In Reply to: Re: Simplicity has it's limitations too posted by Farmer on April 28, 2010 at 11:54:16:
Farmer, your response goes all over the place, making it hard to respond. We've had this discussion before, and I didn't post on this topic to try to change anyone's mind. My intent was to point out that people of faith differ in their interpretation of the scriptures when it comes to the issue of including homosexuals in the church.
There's nothing simple about Mel White's explication of the very few scriptures that reference same-sex genital contact. I do, however, find your responses a bit simplistic and dismissive, e.g., your response to White's comments about Gen. 38:9-10. Christians have used this text for centuries to condemn masturbation and coitus interruptus. The interpretation that the text applies to Onan's disobedience in begetting children with his brother's widow is not as immediately apparent as you claim. The "divine" injunction that Onan obey God and beget children on his brother's behalf does not apply to Christians. So what, exactly, is the "sin of Onan"--? Disobedience? To what? A primitive custom?
Secondly, when I say I've arrived at my conclusion after prayer and study, please be aware that I alone must answer to God for the formation of my conscience on matters of morals and faith. I am not arguing that every other Christian must form their conscience on this matter in the same way I have. Conversely, you appear to be arguing that everyone must form their conscience on the issue of homosexuals in the church exactly as you have because you are objectively correct--as "proven" by all your arguments, scripture citations, and legalistic minutiae. Formation of conscience is a subjective matter, just as judgment for sin is a subjective experience. If I am wrong for inclusion of homosexual Christians into fellowship, I will answer to God, just as you will if you are wrong in your decision of exclusion.
Some of your arguments are illogical. Following your line of reasoning about the distastefulness and dangers of anal sex, it's not OK for a heterosexual couple to engage in anal intercourse. Why would that be sinful if they're married and each partner consents and agrees it is pleasurable? The Bible says nothing about this form of genital contact between man and wife. The Bible does, however, condemn intercourse while the woman is menstruating. Are you using that as an argument against all forms of "unsanitary" and potentially harmful sex between married couples?
I came to the conclusion to accept homosexual Christians in the church after many, many years of struggle with this issue, including a decision to leave the church for nearly 15 years. My alienation from the church was due in large part to the aggressive vocal condemnation many believers profess about the inclusion of homosexual Christians in the Body. After such a long, painful journey away from and back to the fellowship of believers, nothing someone says to me on a bulletin board is going to have that big of an impact on my conscience formation.