased....Not
    Partners have no moral blame

    Abstinence is recommended

    HO and HA are morally neutral

    "Don't ask, don't tell" policy

    Do not attempt to influence

    HO and HA are morally neutral

    HO being natural, HA is OK

    Affirm and celebrate the

    I have a real problem with
    this in that it does not
    include what most evangelicals
    would describe as their
    position. Namely, that is that
    a homosexual inclination is
    not evil in itself but that
    yielding to that inclination
    is sin. That is not to say it
    is the worst of sins but just
    that it is sin. Similarly,
    heterosexual sex outside of
    marriage is considered to be
    sin also.

    4.) Liberals and Conservatives

    Burgy, God bless him, is one
    of my favourite Liberals.
    However, the conclusions are
    those drawn by a classic
    Liberal and typify what exists
    here in my State
    (Kennedyland). In the school
    systems, sex education is
    taught. It used to be
    conventional heterosexual
    relationships but that is
    changing. Now the gay and
    lesbian techniques are
    penetrating (excuse the word)
    the teachings as well. Young
    people are given telephone
    numbers that they may call to
    get information without their
    parents knowing. All this is
    good clean work in the minds
    of a liberal but is a reason
    to adopt home teaching, going
    to a private Christian school,
    or a moving to another State
    (in the minds of some

    I still have a lot of trouble
    with the notion of canned
    philosophies. A liberal or a
    conservative will rarely
    consider the data objectively.
    Instead, a notion consistent
    with that canned philosophy is
    arrived at and the search for
    corroborating data is
    constantly expanded. I would
    suggest that this is not a
    good way to arrive at the
    truth in any matter. It is
    especially bad for scientists
    who are supposed to objective
    pursuers of the truth.

    In this situation being
    considered, the Bible clearly
    labels homosexuality as sinful
    and really has to be twisted
    to say the contrary. To argue
    that a gay couple is
    acceptable within the
    Christian Church simply sets
    aside the Bible as being
    outdated in this respect. Why
    not just argue thusly and
    avoid the slight of hand? At
    least then there can be a
    sincere debate that might
    eliminate the artificiality of
    canned philosophies.


    Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.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 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 08:17:42 EDT