Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Christian view of homosexuality Message-ID: Date: 5 Jul 90 05:43:38 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington Lines: 59 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu This topic has come up in alt.atheism from some Christian posters -- the idea that homosexuality is sinful and that being homosexual denies one entrance to the kingdome of heaven. As an agnostic, this would normally not be of much interest to me except that many Christians use this statement to justify their bigoted and intolerant attitudes. These attitudes are then manifested in the secular world in such things as sodomy laws and prohibitions of homosexuals in the military. What I would like to focus on is: does being Christian mean being anti-homosexual? A related and, I think, important question is: if the core of Christianity is Jesus' teachings then why is the Apostle Paul given any great weight? Some observations from the outside ... I come at this from a secular, scientific perspective. It seems to me that believing Christians who are also aware of what research is telling us about human sexuality will have trouble with the idea that God would punish people who are homosexual not through an act of free will. Do such Christians take the position that Paul just got it wrong in the case of homosexuality? -- paul hager hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu "I would give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety's sake." --from _A_Man_for_All_Seasons_ by Robert Bolt [So far I don't believe anyone has said specifically that being homosexual denies one entrance to the kingdom of heaven. (Of course I Cor. could be read as saying that, but I think there are some implicit qualifications.) What has been said is that homosexual activity (somewhat different than being homosexual) is wrong, and that they would pray for homosexuals and counsel with them in love. These things are hard enough to deal with without exaggerating what is being said. I would guess that the typical approach of those who oppose homosexual activity is to consider it a problem similar to alcoholism. Even if it is shown to be completely biological, that does not necessarily make it acceptable. However we do not say that all alcoholics are damned. We recognize that they have a problem, but that God's grace is sufficient to save them, just as it is to save the rest of us. As to why Paul is given weight: For better or worse, Jesus didn't write anything. It seems to me that the writings of one of his most influential interpreters is a pretty good source under such circumstances. The gospels are no more first-hand than Paul's writings. They are stories written down 30 to 50 years after the events portrayed. Paul certainly had access to at least some of the disciples. The fact that what we see from him is an attempt to work out the implications of the Christian message, rather than a narrative, does not seem to me to reduce its usefulness as representing what Jesus' followers thought his message was. --clh]