SignWriting List Forum| Message 3789 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] | Message Index |
|
SignWriting List Forum |
|||
|
|
From:
Stuart Thiessen Date: Sun Jul 9, 2000 3:25 pm Subject: Offtopic response to Re: Two male lions | ||||||||
|
Allow me to make these quick comments which I could not pass by ... Wayne, I realize there are many who emotionally oppose the homosexual movement so much that they forgot the people who were involved. I experienced my rejection as a deaf child in a hearing school. I know how it can feel (I'm sure yours was different). My comments here are not to minimize or ignore your pain. However, I am attempting to answer the question that has been posed. And for those who follow the Bible, we cannot ignore the clear statements that oppose homosexuality. We must uphold them, but at the same time respect you and care about you as an individual. That balance is hard, but required for anyone who will follow the Bible. (This is true of responding to all sins not just homosexuality.) At 10:52 07/09/2000 -0400, you wrote: > Of course the most likely explanation is that the painter forgot >(or didn't know) that lionesses don't have manes. But there's nothing >wrong with making up stories, and if you're going to make up stories, it's >good to have ones that don't make gay kids self-conscious. What happens >if Noah needed two lions, but could only find gay lions? Maybe he brought >a lioness (not pictured), and later convinced one or both of the male >lions to father cubs with her, in order to perpetuate their species. There is always two sides to an issue. Let me remind you of the other side as well. People who follow the Bible believe it is history. In truth, I have yet to find it to be mere story. So, for us, changing the story to adapt it to one's point of view is playing with history and inappropriate from our point of view. That should be respected. For that matter, how should the account of Noah's ark make a gay child self-conscious? It is a proven fact of biology that you need a male lion and a female lion to make cubs. That in and of itself says nothing about the homosexual preference. As a amateur historian, I must confess I bristle when anyone from any point of view tries to play with history to make it fit their own cultural, moral, or political bias. Let history be history and fiction be fiction, but don't make some nonsense about "interpreting" or "adapting" history to make a point it never intended to make. > I did want to mention that after our discussions about Deaf >Missions, I went to their site and was hurt by the prominent link to >their page about the "sins" of homosexuality and lesbianism. They happen >to have omitted the "sin" of crossdressing, but it still made me feel that >Deaf Missons is an organization I want nothing to do with. Perhaps they do not support the "open-mindedness" (read closed-mindedness) of our culture. It seems to me our culture says that unless you allow everybody to believe whatever they want and never tell them they are wrong, then you are closedminded. Actually, that is an equally closedminded approach. However, I would say that you should at least respect Deaf Missions' beliefs if you would have anyone else's beliefs respected. Agreement is not what is important, but respect. I can respect the fact that homosexuals have their preferences, but I will never agree that it is right or good. I cannot because of my belief in what God has said in His word. Does that make me a homosexual hater? Absolutely not! In the same Bible, we read that God loved the world enough to send His Son, Jesus. If God loves all humanity (in spite of their sin and rebellion), I must also respond in love. At the same time, it is clear that God is opposed to sin and there are specific references to homosexuality and crossdressing and the like. There are people who err too much on the side of love that they ignore the sin and there are people who err too much on the side of judgement that they forget about the great love of God. So, balance is required. Having said all that, let me say one more thing ... While Deaf Missions may not be a perfect organization (which organization is????), I believe they are serious about wanting to benefit the deaf community and for that I believe they should be applauded and not branded over this issue however important it may be to you or others. If you don't want their resources, fine. But don't label them over this, any more than you would want them to label you over it. Thanks, Stuart | ||||||||
|
|