Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site oakhill.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!oakhill!davet From: davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Church Discipline - A reply to Dave T. Message-ID: <376@oakhill.UUCP> Date: Mon, 1-Apr-85 16:59:22 EST Article-I.D.: oakhill.376 Posted: Mon Apr 1 16:59:22 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 3-Apr-85 02:40:43 EST References: Reply-To: davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) Organization: Motorola Inc. Austin, Tx Lines: 76 Summary: >[Trissel] >> When did you choose to be heterosexual ? >[Brown] >It doesn't matter. If I learned in God's word by conviction of >the Holy Spirit that heterosexuality was wrong, I would repent of >it and ask (and keep on asking) [ see Matthew 7] till I was changed. >This is called repentance and growth. ... > >This is true analogously for alcoholism which we know has some genetic >components as well. You and Gays assume that the way you are born >into this world is OK. All manner of birth defects (spiritual and >physical) testify against that view. > I presume from this that a mongoloid child is "not OK' in your terms? Certainly mongolism fits in "All manner of birth defects." What seems to be incorrect here is that there is an assumption that genetic influences can be just hurdles to the way God wants us to live. If human sexual feelings were merely tendencies I would concede your point. But the two most primary physical drives are those regarding sex and food. First off, people are born with sexual affinities ranging all the way from extreme heterosexual to extreme homosexuality. The larger (90 percent or so) of the population is in the hetersexual side. It seems that gays have been around throughout history in all cultures and in generally the same population proportions as we have today. Only where homosexuality is greatly taboo do they seem absent, just like in the Soviet Union today. But they are there just the same. The problem here as I see it is that God is supposedly unresponsible for this spread of sexual tendencies, that somehow those not exactly on one line in the sample are somehow "unnatural." This doesn't seem realistic. This is also contradicted by the many instances of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. You seem to be saying that genetically based inclinations are no excuse to God even if homosexuality or alcoholism may be predisposed by genes. If homosexuality is genetically determined, or even only genetically predis- posed doesn't this imply that some poeple have "badness" in their genes? I get unconfortable here since my earlier upbringing regarded blacks as being inferior due to their "genes." Even though you yourself may hold no prejedice it sure opens the door for others to justify bigotry. Anyway, the $64K question is whether any tendency is "permenent", "unnatural" or "changable." Sin is supposed to be something *willingly* done against God or his laws. I would propose that the lack of gays in gay churches being "healed" of homosexuality even though they are dedicated Christians is similar to the lack of mongolian children being "healed" and made normal. That even if you believe homosexuality to be abnormal, that for most it is an integral part of their nature, something which they have no control over. And unless you are towards the middle of the Kinsey sexual preference scale that just like the mongoloid child no amount of prayer or penance is going to change the way you are as far as sexual preference goes. Your theology is such that whatever the Bible says is evil must be a conscious willfull act. If you see homosexuality condemed in the Bible then you must believe that homosexuality is chosen, or at least with effort can be changed. I don't think this jives with the facts. Too many gay Christians haven't changed and too many homosexuals claim that their sexual affinities are no more unnatural than are your own. > >Dave, I just flat disagree with you and I think I've done a little >better explaining why this time. > Yes you have. I guess its just an artifact of the net that in trying to communicate with conciseness in a medium with no visual or verbal clues or instant responses that we all so easily misread each other. Even as I entered my response above I was wondering just how far afield I may be misinterpreting your own statements. >Bob Brown >(guilty of consorting with known Fundamentalists) Dave Trissel {ihnp4,seismo}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet (guilty of once being a known Fundamentalist)