[CS-FSLUG] God Didn't Say That

[Wade A Smith]

I'm still WAAAAaayyyyyy behind in my email reading.  can you tell?

> From: Aaron Lehmann <lehmanap at lehmanap.dyndns.org>
> Subject: Re: [CS-FSLUG] God Didn't Say That
> 
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 03:24:43AM -0500, Don Parris wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-01-07 at 02:25 -0500, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 03:39:56PM -0600, Timothy R. Butler 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > The answer to #1 is, based on my understanding of Biblical
> > interpretation, that homosexuality is a moral wrong.  Science has 
> not
> > proven beyond the shadow of a doubt (at least not to me) that
> > homosexuality is a genetic trait.  If the Church fathers (Paul, 
> etc) had
> > seen homosexuality as a cultural issue, they might not have 
> addressed it
> > at all.  However, the behavior is consistently part of the sin 
> lists in
> > the N.T.  
> 
> It seems to me they also believed it to be a curse that came from 
> God
> because of unrighteousness (I don't rememebr the verse, but I'm 
> pretty
> sure it's Pauline).  Is it not possible to be born homosexual in

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 1:23 And
changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to
corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping
things.

i.e., they turned their back on God (according to previous verses Paul
says that God didnt pass their test "what makes for an acceptable 
god to humans") and made up gods that would allow their sinfulness.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts
of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and
served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.
Amen.  1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for
even
their women did change the natural use into that which is against
nature: 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the
woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working
that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of
their error which was meet.

"uncleanness " "dishonour" "vile affections" "against nature" "unseemly"
and 
"recompence of their error which was meet (fitting)" Doesnt sound like
Paul 
thinks they're just OK.  And judging by the flow of the logic here I
would
say this is where you get the idea "they also believed it to be a curse
that 
came from God"

The Law of Moses says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with
womankind: 
it is abomination." (Lev 18:22)

> orientation?  It would still be a sin, but it would also be much 
> more
> difficult to overcome I imagine, and would feel natural to the 
> person.

There are some verses on what "seems right to a man", but it aint
too promising in the outcome.

<snip> 
> 
> Aaron Lehmann

I like that name, "Aaron", but then, I'm somewhat biased.   8-)

 Wade Arron Smith