Re: Homosexuality and Scripture
On Fri, 16 Sep 1994 Dvdmoore@aol.com wrote:
> "Heterosexist"?? Is that a word you coined yourself, Greg? I haven't been
> able to find it in any of the several dictionaries I consulted.
I picked it up from Donna Haraway; sorry to stump you. But it is
different from homophobe. A person who is -phobic is irrationally afraid
or hateful of someone or something. A person who is -sexist is perhaps
merely chauvinistic; they unconsciously assume that however they are is
the norm, and the state of things they know is right.
> Others on this list, including myself, are not convinced by your treatment
> of scriptures relating to homosexuality. I, for one, believe that your
> personal orientation concerning this subject colors your judgement. Your
> interpretations overreach any reasoned reading of the text as you try to keep
> homosexuality from being classed as sin. You ignore or frantically
> reinterpret any surrounding context to fit your presupposition that
> homosexual activity is a legitimate, non-sinful expression of sexuality.
> That may sound good to those concerned with conforming to political
> correctness. But it makes no sense from a Christian point of view to be
> pimarily concerned to take a politically correct position in an age that
> cynically calls itself post-Christian.
Maybe the reason this age cynically calls itself post-Christian is that
the world has given up on waiting for Christians to start imitating
Christ in his capacity to love, heal, and forgive. It does seem a
disgrace to me that non-Christians have to take the lead in removing the
hatred of blacks and women which the churches often held on to the
longest. As Paul said, God would have even less patience with Gentile
Christians than He did with the pre-Christian Jews. I'm surprised He's
waited this long for judgment.
> I don't wish you ill, as you imply that I do. But I do perceive that the
> Bible unequivocally calls homosexual activity sin. In another post, you
> called my position "homophobic." Are, then, those who call adultery sin to
> be called _moichophobic_. Are there to be _kleptophobes_ and _phonophobes_?
> How about _pornophobes_? Would that refer to those that call fornication
> sin or those that call prostitution sin or would it refer to an aversion to
> pornography? Maybe there are such a thing as _pornophobes_.
I guess if you could show me how homosexuals necessarily hurt anyone, the
way adulterers, thieves, and murderers do then I'd join you. Until then
I'd rather assume Paul (and maybe even Moses) were less irrational and
stupid than that. If you have trouble with words that end in -phobic, I
suggest you buy a new unabridged dictionary.
> You talk about repentance from *real* sins, not harrassment of so-called
> sinners. Well, homosexual activity would not be sin at all if it were not
> *real* sin. You are not really asking not to be harrassed: you are asking a
> Christian baptism for the homosexual lifestyle. No one with a biblically
> based system of ethics is going to afford you that. You need to repent.
> There is no door the way you are trying to come in.
My reference was to someone who quoted from the Prophets. The Prophets,
especially Ezekiel, condemned the *abomination* of idolatry, of Israel's
betrayal of God. The other prophets were prominent for condemning social
injustice, oppression of the poor and helpless, unfairness, political
corruption, religious hypocrisy, violence, greed, etc. Not one of them
saw fit to condemn homosexuality. The prophets *did* find time to
condemn the mindless observance of the Pentateuch's commandments and
the man-made rules that mere humans had added to it. Reread the prophets if
you don't believe me! You say your ethics are based on the Bible, but it
seems like a book you haven't read in a while.
As for trying to come in; I'm already in Him, and He is in me. As for
where you are, I don't know.