From: REXLEX@fnnews.fnal.gov Subject: Re: FAQ essay on homosexuality Organization: FNAL Lines: 82 In article hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes: >I think we must be careful before we totally throw out Leviticus. >If the Law is reflection of God's character and true holy nature, then >those who say that God endorses homosexuality run into a problem Though this will be addressed in the series of articles I'm posting now under "ARESNOKOITIA", I can't wait. This just really blew my socks off. Read I Tim 1: 3-11. Verses 3-8 speaks against those who have perverted the teachings of the Mosaic Law. In vv.9-10, we have, *IN ORDER*, the 5th thru the 9th commandments and in the midst of this listing is "homosexuals." The decalogue, above everything else, is seen as God's absolute. If you don't believe in absolutes, then you have nothing do do with Jehovah of the OT, which Paul reveals to be the Messiah of the NT. "Lord Christ Jesus" transliterates to read "Jehovah's Anointed Savior." In I Cor5, we see the same emphasis of moral separation from the pagan gentiles as we do in Lev 18-20. In I Cor 6:9-10, only one notation (drunkards) is not found in Lev 18-20. Paul was not naive in his use of the LXX. He knew full well how he was using the Law of God that was given in the OT, for application in the NT. As I've said, the Law was fulfilled, not done away with. >>of questions we are trying to deal with. He encountered homosexuality >>only in contexts where most people would probably agree that it was >>wrong. He had never faced the experience of Christians who try to act >>"straight" and fail, and he had never faced Christians who are trying >>to define a Christian homosexuality, which fits with general Christian >>ideals of fidelity and of seeing sexuality as a mirror of the >>relationship between God and man. It is unfair to take Paul's >>judgement on homosexuality among idolaters and use it to make >>judgements on these questions. This understanding is thoroughly rebutted in DeYoungs article that is being posted. Please refer to it. > >One of the reasons that some of us do not accept that common argument >is because Paul probably did face this and other problems. We can do better than "probably" which is not an adequate defense against the statement that Paul's culture didn't have the same understanding of homosexuality as ours. Again read the article because it uses facts. >>I claim that the question of how to counsel homosexual Christians is >>not entirely a theological issue, but also a pastoral one. > >I don't see how you come to that conclusion. I think I do, because I have worked in the homosexual community by means of working with AIDs patients. The pastoral is merely the practical application of the theological truth however. Those who are working thru the issue of homosexuality need to have our love and understanding just as with a friend who is contiplating cheating on his wife or a friend who lives with his girlfriend, yet you continue to witness to him. But, once the choice is made, and there is no remorse, then I feel that Paul's "pastoral" care, as presented in the Corinthian Church, come to bear significance. THe one in active rebellion should be placed outside of the church if a believer, and if a non-believer, then one wipes his sandels and leaves it in Gods hand. If there was a member in your youth group who was constantly pawing at the little girls, you wouldn't hesitate to deal with the matter quickly and decisivly. That, in part, betrays the present "political correctness" of the issue. Pederasty is not accepted at the present, but some how we are to accept homosexuality because the latter is politically correct, while the former is not -at least not yet. THis is how the morals decay. I guess this would follow the liberal application in the political realm of economics. The liberals want to tax the rich in the federal, yet in their own states, when they try to get businesses to settle there, they give tax incentives to these same richies. It comes down to a moral code of relativeness, or to use the cultural thing, politically correct -at the moment. --Rex [You might want to look over 1 Tim 1:10 again. If this is really the 5th through 9th commandments, we seem to be missing thieves, and homosexuals would have to be fit in under adultery. This is of course possible if "arsenokoitia" has a narrower meaning than homosexuality in general, but I think that's not your thesis. I have no objection per se to the idea that the author of 1 Tim might have quoted the 10 commandments, but 5 through 9, minus one and plus a few things, begins to look a bit marginal. --clh]