[CS-FSLUG] God Didn't Say That

[Aaron Lehmann]

On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 12:53:58PM -0500, Wade A Smith wrote:
> 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.

No doubt.  Sin's bad, and it feels good and proper to do.  I'm simply
trying to indicate that it might be possible for someone to be born
homosexual, like it is possible to be born an addict, and for similar
reason:  a consequence of the immorality of one's forebears.  For that
matter, if one believes that sexuality and gender orientation is even in
part based on nurture, then it wouldn't even have to be a genetic sort
of thing in order to be a part of one's heritage.  If Sally has two
mommy's, will she go looking for a girlfreind later?

>  Wade Arron Smith

Nifty spelling.  Isn't that how Elvis's brother's name was spelled?

Aaron Lehmann