Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!princeton!njin!paul.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: PCUSA report on human sexuality Message-ID: Date: 7 May 91 04:25:59 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Lines: 40 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In reading about the PCUSA report on human sexuality, I wonder if the most basic problem is a perceived societal unwillingness to use the religious "s" word -- sin. From day one, Christians have maintained that: (1) all of us are sinful, BUT (2) that sin is, thanks to Christ, FORGIVABLE. I've thought a lot about "how evil works" in this world, and one way, be it with, promiscuity, drugs or gangs, it seems like a "1-2" punch. First, one is seduced into believing that what one is going to do is "perfectly ok" certainly "not sinful" ... then after the trap has been set ... one is told that there is "no forgiveness" ... "you're evil ... you have to live with it." Both are completely against what Christianity is about. There is *always* the *possibility* of forgiveness. It is *not* automatic, but redemption is *always* possible to even the most despondant of sinners. I can't see how a church can tell a pair of teenagers that sex at their age can *ever* be "responsible" ... But I would hope that the various pastors/priests/and other ministers of the faith would make it clear that despite that, Christ will always love them, and (hopefully) the Church will always love them, and that the door will *always* be open should they want to *come back* dennis kriz@skat.usc.edu [No, the authors of the report are perfectly willing to use the term "sin". However they use it for different things than you do. They identify things as wrong when they involve exploitation, lack of responsible consent, violation of promises, and other criteria. Their claim is not that there is no sin. Rather they reject the traditional criteria the define it primarily by formal criteria such as whether people are married. Instead they want to look at whether the particular actions are responsible, with a definition of responsible that involves various considerations of mutuality, consent, etc. As you may know, I have some problems with their analysis, but it's an oversimplification to say that they are afraid to call things sinful. --clh]