

Though this will be addressed in the series of articles I'm posting now under
"ARESNOKOITIA", I can't wait.  This just really blew my socks off.  Read I Tim
1: 3-11.  Verses 3-8 speaks against those who have perverted the teachings of
the Mosaic Law.  In vv.9-10, we have, *IN ORDER*, the 5th thru the 9th
commandments and in the midst of this listing is "homosexuals."  The decalogue,
above everything else, is seen as God's absolute.  If you don't believe in
absolutes, then you have nothing do do with Jehovah of the OT, which Paul
reveals to be the Messiah of the NT. "Lord Christ Jesus" transliterates to read
"Jehovah's Anointed Savior."  
  In I Cor5, we see the same emphasis of moral separation from the pagan
gentiles as we do in Lev 18-20.  In I Cor 6:9-10, only one notation (drunkards)
is not found in Lev 18-20.  Paul was not naive in his use of the LXX.  He knew
full well how he was using the Law of God that was given in the OT, for
application in the NT.  As I've said, the Law was fulfilled, not done away
with.


This understanding is thoroughly rebutted in DeYoungs article that is being
posted.  Please refer to it.


We can do better than "probably" which is not an adequate defense against the
statement that Paul's culture didn't have the same understanding of
homosexuality as ours.  
Again read the article because it uses facts.


I think I do, because I have worked in the homosexual community by means of
working with AIDs patients.  The pastoral is merely the practical application
of the theological truth however.  Those who are working thru the issue of
homosexuality need to have our love and understanding just as with a friend who
is contiplating cheating on his wife or a friend who lives with his girlfriend,
yet you continue to witness to him.  But, once the choice is made, and there is
no remorse, then I feel that Paul's "pastoral" care, as presented in the
Corinthian Church, come to bear significance.  THe one in active rebellion
should be placed outside of the church if a believer, and if a non-believer,
then one wipes his sandels and leaves it in Gods hand.  If there was a member
in your youth group who was constantly pawing at the little girls, you wouldn't
hesitate to deal with the matter quickly and decisivly.  That, in part, betrays
the present "political correctness" of the issue.  Pederasty is not accepted at
the present, but some how we are to accept homosexuality because the latter is
politically correct, while the former is not -at least not yet.  THis is how
the morals decay.  

I guess this would follow the liberal application in the political realm of
economics.  The liberals want to tax the rich in the federal, yet in their own
states, when they try to get businesses to settle there, they give tax
incentives to these same richies.  It comes down to a moral code of
relativeness, or to use the cultural thing, politically correct -at the moment.
--Rex