RE: A response to Burgy

From: Sondra Brasile (
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 11:08:27 EDT

  • Next message: Joel Cannon: "Re: Preoccupation: Was Do non-U.S. ....."



    I cannot accept the fact either that active unrepentant homosexual's are not
    sinning (I also admit that it's no worse a sin than any other, but it is sin
    nonetheless). The Bible says MUCH about continuing to sin after rebirth, but
    it also explains God's offer of forgiveness *when* we fail. BUT how
    repentant can a person be that refuses to admit that what they are doing is


    >From: "Debbie Mann" <>
    >To: "Asa" <>
    >Subject: RE: A response to Burgy
    >Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 08:43:41 -0500
    >I cannot make the Bible say that homosexuality is not sinful. However, I
    >will not attend a church that does not welcome sinners. We all sin and come
    >short of the glory of God. In our own church, they would not be allowed to
    >become members while actively living in sin. However, they would most
    >certainly be welcome. God alone convicts. Faith cometh by hearing the word
    >of God. The most damning passage on homosexuality, in my opinion, in the
    >Bible is the one in Roman and it nails everyone for something and ends with
    >Romans 2:1 and the commandment to not judge. The church SHOULD set up
    >standards for members and certainly for officials. These standards should
    >based on the Bible. However, the church should shun no one, NO ONE, who is
    >there in all sincerity - except where there is an issue of safety to the
    >Visit the prisoners for in doing so you have done it unto me.
    >I'm sorry I don't have time to look up all my references. I'm fairly sure
    >you recognize them all anyway. Jesus sat at dinner with the sinners. I
    >imagine you know that not only was this against Jewish tradition but
    >salt was a broader commitment throughout the region than anything we would
    >associate with eating a meal. And what was Jesus' reply when criticized?
    >needs a physician?
    >Faith, hope, love, these three, but the greatest of these is love.
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: []On
    >Behalf Of Walter Hicks
    >Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 7:13 AM
    >Subject: A response to Burgy
    >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
    >In any consistent theory,
    >there must
    >exist true but not provable
    >(Godel's Theorem)
    >You can only find the truth
    >with logic
    >If you have already found the
    >without it. (G.K. Chesterton)

    Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 11:08:53 EDT