Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: RJB@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu (Rich Belcinski) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Gay Ordination in the Presbyterian Church Message-ID: Date: 3 Apr 91 07:56:09 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Lines: 98 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) says: > > Why ? and who defines what 'sin' is ? > Please don't counter with Mat 5:28 - I don't subcribe to the > "if you've thought it, you've done it" interpretation of that verse, > because I don't think that it makes any sense. Sin, strictly defined, is anything that does not conform to the character of God. So... what is the character of God like, you ask? If you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then that is the place to look to find out. If you think that the Bible is unadulter- ated (pardon the pun) b.s., then you're essentially back to "square one." I'm not going to go into aplogetics now, and argue with you about the intellectual merits of faith (unless you want to... please use e-mail then). As for Mathhew 5:28, I'm not really sure of its context in relation to this thread. However, it addresses the essential point that there is a "right" way to look at somebody, and a "damaging" way to look at somebody. Lust is the obsessive desire to possess something. The Bible does *not* say "never appreciate a woman" (or man for that matter), but it *does* say that lust crosses the line between appreciation of God's good work and idolatry. This is something that has to be worked-out between the Christian and his in-dwelling spirit. The "lust thresholds" are different from person to person. As far as Gay Ordination (subject of this thread, I think), the Bible is clear on what is acceptable sex practice and what is not. It is not logical to ordain practicing sinners in a church which believes that the Bible is the Word of God. You can rant and rave all you want about "how it doesn't make sense," etc., but a Chris- tian has every right to believe that homosexuality is a sin (since God tells them so), and that Gay ordination is wrong. This should not be interpreted as license to persecute gays. The Christian church (ideally, anyway...) preaches love, and I have no problem with gays being church members as long as they're not practicing sinners. ("practicing" == "doing it without repentance before God.") >|> Our thoughts come from 3 things: ourselves, evil spirits, good spirits. > >Is there a strong Biblical precedent for this ? Yes. Romans 8:5-15 (Sin nature, Holy Spirit). There are others, if you're *truly* interested in such. (Otherwise, I won't waste your time as well as mine...) >|> Here's an example that happened to me, by way of illustration. > [deleted for brevity] >|> The thought was from an evil spirit, most probably, ...[deleted] > >I (as a confirmed sceptic) would like you to prove that the thought >'came from an evil spirit' and not from your own subconcious, expressing >a perfectly HUMAN emotion, Pleeeeeaaase. :-) Usually, thoughts that are completely "out-of-character" from a person are interpreted by people as "evil-spirit." Thoughts from the subcon- cious are also biblical, so there is no need for intellectual defense here. I don't think you really expect me to logically prove that there is a Satan. If you did, I'd ask *you* to prove that there was a sub- conscious (pick your definition!). >|> A further comment: I gave the thought/word/deed categorization; there >|> are others. For example, somone who defends homosexuality, while not >|> strictly engaging in it himself, is guilty of it. I mean that quite >|> literally -- someone who defends a sin has to answer for that sin at >|> their personal judgement. This is sin by way of condoning, vs. doing. >|> >|> Joe Buehler Ah..... I don't know about *THAT*... I have never seen a passage about being *judged* in that way. There are lots of passages about "causing others to fall" through actions that don't pull your own mind away from God, but does pull others' mind away from God. The act isn't the sin; the callous disrespect for the spiritual life of others *IS*. That is what the judgement is all about. In all ways, the Christian is to put the spiritual well being of others before his own. Does a minister defend homosexuality? He's not guilty of homosexuality, but he will be judged for "spiritual damage caused..." >Once again, who is it that has decided what a 'sin' is ? >If I 'defend homosexuality' would you say that I have sinned ? >Are you in a position to tell me what sin is for me ? for anyone ? There are lots of general guidelines (no murder, rape, etc...) But otherwise: no. No-one can tell you what is sinful for you except God, who is the only one who has your "owners' manual." The apostle Paul writes a nice piece on "the believers' freedom" in I Corinthians 10:23-31. This sums things up nicely. You might even want to read the whole letter, since this theme crops-up again and again. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard J. Belcinski | Any opinion expressed above is not | Bitnet: RJB@SLACVM.BITNET | necessarily that of SLAC or the US DOE. | ----------------------------------------------------------------------