Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cvl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!david
From: david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Christianity and homosexuality
Message-ID: <202@cvl.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 23-Mar-85 22:01:19 EST
Article-I.D.: cvl.202
Posted: Sat Mar 23 22:01:19 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 30-Mar-85 04:54:21 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Computer Vision Lab, U. of Maryland, College Park
Lines: 67


	There has been some discussion about what the NT writings
say about homosexuality. I'm glad that Jeff Gillette has commented on
what Paul said.
	There are two things I would add. First, while the
translation of some words is made more difficult because they are
rare, or lacking in verbal context, or because the original words
are lexically ambiguous, nevertheless we should not forget the
apparent traditional presuppositions of the authors and readers.
Jesus and Paul largely accepted their Jewish ethical tradition,
and neither of them are famous for casuistry or for mincing words.
The fact is that homosexuality was considered to be a perversion of
nature according to Jewish tradition of the time. Secondly, if either
had condoned homosexuality during that time, it surely would have
been so scandalous to contemporary non-Christian Jews that we should
be informed even today by their criticism, for example, in the Talmud.
But this is not their complaint.
	I am not saying that the NT writings are ethically complete,
or inerrant, simply that it is far-fetching to have the NT say what it
plainly does not. I understand that homosexuals do not want to be
denied their rights as individual human beings, and do not want to be
excluded from social institutions. But, in the final analysis, are
the churches to approve something which most believe to be ultimately
destructive of human personality and society? Who can forsee the
consequences of such approval? However, my point is that there is
nothing, that I know of, in the scriptures in favor of homosexuality;
it is always described as being under "the wrath of God" -- that is,
self-destructive. I would say that this is not obviously wrong.
	Whether it is "involuntary" or not, is beside the point, since 
it is at least as "voluntary" as other conscious behaviors. In fact, Paul 
anticipates psychoanalysis by thousands of years, in attributing our
behavior to very often unconscious motivations. We ordinarily say that
something is voluntary when we mean that we are aware of our motives.
But the matter of "sin" is not the "voluntariness" of behavior, which 
is related to our self-knowledge, but its "destructiveness". It is said
that the Law, while it made us partially conscious of sin, could not
make us better, less destructive men. But that with the coming of
Christ, we are set free, by the power of God, from slavery to what would
destroy us. Paul then says that it was this experience which "freed"
him to become the "slave" of Christ, having been the slave to "sin".
This would seem to be the meaning of "They shall know the truth, and 
the truth shall set them free."
	As an analogy, suppose that your grandfather died of lung cancer
after smoking for 30 years. He never knew that he was killing himself.
Then the surgeon general announces that smoking is the greatest cause
of this fatal disease. Well, everyone knows this expert opinion, and
becomes aware of the alternatives. Some may "voluntarily" stop smoking, 
after hearing this dire warning; nevertheless, others will "voluntarily" 
choose to disregard the warning, and die of cancer. Still others will
"involuntarily" continue to be addicted to the self-destructive behavior.
Hearing more medical opinions may not make a difference. Nevertheless,
having been provided with these warnings, they will very well understand 
what the doctor means when he says "stop, or else." But no one seeks
to find the doctor until he suffers "involuntarily", wishing to be saved.
Hopefully, the doctor makes the one tremble in his boots, since anyone 
who "voluntarily" disregards this last warning is pretty far gone.
	I don't know of a large proportion of homosexuals who want to 
live a different life, and generally they deny that their lives are 
self-destructive. But, having lived in a number of major cities, this is 
not my general impression. I realize that this is not a popular "liberal"
opinion, still I have to say what I believe is true. I might add that
there is no morality to be found in singles bars, anymore than in gay
bathhouses; and that there is no justification for persecution of those
who are suffering already, whether they realize this, or say that they
are "voluntarily" doing what is "natural" to them.