Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    	I don't agree with all you say on this subject but am having a
    tough time finding a handle to grab on to. I don't like your
    definitions in that they are loaded with conotatively charged words and
    with they seem to me to be judgemental. It is not for you to judge, you
    have no right to usurp God's perogative.
    	On the other hand, ;-) care to tell us what you percieved that you
    lost or what alien quality entered your relationship ?  Or were you
    speaking hypothetically ?

    I have found it quite telling and interesting that of all the
    ten commandments, this one inparticular gets so many people 
    so violently upset, all out of proportion to their reactions
    to the other 9.
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie,
    
    Yes, I've found that true too.  My theory is that people who
    judge other on their actions are deep into denial about their
    own feelings.  I believe that other people act as mirrors for us,
    as projections of what is happening internally within us.  If I
    find myself having an aversion to someone, I know it is time to
    look within and see if I am denying that there is a part of me
    that is like that person or I am repressing certain feelings I have.
    I find it a very useful tool in keeping me from making judgements
    about anyone and in helping me follow the example of Jesus.
    
    Ro
    

    Re: 1
    
>    	I don't agree with all you say on this subject but am having a
>    tough time finding a handle to grab on to. I don't like your
>    definitions in that they are loaded with conotatively charged words and
>    with they seem to me to be judgemental. It is not for you to judge, you
>    have no right to usurp God's perogative.
 
    I could say that about those who devised the marriage vows, and the
    licenses.  The vows of marriage aren't in the bible.  God never said we
    need a "license" to get married.  Who are they to usurp God's
    perogative.
    
    >  	On the other hand, ;-) care to tell us what you percieved that you
    >lost or what alien quality entered your relationship ?  Or were you
    >speaking hypothetically ?
    
    It is more than a "perceived" phenomenon that one brings back the
    residue of the wayward sex affair to the home and it interferes with
    one's feelings for that loved one at home, it is real.  I've been
    married (and have two boys), and (lord forgive me) I had extra-marital
    sex affairs with old high school flames.  But, whether my wife realized
    it or not (sometimes she knew, other times she didn't), I felt the
    "contamination" within me of my feelings for her.  A mixture of
    feelings for the other woman (i.e. guilt, trying to find some
    justification for the act, unable to call it love, because it wasn't). 
    Why did I do it?  Do I REALLY love my wife?  Then you begin to project! 
    She's doing it TO!  She doesn't love me!  Round and round, head
    spinning.  THE LOVE RELATIONSHIP HAS BE CONTAMINATED BY AN ALIEN (I.E.
    ALIEN TO THE LOVE RELATIONSHIP) FORCE.  Where is purity and the unity
    that we USE to have!  
    
    Had I (or any other person) become involved with another the love we
    felt for our loved one would have remained strong and continued to
    grow, in pure and unadulterated splendor, but we "contaminate" that
    love when we "cheat" on our love one.  "You can't take fire in your
    bosom and not get burned".
    
    So, actually, I'm not being judgemental of anybody, but of the feelings
    that I have felt when I "cheated" on my love.  Love is meant to be
    clean and pure.  I believe all people, perhaps, experience to greater
    or lesser extent these kinds of emotions, but I'm trying to see things
    in a godly way, using God's Word to define my action and resulting
    feelings.  I have not judged anyone, but am examining the idea of
    adultery and fornication from the perspective of how it effects the
    love relationship, from the standpoint of inner emotional reactions.
    

    Re: 2
    
    I agree, Bonnie.  And I believe I know a little bit about why that is. 
    It is fundamentally the same reason why the greedy rich don't want the
    system to change to give more to the not so rich.  Or, the same reason
    why corrupt administrators don't want to see policy changes that might
    interfere with their avenues of corruption.  Or, the same reason why
    the LAPD will find a scapegoat "Sobel" and proscecute him and say
    they've got all the corrupt cops.  All because they like the wicked
    things they are doing and the benefits it en-TAILS  (pun intended).
    
    If I hadn't been raised on the proverbial "milk and honey" of God's
    Word, and in a home and environment that was full of pure love and
    concern and truth, when those feelings of greed and covetousness and
    lust began to rise in my heart after having cheated I too probably
    would have succumbed to them.  But, as God would have it, I was all too
    familiar with the feelings of peace and love and righteousness within
    me.  I could easily tell when I was falling away from God and I really
    couldn't stand myself for it.  
    
    Whereas, those who have never known how it feels to dwell in the spirit
    of truth and righteousness have no fortified foundation upon which to
    base a conviction of guilt and/or a commitment to "do the right thing".
    
    I know what true love is and what it feels like to be in true love, how
    to sustain it and to be happy within it.  "When knowledge is pleasant
    to the soul" then shall discretion guide you...
    

    re: .4 and .5
    
    You have shared an experience *you* had and the way that experience made
    *you* feel.  Many -- *perhaps, but not necessarily, most* -- people in
    our culture would probably feel the same way in similar circumstances.
    However, you generalize from your experience to a universal statement.
    Are you open to the possibility that someone might be genuinely happily 
    and lovingly married and might have an extra-marital affair that did
    *not* damage their primary relationship and that could, possibly,
    enhance the lives of all three people?
    
    Nancy

    
    re: .6 (Nancy Smith)
    
    Tell us more.  Do you know of a situation like this?  What variables
    would make this sort of relationship possible?
    
    guy

Re:  74.6 

Nancy,

  >Are you open to the possibility that someone might be genuinely happily 
  >and lovingly married and might have an extra-marital affair that did
  >*not* damage their primary relationship and that could, possibly,
  >enhance the lives of all three people?

The primary relationship everyone is to have (*especially* Christians)
is with God.  (I know this is not the way you were using "primary
relationship", but this does lead into the most relevant discussion
that we can have on this issue.)  The better question is, as I see it,
"does an extra-marital affair improve our relationship with God or
does it detract from it?"

The Bible is clear about the answer to this.  It clearly denounces sex
outside of marriage as sin and clearly indicates that sin drives people
away from God.

Therefore, I am not open to the possibility that an extra-marital affair
enhances the lives of people.

Collis

    Collis - 
    
    I've seen it work otherwise.
    
    Nanci

    The thing that I'm focusing a bit more on is how *totally* outraged
    people get at even the idea of adultery. Far more so than if some
    one admited to covetting, or swearing, or even stealing. Some times
    adultery seems to be *the* worst commandment to break. (The last
    time I was in the conference on golf:: there were two notes just
    started on this subject. It was the reactions that I read there that
    started my thoughts in this direction.
    
    I'm willing to bet that a note started on the subject of 'is killing
    ever all right' or 'is there ever a reason to steal' would get a very
    different set of responses than one suggesting anything positive
    about breaking this commandment.
    
    I sometimes wonder if there isn't an element of a more male dominated
    religous outlook having supplanted a more female oriented one. In early
    societies inheritance was through a man's sister's son, as he/she *knew*
    that was his/her family. He would not know, however, if the child of
    any woman he had been with was his family. Women made the choice of the 
    father of their child often without bonds of formal matrimony. 
    
    This outlook on family and women was in direct contrast with the
    patriarchical outlook of the early Hebrews. I can't help but wonder
    if the greater freedom allowed women that worshiped in the goddess
    religions had the net effect of putting a greater emphasis on
    this particular sin because it threatened the men's control of
    their wives (property) and heirs. 
    
    Remember in the past it was the woman who was killed for adultery.
    
    Bonnie

Bonnie (.10),

Wow, your response was an eye-opener.  Gee, with all the involvement I've
had in women's groups and book's I've read on women's issue I'm embarrassed 
to say I never thought to look at people's outrage at adultery from that 
perspective.  8')  Hmmmm, certainly something to think about...

Ro

    
    Let's not forget that women are capable of control, though they often
    take a different, less "openly barbaric" tact.
    
    guy

    It has only been in the past 25 years that women have had the
    ability to control their own fertility with any degree of
    relibility. This is not true thorughout human history. (and
    guy, I think any further digression in this direction belongs
    in the abortion debate note, please).
    
    Bonnie

    
    re: .13
    
    Ditto.
    
    guy

Re:  .9

Nanci,

Are you answering from God's perspective?  That is, do you believe that
God sees the adultery as directly bringing people closer to Him?  Or
are you saying that from a human point of view things have worked out
well.  Or are you saying that the eventual result was that the people
drew closer to God (which is certainly one possible result of sinning -
which, however, does not make the sin right [Romans 3])?

Collis

    Collis - 
    
    Because I am human I can't answer entirely from God's perspective.  I
    don't know what God thinks of the particular situation I have in mind. 
    
    However, from a human point of view and from what I've seen of the
    spiritual growth of the parties involved things definitely worked out
    in a way that brought the parties closer to God.
    
    Nanci
    

    re .4
    	You could say WHAT about those who devised marriage vows? And
    licenses. That you have a tough time getting a handle on them ? Oh,
    well. That they are loaded with connotatively charged words ?  Also
    true, and decidedly intentional.  That they are judgemental ?  Try to
    be more specific.  That they usurp God's prerogatives ?  In just what
    way ?  God never told us what are or are not suitable marriage vows and
    the license is a secular concern. "Give unto Ceasar ..."
    
    	Regarding the fact that you cheated on your wife - more than once,
    if I read you right - it sounds like you have an overly-developed guilt
    complex and need to get your life together. Or maybe you have. If you
    cheated on your love and felt guilty about it then you most assuredly
    need to gain control of yourself or you will build a hell for yourself
    here on earth that will lead you to destruction. My experience,
    personal and otherwise, is that it is possible for an extra-marrital
    affair to strengthen the marriage, though it is more likely to weaken
    it. I am not advocating adultery, only suggesting that you do not
    condemn it out of hand without examination. Oh, yeah, and don't go
    around stoning the women that helped you feel guilty, stand beside them
    and accept your share of the stones. That would make you a better man
    than most of Christ's contemporaries or those of the 18th century who
    buned "witches".

    re: .7 guy,
    
    I find the *possibilities* interesting.  I'm sure we all know
    situations where adultery destroyed love, trust, homes, etc., etc.
    I have known of a few where the result appeared to be a "draw" --
    in other words, the affair ended with no *apparent* harm done to
    anyone and with the spouses supposedly unaware.
    
    During the 60's or 70's there was a big brouhaha over "open marriage."
    The idea was that no one should really "own" anyone, even sexually.  A 
    person should be able to enjoy more than one sexual relationship at a
    time, just as you can enjoy more than one friendship at a time, without
    any threat to your commitment to your spouse.  (Note all the "shoulds"!)
    
    People tried to be mature and live that way -- and found out that they
    couldn't handle it!  Even the couple that wrote the book "Open
    Marriage" got divorced!  Does that prove it was *wrong*?  No.  It
    doesn't prove anything, either way!  The emotional baggage we all carry
    about the subject certainly makes it *risky* though.
    
    The thing that intrigues me most is this:  Given the cultural as well
    as religious prohibitions *against* affairs, apparently only people for
    whom it *doesn't* work ever talk about it openly!!  Anyone managing
    multiple relationships successfully would not dare to expose themselves
    to the "heat" they would get from others if they talked about it!
    
    Nancy

< Note 74.4 by SWAM3::DOTHARD_ST "PLAYTOE" >
                      -< I'm no judge, just an attorney! >-

>>>I could say that about those who devised the marriage vows, and the
    licenses.  The vows of marriage aren't in the bible.  God never said we
    need a "license" to get married.  Who are they to usurp God's
    perogative.
    
I am interested on you expanding on the license to marry. You
see, there are those who adhere to the statement to "give to
Caesar, what belongs to Caesar; and to God, what belongs to God"
as santifying civil government when that government is "inspired"
of God (as in the founding of America).

License, then carries the actions of "inspired" civil government.

Interesting.

calvin

    re: .22,
    
>I am interested on you expanding on the license to marry. You
>see, there are those who adhere to the statement to "give to
>Caesar, what belongs to Caesar; and to God, what belongs to God"
>as santifying civil government when that government is "inspired"
>of God (as in the founding of America).
    
    How about a new string on the role of civil government or the
    relationship between Christianity and civil government?  I'd like to
    learn from folks who have definite views on that and think it might
    sidetrack this topic.
    
    I'm particularly puzzled by some Christians who give our government
    more authority than I do and who are opposed to anything that *sounds*
    like international unity -- as though *our* government were perfect and
    we'd be giving up something important.  As I said, all this puzzles me.
    
    Our pastor preached yesterday on "Can Christians Be Patriotic" and
    stressed "Give to Ceasar *only* what is Ceasar's and to God *all* that
    is God's!"
    
    Nancy

    .15  collis,
    
           "Are you answering from God's perspective?"
    
    Good old Collis.   Are we pretending that our perspective is God's
    perspective once again?  ;)
    
    Who among us knows what God *really* thinks about any of this.  We can
    speculate about what God wants and what God likes and what God thinks,
    given our exposure to creation and to people, places, and things that
    might guide us in understanding the infinite nature of God -- one of
    these things being holy writings.  I've got MY perspective of what
    is compatible with the Spirit of God.  I think I've got a pretty good
    idea of what God wants, yet my notion of God's perspective is just
    that ... MY NOTION.  (And in the case of adultery, my notion happens to 
    differ with yours.)  The question that I keep hearing, but don't buy
    into, is "Well, is it what YOU want?  Or is it what God wants?" 
    This question automatically sets up a false premise at the outset...
    that you have chosen a path compatible with what God wants -- not what
    *you* want --  and that others have not.  That others can choose between:
    
       1.  What they, personally, want.
    
       2.  What God wants.
    
    In my eyes, it doesn't work that way.  YOU have chosen what YOU,
    personally, want in that you are choosing YOUR notion of what YOU
    believe God wants.  I have done the same.  There's just no way to get
    around this.  So when you talk about the "word" of God, please understand 
    that others see it as your word, Collis's word, not God's word.  
    The same goes for me.
    
    Paul
    

Paul,

There is certainly truth in what you say.  However, I think there is also
truth in what I say.

For example, I usually judge things (actions, events, subjects) by my
current framework.  This framework does include so ideas about what God
has revealed in the past, however it is *filled* with ideas that *I know*
do *not* correspond with what God has revealed.

It is when I step back and test my judging by God's revelation that
I get a much clearer picture of how my judgment's are off.

For example, a number of years ago I was thinking of going to a Chicago
concert on the Boston Common.  It sounded like a good idea to me (since I
like much of their music.)  Another Christian thought it was terrible
idea (I guess since she saw them as promoting godless ways to some extent).
The question she asked me was, "Is it the best?"

I've never really been able to answer that question.  (I ended up not
going primarily because other things didn't work out.)  Is it the best
for what God wants for me???  Tough question.  But maybe this will help
you see that there is a DIFFERENCE between judging something and judging
something from the perspective of God.

Again, you are certainly right that we each have our own idea's about what
it is God is saying and that those ideas are not right some of the time.
However, that was not the primary focus in my mind when I asked the question.

Collis

Re:  .24

Paul,

Another point.

I did have a specific thought in mind when I asked the question.  What
I was thinking was that people look at the external, God looks at the
internal.  I think it was Jesus who said this (during the Sermon on the
Mount?)

It seemed to me that what we being presented was the external, not the
internal, and that what I was trying to deal with was the internal.  In
this sense, I think the question, "Are you looking at it from God's
perspective or your own perspective" is a very valid question.

Collis

| "Legally Married", constituted by the pronouncement of a minister or
| judge and the marriage licence, is a "man-made" institution.  Marriage,
| according to God (in his sight) is "being in love", whether or not one
| has been "legally married".  We know this is true, because even the
| state recognizes that after so long of living together the two are
| automatically "legally married".


	Hmmmmm....... what if 2 people were in love, they didn't get married,
but were truely in love. What if they were the same sex? Does it mean that it's
ok? (in my opinion it should, but then who am I?)

Re:  .27

Do you desire to continue discussing the standard of "love"?  Or do you
wish to put that discussion behind you?

Collis

    I, too, favor societal acceptance of public declarations of
    fidelity and commitment to a dyadic primary relationship.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    re: 27
    
    I would question the ability/capacity, or truth, in the idea of "two of
    the same sex" falling in LOVE.  We have to think about "objectives" and
    the functionality of love, that characterizes the "uniting of two into
    one".  It seems that when two of the same sex are so-called in love,
    one of them, invariably, takes on the role of the opposite sex.  That
    in itself is "self-delusionment" on the part of that person.  
    
    Do you know of "same sex" couples who both function as their sex
    intended them to function?  
    
    I don't find any scripture to support the mating of two "same sex"
    persons.

    re: .30
    
    There are some underlying assumptions here, which need to be examined.
    Firstly, sex roles are arbitrarily assigned and scripted, and are not
    consistent across all cultures.
    
    Secondly, "uniting two as one" is a spiritual merging, not physical.
    Even in heterosexual intercourse, two are still two.
    
    Richard

    re 31
    
>    There are some underlying assumptions here, which need to be examined.
>    Firstly, sex roles are arbitrarily assigned and scripted, and are not
>    consistent across all cultures.
 
    I believe that those underlying assumptions are resolved in
    Christianity.  Sex roles may very well be considered "arbitrary" when
    viewed cross-culturally, but that Christianity is greater than
    "cultural" traditions.  History has reported how Christian and pagan
    practices have been merged.  Perhaps, the rejection of Christianity by
    certain cultures can be explained by the degree of initial difference
    between Christianity and pagan culture.  However, I don't think it will
    be acceptable to God to compromise Christian principles to the extent
    that Christianity is contradicted.
       
>    Secondly, "uniting two as one" is a spiritual merging, not physical.
>    Even in heterosexual intercourse, two are still two.
    
    God ordained the "man and woman" spiritual merger, but I don't find
    scripture to support the same "intent" between two men or two women.
    
    I also, would ask the question, "Is homosexual/lesbianistic sex
    considered "adultery and fornication" as we discuss it here?"  Or does
    it fall under another sin?

    Why should homosexual/lesbian sex fall under any sort of sin?
    
    If you want to continue to discuss this, lets start a new topic.
    
    Bonnie

I find the dialog here and elsewhere in this conference today condemning
homosexuals offensive.  We work in a company that values differences in case
those who are judging others as 'sinners' have forgotten.

How disheartening to find this in a 'Christian' conference...

Ro

>I find the dialog here and elsewhere in this conference today condemning
>homosexuals offensive.

	Do you find dialog condeming people of different sexes who have sex
	outside of marriage equally offensive? If so why have you not protested?
	If not, why not?

>  We work in a company that values differences in case
>those who are judging others as 'sinners' have forgotten.

	I find this somewhat self contradictory. You seem to be judging people
	for judging.

>How disheartening to find this in a 'Christian' conference...

	What is it you find disheartening? That people have opinions or that
	they dare speak them?

			Alfred

I'll try to answer your questions Alfred.

>I find the dialog here and elsewhere in this conference today condemning
>homosexuals offensive.

	Do you find dialog condeming people of different sexes who have sex
	outside of marriage equally offensive? If so why have you not protested?
	If not, why not?

I find all cases where people judge others distasteful, however I 
don't protest every incident because I don't have the time or 
inclination to do so.  Mostly, I would turn the other cheeck. 
However, I felt strongly enough about what was being said here to
warrant my speaking up.

>  We work in a company that values differences in case
>those who are judging others as 'sinners' have forgotten.

	I find this somewhat self contradictory. You seem to be judging people
	for judging.

Nowhere in that sentence am I placing judgement upon anyone.  I was 
trying to point out that the company has rules that didn't seem to be being 
observed.

>How disheartening to find this in a 'Christian' conference...

	What is it you find disheartening? That people have opinions or that
	they dare speak them?

To me having an opinion and casting judgements are entirely different.
Jesus said: 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself', what was being 
said here didn't seem to encompass a deep compassion or wider 
understanding of what I interpret those words to mean.

Ro

>I find all cases where people judge others distasteful, however I 
>don't protest every incident because I don't have the time or 
>inclination to do so.  Mostly, I would turn the other cheeck. 
>However, I felt strongly enough about what was being said here to
>warrant my speaking up.

    I guess my problem here is two fold. One is that I did not find
    any notes particularly harsh or judgmental. At least not in terms
    of judging a particular person. The Bible condemns murder rather 
    clearly as a sin. Would you say that calling people who murder
    sinners an unfair and unreasonable judgment and against P&P?
    While the Bible is less clear regarding homosexuality how is calling
    homosexual relations sinful different? This is an honest question.

    BTW, I regard the sin and the person differently. As those who know
    me know I am friendly with many people who "sin". Partially because
    I regard no sin as worse then any I myself may commit.

>>  We work in a company that values differences in case
>>those who are judging others as 'sinners' have forgotten.
>
>	I find this somewhat self contradictory. You seem to be judging people
>	for judging.
>
>Nowhere in that sentence am I placing judgment upon anyone.  

    	Perception on my part perhaps. Your sentence seemed to imply that
    people were doing something wrong. That would be judgment to me.

>To me having an opinion and casting judgements are entirely different.
>Jesus said: 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself', what was being 
>said here didn't seem to encompass a deep compassion or wider 
>understanding of what I interpret those words to mean.

    What comments didn't seem to encompass compassion or understanding?
    Does understanding and/or compassion imply approval to you? To me
    lack of approval does not imply that I have no understanding or
    compassion for a person. Just that I don't approve of what they
    are doing.
    
    			Alfred

    Alfred,
    	there are a number of differences between what an unmarried
    straight couple do sexually and what an unmarried gay couple does. For
    one thing, the gay couple seldom has the chance to "marry" either in
    the eyes of the state or the eyes of any church. It just isn't allowed.
    Many do take vows in the presence of their community, but very few
    churchs would allow even this to take place in their halls. For this
    reason, and maybe a few others, I think perhaps we ought not include
    homosexual sex in this (74) string. I would rather not discuss it at
    all, unless there is an avowed homosexual involved to present that
    viewpoint with some authority.

    re: .39
    
    I agree.  This file and probably most people in it do *not* exclude
    gays and lesbians from Christian fellowship/brotherhood/sisterhood!
    
    In order for this file to remain equally open to you who are our
    fundamentalist Christian brothers and sisters, you need to respect
    the fact that gays and lesbians are included and you need to refrain
    from "gay-bashing" just as we hope that others will refrain from
    "fundamentalist bashing."
    
    I second the suggestion that any discussion of homosexuality should
    occur in a separate string unto itself and be carefully monitored.
    Though some of us who are heterosexual are more than willing to 
    "defend" our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters when necessary,
    I do not think that such a debate would be productive unless persons
    from the gay community want to participate.
    
    And, frankly, I would be *very* much surprised if they would want to spend
    their time and energy tackling your views, which are quite predictable
    and not open to change.
    
    Nancy

Nancy,

  Perhaps you don't mean to use the word "fundamentalist" since many of us
who believe the Bible proclaims homosexual activity as sinful are not
"fundamentalists".  (For example, Jamey and I have both explicitly said
that we were not "fundamentalists".)  Perhaps the word "conservative"
would be a better choice.

    re: .41, 
    
    Thanks for the correction.  In reading my previous note, please
    substitute "conservative" wherever the term "fundamentalist" appears.
    
    Nancy

>    In order for this file to remain equally open to you who are our
>    fundamentalist Christian brothers and sisters, you need to respect
>    the fact that gays and lesbians are included and you need to refrain
>    from "gay-bashing" just as we hope that others will refrain from
>    "fundamentalist bashing."
  
	Part of the point I've tried to make is that there hasn't been any
	more gay bashing here then fundamentalist bashing.

>    I second the suggestion that any discussion of homosexuality should
>    occur in a separate string unto itself and be carefully monitored.
 
	I can agree though the case presented in .39 that there is a real
	difference is not convincing to me.

>     I do not think that such a debate would be productive unless persons
>    from the gay community want to participate.
 
	Well I disagree 100%. Not only that but I know that there are people
	who are gay who do participate here and I believe that forcing them
	to be open about that in order to contribute in such a topic is
	neither needed nor desirable. People have a right to privacy.

>    And, frankly, I would be *very* much surprised if they would want to spend
>    their time and energy tackling your views, which are quite predictable
>    and not open to change.

	I am hard pressed to see this as other then a deliberate and malicious
	attempt to insult me and my intellectual integrity. So much for others
	refraining from conservative bashing.

			Alfred

    re: .43, Alfred,
    
>	Part of the point I've tried to make is that there hasn't been any
>	more gay bashing here then fundamentalist bashing.
    
    If there has been fundamentalist-bashing (and I've seen some, too),
    that is *also* bad.  *Neither* -bashing justifies the other.
    
>>     I do not think that such a debate would be productive unless persons
>>    from the gay community want to participate.
 
    >	Well I disagree 100%. Not only that but I know that there are people
>	who are gay who do participate here and I believe that forcing them
>	to be open about that in order to contribute in such a topic is
>	neither needed nor desirable. People have a right to privacy.

    I said that IMO it *would not be productive*.  I *in no way* suggested
    that any gay or lesbian person should be "forced to be open" about
    their sexual preference!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    I was pointing out how ludicrous it is for hexterosexuals to
    *argue among ourselves* about the relationship that exists between 
    God and a gay or lesbian person!
    
>>    And, frankly, I would be *very* much surprised if they would want to spend
>>    their time and energy tackling your views, which are quite predictable
>>    and not open to change.
>
>	I am hard pressed to see this as other then a deliberate and malicious
>	attempt to insult me and my intellectual integrity. So much for others
>	refraining from conservative bashing.
    
    Alfred, if you are honestly saying that you *are* open to changing your
    views on this issue, than I will gladly and publicly apologize for this
    statement!!  Frankly, I am not sure what *individual* I was addressing,
    and it is possible that I mis-spoke (mis-wrote?).  However *most*
    noters I have encountered who "love the homosexual sinner but hate the
    sin of homosexuality" (*not* your words here) admit to viewing it as an
    open-and-shut case and admit to being *unreceptive* to the
    counter-arguments.  
    
    I will honestly state that *I* am equally closed, in my view, to any
    belief that anyone *knows* that God considers homosexuality a sin in all 
    circumstances!
    
    Now, Alfred, please state whether or not you are, in fact, open on this
    issue so I will know whether or not to apologize.  If you cannot
    honestly say that you *are* open to the possibility that homosexuality
    is not a sin, then how has my statement bashed you in any way?  
    
    Nancy

    Alfred,
    	what is it that you don't see about the one fundamental difference
    I pointed out ?  Male/Female couples who want to engage in sexual
    activity can achieve social and religious sanction by the simple act of
    getting married. A J.P. can do it, you don't even need clergy present.
    A gay couple does not usually have that option for sanction. Thus the
    hetero couple need not deprive themselves of their sexuality, only
    confine it to a single sanctioned partner, in order to avoid sin. The
    gay couple must foreswear any sexual activity in order to avoid sin. I
    wasn't aware that God was into double standards.
    
    Nancy,
    	let's not bash Alfred, please. I realize that he makes such a
    convenient target of himself, such a tempting target, but giving into
    convenient temptation is so unseemly. ;-)

    re: 45., 
    
    But Dave! I still maintain my innocence of the charges!  If proven
    guilty, I want to know so that I can repent (and I *do* mean this)!

    Nancy
    
    I've always found Alfred to be an honest man and willing to
    listen. I don't think he is close minded. *But* he is very
    very hard to convince.
    
    I also call him a dear friend, which may bias me in his favor
    tho.
    
    Bonnie

    Nancy,
    
    I am open to hearing and giving a fair chance to opinions other
    then my own on all subjects. If I wasn't I would not participate
    here. I can be, as my good friend Bonnie points out, hard to
    convince. My own views of homosexuals have changed a great deal in
    recent years already. Are you open to the idea that you may be wrong?
    
    		Alfred

    Dave,
    
    I guess I was looking at things in a narrower light. Sex outside of marriage
    is wrong. M/F, M/M, F/F all the same. Yes there is marriage for
    heterosexual couples. And I guess that does account for some difference
    but the reason for there not being allowance for homosexual marriage
    is also a Biblical injunction. Perhaps this is better taken up in the
    gay topic as I see your point better. (See evidence of a change of
    mind.) Questions: Do any other christian variants that permit
    homosexuality have opinions of homesexual sex outside of such
    marriages? how do they feel about heterosexual sex outside of
    marriage?
    
    			Alfred

    	Oh, OK, go ahead and bash him. ;-)  Or not. At least he is able to
    say that he is open to other opinions. I'm also hard to convince and
    readily admit it. Being right all the time helps. 8-0 
    	Say, don't you folks have anything better to do with your evenings?
    I'm stuck here all evening, you guys are mostly logged in from HOME.
    Are you all dedicated or just masochists ?  Or is the cable down in
    your town ?  

    Dave Meyer,
    
    but logging on from home means we aren't noting during work time.
    and notes to me, is more fun than tv and is an even tie with
    a good book. :-)
    
    Alfred,
    
    Hey, Nancy Smith is my friend too, even if I've never thrown
    a shoe at her (old story, folks, that is how I got to be friends
    with Alfred, I threw my shoe at someone else as a joke and hit
    him by accident...he was never sure if I meant it or not, and
    decided to trust me, crazy man!)
    
    Alfred, if you could postulate for a moment, that homosexuals
    (and I appologise for using this term if it offends people, but
    I've had Lesbians complain to me that using just gay excludes
    them and they perfer homosexual or gay/lesbian/bi as a congregate
    noun) are what they are by some inate,
    biological,hormonal,psychological difference, that - according to
    those who have done the most research on the subject - is never
    really changeable (i.e. the ones who have changed were bi sexual
    or changed in form only), why can't they marry?
    
    Even the Roman Catholic church accepts that sterile marriages
    or marriages past child bearing age are valid marriages. Is
    your problem with homosexual people �how they make love or
    their alleged or real promiscuity?
    
    The need to pair bond and find an 'other' who truely cares and
    loves and supports you is a natural human need. Some of us are
    so gifted that they can fill this need by God's and Jesus's love.
    But many of us need the love of a partner. Why must this be
    denied to those 10% who for no conscious choice of their own,
    do not or are not capable of, bond with those of the opposite set.
    
    love and peace
    
    Bonnie

    Dave,

    Well actually I'm working from home writing a document to demonstrate
    why a group that's 33% under staffed can't get everything done that
    we could have 6 months ago. Write from home (local on a Rainbow),
    downline load, and then Note for a while. Dedicated and crazy. :-)

    Bonnie,

    Conceding that something is natural is not the same as conceding that
    it's good. Even if I concede that homosexuality is a natural thing,
    and I'm closer to conceding that then I was a few years ago, that is not
    related to conceding that that situation should not be or could not be
    corrected. Lot's of medical conditions that were not correctable 50
    years ago are today.

>	why can't they marry?

    The Bible say so? Actually I can see justification for civil marriages
    easier then religious (or at least Christian) marriages. I find
    Biblical support and indeed encouragement for heterosexual marriages
    but none for homosexual ones.

>    Even the Roman Catholic church accepts that sterile marriages
>    or marriages past child bearing age are valid marriages. Is
>    your problem with homosexual people �how they make love or
>    their alleged or real promiscuity?

    That they have sex with people of the same sex. Promiscuity, when
    it exists, in homosexuals is not different than for heterosexuals.
    I am quite aware that there are devoted, monogamous homosexual
    couples and I would not call them promiscuous. I would call them
    homosexuals though.

>    The need to pair bond and find an 'other' who truely cares and
>    loves and supports you is a natural human need. 

    Agreed. This does not however imply or require sexual relations.

>    But many of us need the love of a partner. Why must this be
>    denied to those 10% who for no conscious choice of their own,
>    do not or are not capable of, bond with those of the opposite set.

    This should not be denied. However, this does not require sexual
    relations. 
    	
    		Alfred

    alfred
    
    are you strong enough to live with one whom you love with
    all your heart, and you being, and not express that love
    physicaly..
    
    if you are, then I find you an unusual person, and I admire you,
    but I dont think it it fair to tell  the average gay or lesbian
    'you may love another with your mind and heart, but if you
    do anything to express that love on a physical level you sin'..
    
    I couldn't pass that test..
    
    and I am amazed that there are gays and lesbians who still
    choose the Lord inspite of how they are received by people.
    
    hugs
    
    Bonnie

>    are you strong enough to live with one whom you love with
>    all your heart, and you being, and not express that love
>    physicaly..
    
    I believe it would be unreasonable to hold others the a standard
    higher then I hold myself. Am I that strong? I would hope so. If
    I failed at that I would concider myself less then I should be.
    
>    if you are, then I find you an unusual person, and I admire you,
    
    Ah, but we knew that already. :-)
    
>    but I dont think it it fair to tell  the average gay or lesbian
>    'you may love another with your mind and heart, but if you
>    do anything to express that love on a physical level you sin'..
    
    I don't think it fair to tell them otherwise. I could not without
    lying.
    
>    I couldn't pass that test..
    
    Sure you could. Phil 4:13 "I can do all things through Christ, who
    strengtheneth me." I believe that God does not give us trials that
    with His help we can not pass. To do otherwise would be unfair of
    God. I do not believe He is unfair.
    
>    and I am amazed that there are gays and lesbians who still
>    choose the Lord inspite of how they are received by people.
    
    And I am amazed that there are christians who continue to preach
    the gospel inspite of how they are recieved by people. :-) I
    will freely admit that there are people who hate and fear homosexuals
    and heterosexual people of "loose morals" (as they were once called.
    On the other hand, there are many people who continue to reach
    out with the good news to everyone with love and concern in their
    hearts. You can't ask them to lie to people to bring them to know Christ.
    
    		Alfred

Regarding earlier notes:

A) Offense.
     No one is required to justify to the noters at large why s/he is offended
	by a note.  Even if the person has a hard time explaining it, it does
 	note make the offense any less valid.  The proper procedure to follow
	when one has been offended has been explained in one of the first 
	note strings, written by the moderators.  I believe the first step
	is to contact the author of the specific note and explain your feelings
	and ask that the note be rewritten or deleted.

B) Sex roles.
     Roles of male/female in a same-sex couple were routine in the 1950's
	and earlier.  However, they are rare today.  Now men and women act
	as they feel comfortable as an individual, just as men and women
	do in heterosexual relationships.

C) Homosexual marriages.
     The Christian Church used to perform marriages for members of the same
	sex.  Most Christian churches no longer do so.  There is nothing in
	the Bible that forbids this.  There is also nothing in the Bible
	that discusses it, whether in a positive or negative light.

      Carol

>C) Homosexual marriages.
>     The Christian Church used to perform marriages for members of the same
>	sex.  Most Christian churches no longer do so.  There is nothing in
>	the Bible that forbids this.  
    
    	Carol, can you provide references for this? Thanks.
    
    			Alfred

<>C) Homosexual marriages.
<
<   	Carol, can you provide references for this? Thanks.
    
I figured someone would want this.  John Boswell, a Yale professor and 
Biblical scholar mentioned this in a lecture at Colorado College a 
couple of years ago.  He said that he is writing a book on it.

I have asked to borrow back a book I have of his to see if there is
reference there.  I don't know whether the book *on* gay marriages has
been published or not yet.

         Carol

    Carol
    
    I'll check
    
    Bonnie��

I looked this up in the one book I have.  He references the legality of
gay marriages but I didn't find anywhere that specifically talked about
the marriages within the Christian Church.  Since I *did* hear him talk
about it briefly (after the first book was out), it is possible that he either
didn't have enough information at the time of writing the book to include it,
or he had so much information that he decided at that time to devote a second
book to the topic. 

Whatever the case, I did find something else interesting that I thought
would go well here under this topic, regarding heterosexual marriages of
the time:

"...the nature of heterosexual marriage varies widely by the time and place, 
and gay unions must be studied in relation to the customs of their day, not 
in terms of modern expectations.
  To insist, for instance, that in order to constitute "marriages"
homosexual unions of the past must emulate modern heterosexual marriage
is to defy history.  No marriages in ancient societies closely match their
modern equivalents.  Most were vastly more informal; some were more rigid.
Most cultures regard marriage as a private arrangement negotiated between
two families; supervision of its niceties dpeneds on the heads of the
families.  No precise criteria could be specified as constituing a 'legal'
marriage during most of the period of this study: two people who lived together
permanently and whose union was recognized by the community were 'married.'
Even early Christian theology recognized the difficulties of deciding who
was and was not married; Augustine was willing to designate as a 'wife' any
woman who intended to be permanently faithful to the man she lived with
(De bono conjugali 5.5 [PL, 40:376-77])."

"Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality" by John Boswell.
posted without permission

Winner of the 1981 American Book Awards for History

       Carol

:-)  How fun.  I just noticed that it is autographed to us.  I had totally
forgotten that.