Sodomites in the Land
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
Good read, well handled :-)
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
On 16 Oct 2002 20:27:48 GMT, bue...@space.mitnos.pamedu (Royce
Buehler) wrote:
>
>In article <9cfae194.02101...@posting.google.com>,
> in...@jesuscult.org (JesusCult.org) writes:
>> Your perversion of the Scripture barely merits a response.
>
>I deal with Scripture soberly and respectfully, to the best of my
>ability. If there was a note of flippancy in my previous post, it
>was aimed at bigoted misuse of Scripture, not at Scripture itself.
>
>Given what seem to be your strong feelings on the subject, your
>reply was surprisingly polite. It also showed some real thought.
>So I'll adjust my own tone this time around.
>
>> There are two things that are useful in the creation story for this
>> discussion.
>
>There are two things that are "useful" in establishing your own
>pre-existing point of view. But that's the wrong way to read
>scripture. It should be read to learn what it says, not for what
>is "useful" or not useful in bolstering our own personal opinions.
>
>> One is the different roles of the sexes and two is the
>> purpose that they were created.
>>
>> Man's Role
>> Man was created to have dominion over the earth and to keep/oversee
>> the earth on God's behalf.
>
>Just a side note - this was *also* woman's role. As you observe below,
>subduing the earth and having dominion over it was also specified in
>Genesis 1:27-28, spoken to "male and female" when He "created them."
>
>> Woman's Role
>> Woman was created as the helpmeet for man. (Genesis 2:18-22) She was
>> to support Adam and to help him in accomplishing the tasks that God
>> had ordained.
>
>Eve was created as the helpmeet for Adam. The text reads "It is not
>good for the man to be alone," not "It is not good for man to be alone."
>It appears to me that you are picking and choosing, which elements of
>the story you wish to universalize, and which elements of the story you
>don't. The story itself doesn't spell out which is which.
>
>> The Purpose
>> The purpose that man and woman were created together was to replenish
>> the earth through procreation. "So God created man in his own image,
>> in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
>> And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
>> multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion
>> over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every
>> living thing that moveth upon the earth." Genesis 1:27-28
>
>Procreation was certainly one purpose. It most emphatically was not
>*the* purpose. God gave the same command of "be fruitful and multiply"
>to all the animals. What is unique about human beings, and about human
>sexuality, in this story is that it involves love, help, companionship,
>as its primary purpose. It is the emphasis on love, on the sense of
>and the reality of unity with the beloved, which distinguishes human
>beings from animals in the Genesis story. And same-sex couples fulfill
>this human distinctive just as opposite-sex couples do.
>
>The animals fulfill their command to "be fruitful and multiply", even
>though homosexuality is widespread in just about every animal species
>that has been closely studied. It is the same for human beings: we
>were commanded as a species to be fruitful and multiply, and now there
>are six billion of us. The presence of tens or hundreds of millions
>of homosexuals hasn't slowed us down so's you'd notice.
>
>[On Malachi 2:14-15]>
>> And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the
>> spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a GODLY SEED.
>> Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously
>> against the wife of his youth." (Malachi 2:14-15) Here, God answers
>> the question clearly. He has ordained a man and female relationship
>> so that they may produce Godly seed otherwise known as children.
>
>The subject in Malachi 2 is divorce, and how much God hates it.
>The whole passage is rather obscure, and the translations I looked
>at varied hugely. As near as I can make out, the "why one?" is
>asking about "Why only one wife?", and answering that the faithfulness
>of the parents to each other is what guarantees that the children
>will be godly.
>
>If what it's saying is that God disapproves of any marriage which
>doesn't produce offspring, then you must be equally horrified when
>infertile heterosexuals, or women past menopause, marry, as you
>are when same-sex couples do. You aren't; and I would submit it's
>because you don't *really* believe that God intends sex to be
>always and primarily about making babies. And I would submit that
>Malachi doesn't claim He does so intend.
>
>> Another interesting point (since you bring it up) is that In Genesis
>> 2:24-25, God sets forth the parameters for marraige.
>
>That's your viewpoint. To me, it looks like Adam, rather than God,
>is speaking - prophesying what things will be like for men and women
>who marry. It says nothing one way or the other about what things
>will be like for men who marry men, or for women who marry women.
>But in point of fact, it turns out to be much the same for them:
>they feel like they've found their missing half - "bone of my bone,
>and flesh of my flesh", and they set aside birth family as something
>of lesser importance, and they cleave to one another. In all seriousness,
>all of that looks to be well within the Genesis plan.
>
>> That said, these are the areas where your argument falls apart:
>>
>> 1. I have NEVER claimed that homosexuals should be celibate. To try
>> to abstain from sex when one has natural and healthy sexual urges is
>> not only living under bondage, but is not reflective of the abundant
>> life Christ promises us.
>
>Excellent. Then we are agreed on that much.
>
>> My direction is to come to Christ and let
>> Him cleanse you from ALL unrighteousness (homosexual or otherwise).
>> This is the SAME process all Christians must go through whether
>> homosexual or not.
>
>And we're agreed on this, too. The problem with your position is,
>that Christ has not gotten into the business of cleansing homosexuals
>from their homosexuality. Homosexuals who come to Christ discover that
>they are still homosexuals after conversion, just as they were before.
>There's a massive propaganda campaign out there to convince people
>otherwise, but each of its poster children winds up acknowledging
>sooner or later that their sexual desires remain directed toward
>their own gender.
>
>Since it is a fact (one on which, again, both of us agree) that
>Christ *does* cleanse from sin - it follows logically from the fact
>that Christ does *not* replace anyone's homosexuality with
>heterosexuality, that homosexuality is not sin.
>
>> 2. The reason Eve was fit for Adam is because God created her to be.
>
>Quite right.
>
>> The woman's body is complimentary to the man's.
>
>That is not cited in scripture as the reason why she was fit for Adam,
>though. It's your own editorial addition. She was fit for Adam
>because she was so similar to him: unlike the animals who were not
>fit companions, she was "bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh."
>Complementarity is not brought up by Genesis at all. Similarity
>is.
>
>> She was created as the
>> ultimate companion allowing for complete intimacy during the act of
>> sex (heads meeting together, hands meeting together, and other body
>> parts complimenting each other accoridngly).
>
>So you are claiming here, that if a man and wife have sex in anything
>but the missionary position, they are committing sin? Where, exactly,
>do you find such a statement in Scripture?
>
>> Man and woman blend
>> together NATURALLY without the need for contortions or contrived
>> manipulations.
>
>Petitio principii. You call it "natural" because you call homosexual
>sex "unnatural." To the homosexual, it seems just the other way around.
>
>> The "flesh of my flesh" analogy you raise is probably
>> more appropriately referred to as "strange flesh" as in Jude 1:7.
>
>Actually, the term in Jude is literally "other flesh". (In context,
>it is referring to the alienness of angel flesh, since the intended
>rape victims in Genesis 18 were angels.) Your objection to the
>sexual acts you are trying to proscribe is just the opposite: that
>instead of going after "other" flesh, homosexuals are going after
>"the same" flesh. Jude won't help *that* dog to hunt.
>
>> 3. GOD said man needed a helpmeet and HE created woman for man.
>> Scripture DOES NOT say that God created Eve for Adam, indicating that
>> the selection of Eve was particular to Adam's specific desires or
>> wants. BUT God created woman for man indicating a generic statement
>> applicable not to Man and Woman in general.
>
>The language in Genesis 2 includes its fair share of definite articles,
>indicating that a story about particular people is being told. As I
>noted before, which elements of the story one chooses to regard as
>"generic" prescriptioins, and which elements one chooses to regard as
>merely something that happened to be true in Adam and Eve's case,
>is a matter of subjective interpretation. In your case, the intepretation
>you choose is governed by tradition and (whether you realize it or not)
>by social prejudice. It is not imposed or implied by the text on its
>own.
>
>> 4. Lastly, the image of marraige (husband and wife as God ordained) is
>> a reflection of Christ's relationship with His Church, the Bride.
>>
>> Ephesians 5:22-33
>
>Sure. So, what's the problem? The relationship of Christ with His
>Church is one of intimacy, delight, and faithfulness on both sides, which
>makes the marriage imagery appropriate. All these characteristics
>are part and parcel of same-sex Christian marriages as well.
>
>> Never once in this or any other Scripture addressing marraige does God
>> ever use generic terms such as partner, spouse, significant other...
>
>Greek and Hebrew cultures didn't have corresponding gender-free terms.
>(We've had to invent them, at least with those meanings, in English
>over the last few years.) The fact that the Bible never denounces
>"homosexuality" - there being no single word for that concept in
>either Greek or Hebrew - doesn't (taken by itself) mean that the Bible
>approved of them, merely that the word didn't exist. Likewise, the fact
>that the Bible never endorses "partner, spouse, significant other" doesn't
>mean the Bible disapproved of them, merely that the words didn't
>exist.
>
>
>--
>Royce Buehler bue...@space.mit.edu
> "Comme un fou se croit Dieu, nous nous croyons mortels"
> -- Pierre Delalande
>
Hugh Young
(Christian Mystic)) said:
>On 16 Oct 2002 20:27:48 GMT, bue...@space.mitnos.pamedu (Royce
>Buehler) wrote:
>>> Woman's Role
>>> Woman was created as the helpmeet for man. (Genesis 2:18-22)
There was no such word as "helpmeet" before these two words were
jammed together in this sentence. It is "...as an help[,] meet
(fitting)". (The New KJV says "helper comparable to him.")
Either reading denigrates women.
Pusher
> Either reading denigrates women.
>
>
Only if they believe it denegrates them, it's just a very old opinion. We've
not progressed as much as we think. Why do so many choose to judge others?
Is it because they are so perfect that they may, I doubt that entirely.
Those who choose to judge, have such a small knowledge of how this all works
and are doomed, why because people are individuals and we get bored of
preachers daming us to hell. Preachers should give encoragement to help his
fellow man and leave judging to either what you may call the devine, or the
law courts. Current perceived wisdom has moved on. But as always some men
and women are unable to get past greed, from which most perceived evil
breeds.
Hugh Young
said:
>>
>> Either reading denigrates women.
>>
>>
>Only if they believe it denegrates them, it's just a very old opinion.
Depends on your definition of "denigrate". Its INTENTION is to set
women as inferior to men.
(Modern biology places the female as the norm and the male as a
variant, "an helpmeet" if you will, whose primary function is to
inseminate. Asexual species predate sexual, and since the sole variety
produces the offspring, it is "female" even when there are no males.
So male humans have done quite well in some fields {arts &
architecture}, rather badly in others {peacekeeping}, all things
considered.)
> We've
>not progressed as much as we think. Why do so many choose to judge others?
Makes them feel better, I guess.
>Is it because they are so perfect that they may, I doubt that entirely.
>Those who choose to judge, have such a small knowledge of how this all works
>and are doomed, why because people are individuals and we get bored of
>preachers daming us to hell. Preachers should give encoragement to help his
>fellow man and leave judging to either what you may call the devine, or the
>law courts. Current perceived wisdom has moved on. But as always some men
>and women are unable to get past greed, from which most perceived evil
>breeds.
Agreed. ;)
Cadiz
"Hugh Young" <hu...@buGARzz.neBAGEt.nz> wrote in message
news:3ea5c310...@news.buzz.net.nz...
That all depends on the actual perspective and the Hebrew translation
doesn't it? Most women would go for a traditonal biblical role with open
arms rather than working as a whore in some brothel or another. There are
many ways to look at good and bad. The majority of women would run with the
former rather than the latter if we are talking about widely common
perspectives.
Marriage is a new journey and the dilution of former things which might
previously have take precedence and a celebration of the fact that women and
men can become one within a value system. If the world was exclusively
filled with gay males we would be an extinct species and the Judeo-Christian
and Islamic values do deliver a working model for propagation of the
species.
Hugh Young
<gregory....@ntlworld.com> said:
>
>"Hugh Young" <hu...@buGARzz.neBAGEt.nz> wrote in message
>news:3ea5c310...@news.buzz.net.nz...
>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 22:05:22 GMT, christi...@ev1.net (Glenn
>> (Christian Mystic)) said:
>>
>> >On 16 Oct 2002 20:27:48 GMT, bue...@space.mitnos.pamedu (Royce
>> >Buehler) wrote:
>>
>> >>> Woman's Role
>> >>> Woman was created as the helpmeet for man. (Genesis 2:18-22)
>>
>> There was no such word as "helpmeet" before these two words were
>> jammed together in this sentence. It is "...as an help[,] meet
>> (fitting)". (The New KJV says "helper comparable to him.")
>>
>> Either reading denigrates women.
>>
>>
>
>That all depends on the actual perspective and the Hebrew translation
>doesn't it?
No, either reading defines the woman in terms of the man, rather than
as a human being in her own right. It says women were MADE to be
"helps meet" for men (and nothing else).
> Most women would go for a traditonal biblical role with open
>arms rather than working as a whore in some brothel or another.
Have you got a thing about brothels?
> There are
>many ways to look at good and bad. The majority of women would run with the
>former rather than the latter if we are talking about widely common
>perspectives.
Yes, and they'd prefer the brothel rather than one of Saddam's
prisons. So?
>Marriage is a new journey and the dilution of former things which might
>previously have take precedence and a celebration of the fact that women and
>men can become one
I seriously doubt this, even in the best marriages. The traditional
formulation of this is "husband and wife are one person and the
husband is that person." Ever since Ibsen and Shaw, women have said
"No way."
> within a value system. If the world was exclusively
>filled with gay males we would be an extinct species
Not necessarily. Many gay males have children. But this is a silly
argument. If the world was exclusively filled with monks and nuns (and
they were better than they are) we would soon be an extinct species,
but noboby says for that reason nobody should be a monk or a nun.
> and the Judeo-Christian
>and Islamic values do deliver a working model for propagation of the
>species.
You can be sure that the human species had plenty of working models
for its propagation long before the semitic monotheisms started laying
down the law about it, and they will have plenty long after those are
dust in the sands of history.
angelicusrex
"Hugh Young" <hu...@buGARzz.neBAGEt.nz> wrote in message
> No, either reading defines the woman in terms of the man, rather than
> as a human being in her own right. It says women were MADE to be
> "helps meet" for men (and nothing else).
Who really cares? A careful reading of the Bible shows Adam was nothing but
a created slave, made specifically to attend to God's orchard, with its
forbidden trees. While his other men and women went about outside the garden
with no help or concern from God. He simply let them free to dominate the
earth and multiply like rabbits. Meanwhile Adam sits in the garden, tempted
by these awful, stupid trees and talking snakes and a wife who wants him to
catch a clue, while "the Lord" is off...doing what? Who knows...Not very
omnipotent, that's for sure! Later God drowns them all...why? Because his
slave Adam's son, Caine, corrupted them all with his "bad blood." The bad
blood God himself created! God's servants never seem to stay happy for long.
Even his "angels" rebelled.
The God of the Bible also forced women to become whores. Because they were
worthless. They were baby machines. After Adam and Eve were tossed out of
the orchard, God made sure women would suffer in childbirth and man would
sweat away his life without let-up! Nice guy. I'm about sick of the Biblical
God.
Maybe God should have taken better care of his world? Or maybe we should all
just stop concerning ourselves with the 4000 year old clap-trap of myths and
illusions?
Saint
lisieux
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 18:24:51 +0100, "Cadiz"
> <gregory....@ntlworld.com> said:
>
> >
> >"Hugh Young" <hu...@buGARzz.neBAGEt.nz> wrote in message
> >news:3ea5c310...@news.buzz.net.nz...
> >> On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 22:05:22 GMT, christi...@ev1.net (Glenn
> >> (Christian Mystic)) said:
> >>
> >> >On 16 Oct 2002 20:27:48 GMT, bue...@space.mitnos.pamedu (Royce
> >> >Buehler) wrote:
>
> >> >>> Woman's Role
> >> >>> Woman was created as the helpmeet for man. (Genesis 2:18-22)
> >>
> >> There was no such word as "helpmeet" before these two words were
> >> jammed together in this sentence. It is "...as an help[,] meet
> >> (fitting)". (The New KJV says "helper comparable to him.")
> >>
> >> Either reading denigrates women.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >That all depends on the actual perspective and the Hebrew translation
> >doesn't it?
>
> No, either reading defines the woman in terms of the man, rather than
> as a human being in her own right. It says women were MADE to be
> "helps meet" for men (and nothing else).
How would this equality concept measure up with respect to the nice
clean brothels the New Zealand Green Party wants to afford males? Are
the customers going to have dirty penis inspections or it is just the
women who have to sell their bodies who will be having medical checks?
How equal is equal when liberalism is being very liberal and
enlightened? As for your own point you might find that the term was
also applied to males in the bible from time to time. Brothels and sex
'work' define women in terms of the man and there area lot of people
who want those to be made legal.
>
> > Most women would go for a traditonal biblical role with open
> >arms rather than working as a whore in some brothel or another.
>
> Have you got a thing about brothels?
They negate the same equality you were pretending to discuss and the
bible is a document which has stood the test of time far better than
many 19th or even 20th laws.
It is more female friendly than half the New Zealand parliament who
comprise a contemporary blight on those of us who are interested in
real equality rather than slogans.
>
> > There are
> >many ways to look at good and bad. The majority of women would run with the
> >former rather than the latter if we are talking about widely common
> >perspectives.
>
> Yes, and they'd prefer the brothel rather than one of Saddam's
> prisons. So?
One is frequently little different to the other. The sex trade would
be high on the agenda for being the most prolific form of terrorism on
earth. In fact I am pretty sure it is regulary described in those
terms.
>
> >Marriage is a new journey and the dilution of former things which might
> >previously have take precedence and a celebration of the fact that women and
> >men can become one
>
> I seriously doubt this, even in the best marriages. The traditional
> formulation of this is "husband and wife are one person and the
> husband is that person." Ever since Ibsen and Shaw, women have said
> "No way."
Consent as a legal definition and true equality between one gender and
another is a fairly difficult thing to legislate for but try we must.
A marriage should be a relationship between two equals.
>
> > within a value system. If the world was exclusively
> >filled with gay males we would be an extinct species
>
> Not necessarily. Many gay males have children. But this is a silly
> argument.
No it isn't, the bioogical imperative for our species is to propagate
and to continue to exist and a gay world taken to its logical
conclusion has extinction written all over it. In other words the
'gay' is only viable as something additional to the orthodox rather
than a thing in itself.
angelicusrex
"lisieux" <lis...@gaelmail.com> wrote in message...something about women
and men and lesbians and homosexuals, brothels and equality therein...and
Extinction.
Let's face it were at nearly 7 billion and growing! We are not facing
extinction anytime soon. And since Gay men or Gay women can make and have
children, even with one another, in case of some sort of pinch...some
biological emergency, it doesn't matter if we have half a million people
screwing trees, dogs, snakes, cows, each other, rubber people or never have
sex at all! Who CARES???
Out of 7 billion there's bound to be millions of variants. People just like
to get off. Who cares who or what they get off on?
If the Internet is any sample of this process, you can see thousands of
people doing weird stuff, eating feces, drinking urine, cutting their own
testicles off to display to a camera! I've stumbled across women screwing
jaguars, chimps and zebras, men screwing...well just about anything you can
name!
I get about twenty letter a day telling me to make my penis or breasts
bigger. There is an endless roll-call of pornographic sites that could never
all be viewed by a single person in a single lifetime, showing every type
and deviation of sexuality...from bestiality to necrophilia and child
rape..It seriously makes me wonder if we shouldn't BE EXTINCT.
Homosexuality is the LEAST of anyone's troubles on this planet. We should
have a million sites on how to feed hungry people and give homeless people
shelter. But no. All people care about is sex, sex, sex. And what is worse
is a bunch of prudes with nothing better to do wind up judging other people
about their sexual habits and the whole thing winds up on spiritual
newsgroups! This is not the place for this kind of screw-ball talk. Everyone
knows that no one is going to hell...Why? because Hell is a myth. But if it
were real, you know who would go there? EVERYONE. Because we all seem to
contradict one another's goofy religious beliefs at some time or another.
There are OTHER ideologies. Maybe we could discuss them sometime...
So please, leave your sexual beefs at whatever your sites are and stay off
alt.religion.angels. I'm sure those of the Bahai faith and people on
Christian ngs don;t want to see this stuff either. We've got enough tortured
souls.
Saint
Hugh Young
>> > within a value system. If the world was exclusively
>> >filled with gay males we would be an extinct species
>>
>> Not necessarily. Many gay males have children. But this is a silly
>> argument.
>
>No it isn't, the bioogical imperative for our species is to propagate
>and to continue to exist and a gay world taken to its logical
>conclusion has extinction written all over it.
It's not a logical conclusion. Nobody says EVERYBODY has to be gay.
(You're projecting your own fantasy-law, "Everybody has be straight"
on to us.)
You can say "What would happen if everybody...?" about a vast variety
of things without "And therefore nobody should..." following.
The world would be pretty boring if everybody was a Trekkie, too.
> In other words the
>'gay' is only viable as something additional to the orthodox rather
>than a thing in itself.
In the same way that the monk and the nun, the double-income-no-kids
couple (including the PM and her husband), the single career woman,
the infertile, or those simply too unattractive or self-centred or
busy to find partners are. And in the same way that "the
non-breadmaker (non cheesemaker/non-draper) is only viable as
something additional to the breadmaker (etc.) rather than a thing in
itself."
You have defined parenthood as "the orthodox" and then condemned gay
people - along with a lot of others - for not being part of it. Even
though many are. Really deep thought, that.
angelicusrex
thanks. We've got enough outcasts here.
Saint
lisieux
> On 25 Apr 2003 09:42:59 -0700, lis...@gaelmail.com (lisieux) said:
>
> >> > within a value system. If the world was exclusively
> >> >filled with gay males we would be an extinct species
> >>
> >> Not necessarily. Many gay males have children. But this is a silly
> >> argument.
> >
> >No it isn't, the bioogical imperative for our species is to propagate
> >and to continue to exist and a gay world taken to its logical
> >conclusion has extinction written all over it.
>
> It's not a logical conclusion. Nobody says EVERYBODY has to be gay.
> (You're projecting your own fantasy-law, "Everybody has be straight"
> on to us.)
By the time sexual liberalism merged with queer theory and
postmoderism all barriers or limits to sexual behavior were
essentially gone and what we had was more openly violent and predatory
and that affected everybody.
>
> You can say "What would happen if everybody...?" about a vast variety
> of things without "And therefore nobody should..." following.
Everybody frequently pays the price for somebody.
Hugh Young
>hu...@buGARzz.neBAGEt.nz (Hugh Young) wrote in message news:<3eaa3bd3...@news.buzz.net.nz>...
>> On 25 Apr 2003 09:42:59 -0700, lis...@gaelmail.com (lisieux) said:
>>
>> >> > within a value system. If the world was exclusively
>> >> >filled with gay males we would be an extinct species
>> >>
>> >> Not necessarily. Many gay males have children. But this is a silly
>> >> argument.
>> >
>> >No it isn't, the bioogical imperative for our species is to propagate
>> >and to continue to exist and a gay world taken to its logical
>> >conclusion has extinction written all over it.
>>
>> It's not a logical conclusion. Nobody says EVERYBODY has to be gay.
>> (You're projecting your own fantasy-law, "Everybody has be straight"
>> on to us.)
>
>By the time sexual liberalism merged with queer theory and
>postmoderism
When did this happen? I didn't get my official notice.
The relevance of this as an answer to my posting has me completely
baffled. We weren't talking about sexual liberalism, queer theory OR
postmodernism, but the proposition that "everybody might be gay if
anyone is allowed to be".
> all barriers or limits to sexual behavior were
>essentially gone and what we had was more openly violent and predatory
>and that affected everybody.
And the relevance of this is even less.
>> You can say "What would happen if everybody...?" about a vast variety
>> of things without "And therefore nobody should..." following.
>
>
>Everybody frequently pays the price for somebody.
For the last several hundred years, gay people have been paying the
price for the proposition that "everybody is (= must be)
heterosexual". Now we no longer are. Good. lisieux's fear that this
will ever mean "everybody must be gay" is groundless.
lisieux
> On 26 Apr 2003 16:06:49 -0700, lis...@gaelmail.com (lisieux) said:
>
> >hu...@buGARzz.neBAGEt.nz (Hugh Young) wrote in message news:<3eaa3bd3...@news.buzz.net.nz>...
> >> On 25 Apr 2003 09:42:59 -0700, lis...@gaelmail.com (lisieux) said:
> >>
> >> >> > within a value system. If the world was exclusively
> >> >> >filled with gay males we would be an extinct species
> >> >>
> >> >> Not necessarily. Many gay males have children. But this is a silly
> >> >> argument.
> >> >
> >> >No it isn't, the bioogical imperative for our species is to propagate
> >> >and to continue to exist and a gay world taken to its logical
> >> >conclusion has extinction written all over it.
> >>
> >> It's not a logical conclusion. Nobody says EVERYBODY has to be gay.
> >> (You're projecting your own fantasy-law, "Everybody has be straight"
> >> on to us.)
> >
> >By the time sexual liberalism merged with queer theory and
> >postmoderism
>
> When did this happen? I didn't get my official notice.
>
> The relevance of this as an answer to my posting has me completely
> baffled. We weren't talking about sexual liberalism, queer theory OR
> postmodernism, but the proposition that "everybody might be gay if
> anyone is allowed to be".
>
> > all barriers or limits to sexual behavior were
> >essentially gone and what we had was more openly violent and predatory
> >and that affected everybody.
>
> And the relevance of this is even less.
It is axiomatic which also answers your earlier points.
>
> >> You can say "What would happen if everybody...?" about a vast variety
> >> of things without "And therefore nobody should..." following.
> >
> >
> >Everybody frequently pays the price for somebody.
>
> For the last several hundred years, gay people have been paying the
> price for the proposition that "everybody is (= must be)
> heterosexual". Now we no longer are. Good. lisieux's fear that this
> will ever mean "everybody must be gay" is groundless.
The future belongs to those people who believe in the beauty of their
own nightmares and who have the will to power to make those nightmares
real for the rest of us.
"The soundtrack to go along with what we were doing in dark corners
was much
more difficult and required a little talent and a few straight days to
put a
little pain and authenticity into the proceedings. What had started as
an
act became authentic. It then entered the school syllabus."
Was how a friend of mine summed up his exit from the media industry. A
post-Warholian analysis if you like.
Chuck Stamford
I'd like to interject a few comments into this thread, and because you seem to
be so adamant against the biblical perspective on women presented in the Genesis
story of creation (and because from this point on the thread becomes
increasingly polemic with a corresponding and symmetrical decrease in reasoning
FROM the text used as the basis for the discussion), I'd like to place them
here.
There has been an assumption to this point that the creation story in Genesis
has a purpose, and that this purpose is to place women in an inferior role in
the ancient society that produced the literature. However, no one has provided
anything to support that assumption (either here or further down in the thread)
but more assumptions. If that is all that is going to be brought to bear on the
subject, why discuss it at all? Everyone has a right to their own opinion, and
no thinking person worth the title is going to have that opinion influenced by
something as paltry as the unsupported assumption of another.
I would challenge the basic assumption here by presenting an alternative reading
of Genesis that has the woman as a necessary type of the nature of God. I know
this may sound a bit radical, and it is presented without what might be the
necessary preamble, but bear with me.
According to the Christian faith (which also accepts the Torah as God's
revelation of Himself, although not so complete a revelation as is Jesus, whom
the New Testament proclaims as "the express image of the invisible God") and
Genesis, God made "man" in His image (Gen. 1:27 - Hebrew "tselem"; image,
likeness of resemblance) and likeness (Gen. 5:1-2 - Hebrew "demuwth"; likeness,
similitude), i.e., a reflection of Himself. However, when you look at the
passages that state this, you find that the reference to man in God's "image"
always refers to man as "male and female", thus implying that man is NOT in
God's image as only the male. For the image of God to hold in man then, the
implication from the text is that two individual persons are needed, and not
just any persons, but one must proceed from the other in the most intimate
fashion possible (given the constraints of temporal physicality), and the one
that proceeds from the other be a "helper", the strong implication being in
union with, or agreement with freely.
Now it is abundantly clear from both history and the Old Testament that the Jews
are a staunchly monotheistic people, but then so is Christianity with its
understanding of the Godhead consisting in three Persons, the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit. Both faiths also hold that the written revelation of God to
mankind (the Old Testament for the Jews, the Old and New for Christians) is a
progressive revelation. As Isaiah, a conduit of God's revelation to both faiths
says, the knowledge of God comes "...line upon line, here a little, there a
little" (Is. 28:9-13).
So, looking back at the Genesis creation story from the Christian perspective
(as opposed to those who neither accept or regard the value of those
Scriptures), which it seems this thread is all about, it is not impossible that
God is not declaring the male's domination over the female, but that He is
revealing His own nature in the flesh of His creation. After all, that is what
the text declares He is doing, and the New Testament is clear that Jesus,
"...being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, yet
He "...made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant".
And the picture or "type" of the Godhead begins to show out of the "image" of
God, i.e., man as male and female.
This is not about judgment, and not even about inferiority of nature, for the
New Testament is crystal clear on the equality of women when it comes to their
nature. It is about reflecting, or testifying to Godhead from which it has its
being and existence. Within that Godhead there is the unity of love between all
three Persons, but the clearest relationship in revelation is that between the
Father and the Son. Both are equal in nature as God, and both exist in a
perfect unity of love, which demands perfect agreement on all things. There is
no you thought of it first and I have to go along even though I have a different
idea, in any of this. There is no competition for ascendancy in the hierarchy.
There is only love eternal.
Unfortunately, we are only the "image" of this union. In a marriage between a
man and woman there is going to be some competition of wills as the two live out
their lives together, all of us being the imperfect sinners saved by grace that
we are. And there will be those times when those differing opinions cannot be
reconciled either through discussion or prayer; there is a stalemate in a
democracy of two. What happens then? Are we supposed to arm wrestle for it?
Or should we decide the issue on who has the least amount of facial hair? The
pragmatic truth here is that SOMEONE must take a subordinate position to resolve
the stalemate, for in the end, only one course can be taken and agreement in the
unity of love must continue or the intimacy of the marriage is destroyed.
Now modern sociologists have a whole cornucopia of solutions to offer, but I
personally doubt their value as we all watch the divorce rate continue to rise
with each passing decade of following after these ideas. One is almost forced
to conclude that faced with the kind of serious stalemate I'm talking about,
their advice is divorce; the marriage vows becoming, "I promise to love, honor,
and obey until our first serious disagreement"! Perhaps the conventional wisdom
that says the marriage is over after the first argument has some merit to it!
While the biblical marriage may seem oppressive to those who reject its value,
do any of the objectors have an alternative to present with the track record to
demonstrate its superiority? Does anyone not living it and believing in it even
know what Christian marriage is all about? Faced with the fact that a goodly
amount of the objection to Christian marriage (where the wife is in subjection
to the husband in all things "fitting in the Lord", i.e., according to the moral
and ethical code as it appears in the New Testament) comes from this quarter,
how can a Christian marriage be judged as making the woman inferior?
I would submit that Paul, that arch demon of secular women, had in mind this
very unity of love within the Godhead as he wrote about the roles of men and
women in marriage in the Lord; that he recognized the archetypical role of
Christ in subordination to the Father as he counseled the subordination of women
to their husbands in the Lord. I would suggest that his purpose was NOT to
oppress women into servitude (at the time he wrote this hardly needed any
reinforcement! The WORLD held women as property!!), but to elevate them to
their more Divinely appointed role as prophetic types of the Godhead, in perfect
unity of will and commitment of love with their husbands, so that together they
could become "one flesh", the "image" of the invisible God.
God bless
--
Chuck Stamford
Hugh Young
Well, actually, no, I guess the inferior position of women came first,
and the story was concocted to justify it. They'd hardly write a
creation myth in which man was created out of woman's rib and then say
"Hey, we ought to be treating women better!"
When I said "the INTENTION is to deneigrate women" I meant the
intention is to keep them in their place.
> However, no one has provided
>anything to support that assumption (either here or further down in the thread)
>but more assumptions. If that is all that is going to be brought to bear on the
>subject, why discuss it at all? Everyone has a right to their own opinion,
But nobody has a right to their own facts.
>and
>no thinking person worth the title is going to have that opinion influenced by
>something as paltry as the unsupported assumption of another.
>
>I would challenge the basic assumption here by presenting an alternative reading
>of Genesis that has the woman as a necessary type of the nature of God. I know
>this may sound a bit radical, and it is presented without what might be the
>necessary preamble, but bear with me.
>
>According to the Christian faith (which also accepts the Torah as God's
>revelation of Himself, although not so complete a revelation as is Jesus, whom
>the New Testament proclaims as "the express image of the invisible God") and
>Genesis, God made "man" in His image (Gen. 1:27 - Hebrew "tselem"; image,
>likeness of resemblance) and likeness (Gen. 5:1-2 - Hebrew "demuwth"; likeness,
>similitude),
Well, you do realise that Gen 1 and Gen 5 are from two different (and
quite incompatible) creation myths?
> i.e., a reflection of Himself. However, when you look at the
>passages that state this, you find that the reference to man in God's "image"
>always refers to man as "male and female", thus implying that man is NOT in
>God's image as only the male. For the image of God to hold in man then, the
>implication from the text is that two individual persons are needed, and not
>just any persons, but one must proceed from the other in the most intimate
>fashion possible (given the constraints of temporal physicality), and the one
>that proceeds from the other be a "helper", the strong implication being in
>union with, or agreement with freely.
If that was the intention, why didn't God make the initial person
double/hermaphrodite and divide them down the middle, as Plato
suggested? Then they WOULD be equal.
>Now it is abundantly clear from both history and the Old Testament that the Jews
>are a staunchly monotheistic people, but then so is Christianity with its
>understanding of the Godhead consisting in three Persons, the Father, Son, and
>Holy Spirit.
If you can call that "staunchly monotheistic" you can believe
anything.
> Both faiths also hold that the written revelation of God to
>mankind (the Old Testament for the Jews, the Old and New for Christians) is a
>progressive revelation. As Isaiah, a conduit of God's revelation to both faiths
>says, the knowledge of God comes "...line upon line, here a little, there a
>little" (Is. 28:9-13).
>
>So, looking back at the Genesis creation story from the Christian perspective
>(as opposed to those who neither accept or regard the value of those
>Scriptures),
But you've forgotten those christians who don't accept the scriptures
literally.
> which it seems this thread is all about, it is not impossible that
>God is not declaring the male's domination over the female, but that He is
>revealing His own nature in the flesh of His creation. After all, that is what
>the text declares He is doing, and the New Testament is clear that Jesus,
>"...being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, yet
>He "...made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant".
>And the picture or "type" of the Godhead begins to show out of the "image" of
>God, i.e., man as male and female.
>
>This is not about judgment, and not even about inferiority of nature, for the
>New Testament is crystal clear on the equality of women when it comes to their
>nature. It is about reflecting, or testifying to Godhead from which it has its
>being and existence. Within that Godhead there is the unity of love between all
>three Persons, but the clearest relationship in revelation is that between the
>Father and the Son. Both are equal in nature as God, and both exist in a
>perfect unity of love, which demands perfect agreement on all things. There is
>no you thought of it first and I have to go along even though I have a different
>idea, in any of this. There is no competition for ascendancy in the hierarchy.
>There is only love eternal.
Sounds like the best of gay marriages.
angel
I think much aggravation could be avoided by each of us focusing on
our own actions, without condemning anyone else for theirs. Those who
feel sodomy is a sin or a crime are free to eschew sodomy. If
abortion is murder to you, then don't have an abortion.
>
> > >> >>> Woman's Role
> > >> >>> Woman was created as the helpmeet for man. (Genesis 2:18-22)
> > >>
> > >> There was no such word as "helpmeet" before these two words were
> > >> jammed together in this sentence. It is "...as an help[,] meet
> > >> (fitting)". (The New KJV says "helper comparable to him.")
> > >>
> > >> Either reading denigrates women.
> > >>
Not if she's *comparable* to him. According to some, woman and man
were a single unit until God divided them, and thus are of equal
importance or worth or however you care to call it.
> > >>
> > >
> > >That all depends on the actual perspective and the Hebrew translation
> > >doesn't it?
> >
> > No, either reading defines the woman in terms of the man, rather than
> > as a human being in her own right. It says women were MADE to be
> > "helps meet" for men (and nothing else).
>
Not really. See my comment above.
>
> How would this equality concept measure up with respect to the nice
> clean brothels the New Zealand Green Party wants to afford males? Are
> the customers going to have dirty penis inspections or it is just the
> women who have to sell their bodies who will be having medical checks?
>
Probably much the same as the laws apply to workers in the food
industry. It is they, not the customers, who are required to pass
health checks and to practice cleanliness. This simple precaution
goes far to avoid the spread of diseases.
If brothels were better managed, licensed and inspected, there would
be less hardship for the workers there. Where brothels are illegal,
the workers have no legal protections and are subject to abuse,
disease, and often murder. Like most things, making them illegal does
nothing to stop the practice of prostitution, it simply drives it
underground and increases suffering and disease of the workers - and
of the general public. Innocent wives are exposed to disease from
infected, unfaithful husbands. Newborns may then be exposed to
diseases, often with devastating results.
> How equal is equal when liberalism is being very liberal and
> enlightened? As for your own point you might find that the term was
> also applied to males in the bible from time to time. Brothels and sex
> 'work' define women in terms of the man and there area lot of people
> who want those to be made legal.
>
Actually, many brothels provided males as well as females. The
worship of many deities involved male prostitution. And many required
strict abstinence.
>
> >
> > > Most women would go for a traditonal biblical role with open
> > >arms rather than working as a whore in some brothel or another.
These are not the only two possibilities. You are creating a false
dichotomy here.
> >
> > Have you got a thing about brothels?
>
I never go to them. I'm afraid I might get brothel sprouts.
>
> They negate the same equality you were pretending to discuss and the
> bible is a document which has stood the test of time far better than
> many 19th or even 20th laws.
>
> It is more female friendly than half the New Zealand parliament who
> comprise a contemporary blight on those of us who are interested in
> real equality rather than slogans.
> >
> > > There are
> > >many ways to look at good and bad. The majority of women would run with the
> > >former rather than the latter if we are talking about widely common
> > >perspectives.
> >
> > Yes, and they'd prefer the brothel rather than one of Saddam's
> > prisons. So?
>
>
> One is frequently little different to the other. The sex trade would
> be high on the agenda for being the most prolific form of terrorism on
> earth. In fact I am pretty sure it is regulary described in those
> terms.
>
The main reason the "sex trade" is so terrible is that it is almost
universally illegal. As I mentioned above, this does not stop the sex
trade, but only drives it underground where all manner of exploitation
and abuse is possible for lack of oversight.
>
> >
> > >Marriage is a new journey and the dilution of former things which might
> > >previously have take precedence and a celebration of the fact that women and
> > >men can become one
> >
> > I seriously doubt this, even in the best marriages. The traditional
> > formulation of this is "husband and wife are one person and the
> > husband is that person." Ever since Ibsen and Shaw, women have said
> > "No way."
>
Lately there have been ceremonies declaring the couple to be equal; no
"love honor and *obey*", no more "man and wife", but rather "man and
woman, husband and wife".
>
> >
> > > within a value system. If the world was exclusively
> > >filled with gay males we would be an extinct species
> >
> > Not necessarily. Many gay males have children. But this is a silly
> > argument.
>
> No it isn't, the bioogical imperative for our species is to propagate
> and to continue to exist and a gay world taken to its logical
No, actually if we mindlessly reproduce we'll wind up like any colony
of bacteria on a petri dish - extinct. Uninhibited growth is
exponential. At some point resources fail, and there is a sudden,
sharp drop in population, often to the point of extinction.
If some people practice non-procreative relationships, this helps to
keep us from breeding ourselves into extinction. In fact, it could
possibly be an instinct that preserves the species - when the
population reaches certain levels, an increasing number of people turn
to relationships that do not produce offspring. There is no evidence
that homosexual relationships would proliferate to the point of
species extinction.
> conclusion has extinction written all over it. In other words the
> 'gay' is only viable as something additional to the orthodox rather
> than a thing in itself.
You lost me there. Maybe you're right.
angelicusrex
The problem is that Christian Fundies don't care how much aggravation they
cause. They NEED to be right about everything, all the time. In fact
aggravating people is the goal. They don't just say "I think abortion is
wrong." They say "God thinks abortion is wrong. The Bible says it is wrong.
The Bible tells us to KILL wrong people and sinful people so therefore I am
going to Kill you. And when you die, God will send you to ETERNAL TORMENT!"
Now that's aggravating!
It's not enough for a Christian Fundie to think Sodomy is a crime. He must
invariably foist his beliefs and morals on EVERYONE else in the ENTIRE
WORLD. Only then will the world be primed for the return of the one who will
Judge the Quick and the Dead and send all the bad people to Hell. So that it
would seem even eschewing sodomy is not going to save your sorry ass. If you
did it, you burn. If you believe others can do it, even if you don't like
it, you burn. If you say anything vaguely against the Bible or Christian
interpretations thereof, you will BURN. That's aggravating an already tense
situation.
The rest of what you say would be bleeding obvious to any sane individuals.
But true-believers, I have determined, are far from sane. They are barely
functional in society...sometimes going to extremes at the drop of a hat.
But they aren't going to buy into liberating our sexual habits from being
proclaimed illegal. They want us to breed exponentially (be fruitful and
multiply and dominate the earth...) because those who will be left, they
feel, will be those who God determines worthy. It's called Apocalyptic
belief. They want the world to END and people who they don't like to BURN.
And there is no stopping them. Just like we won't be able to stop Muslims
from strapping on bombs and blowing up school children and old people on a
bus. They're NUTS! So are most people on these NGs. It's as if cancer
decided that if it can only grow long enough and big enough, it will take
over the body completely and be a walking cancer. But like all cancers such
crazy people have no place, no real job in society but to aggravate it and
rebel against it and stop helping it. That's why, when a cancer grows to a
certain stage, it kills the body it came from...You remember the Dark Ages?
Christianity pulsates and devours like a cancerous growth until all further
good growth is stopped. Thankfully the Black Death killed off so many
Christians it left room for the Renaissance! Which in turn put a knife into
the overbloated cancer of the Catholic church. Surgically removing it as the
overbearing tumor it had become. But we're all still infected. And now we've
got a new cancer called Muslim Fundamentalism to deal with. Praise Jesus and
pass the ammunition, brother!
Saint
"angel" <angel...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ff066f10.03042...@posting.google.com...
> I think much aggravation could be avoided by each of us focusing on
> our own actions, without condemning anyone else for theirs. Those who
> feel sodomy is a sin or a crime are free to eschew sodomy. If
> abortion is murder to you, then don't have an abortion.
> These are not the only two possibilities. You are creating a false
> dichotomy here.
> The main reason the "sex trade" is so terrible is that it is almost
> universally illegal. As I mentioned above, this does not stop the sex
> trade, but only drives it underground where all manner of exploitation
> and abuse is possible for lack of oversight.
> Lately there have been ceremonies declaring the couple to be equal; no
> "love honor and *obey*", no more "man and wife", but rather "man and
> woman, husband and wife".
Saint David and the Angels
Why do you hate God, and Christians?
Love, and light,
Saint David
Flannagan
The reference to eve being made from Adams *rib* in its context
emphasises the equality of men and women. First the word is not *rib*
the hebrew word used is side.
Secondly the text needs to be read in the context in which it appears
Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I
will make him a helper suitable for him."19 And out of the ground the
LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky,
and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and
whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.20 And
the man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and
to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper
suitable for him.21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon
the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs, and closed up the
flesh at that place.22 And the LORD God fashioned into a woman the
rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.23
And the man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my
flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man."24
For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall
cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
Gen 2:19-24 NASB
Note X things here
1. the emphasis is on the fact that it is not good for the man to be
alone and he needs a *helper suitable* to him this phrase in hebrew is
'ezer: neged’ this is the idea of someone who helps or aids who
is similar , a counterpart to or an equal to oneself. A recent article
in the Biblical Archealogical Review argues it has the sense of a
*help equal to him*. A view defended by Old testament scholar Walter
Kaiser ( see his Towards an Old Testament Ethics) the phrase
emphasises that the help is like the man, a counter part to him
2. This fact is emphasised further by the note that none of the
animals is a help equal to man, while no hebrew in an agriain society
would deny that animals can be aids or helps to mankind they are not
helpers that are equal or of the same nature as humans and that is the
whole point.
3. Adams response when he learns that eve has been created from his
side is *This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She
shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.*Two things
are noteworthy here first the reference to bone of my bones etc is a
hebrew idiom for kinship. Second the last sentence emphasizes a
Semitic literary technique known as paranomasisa or word play. This
technique is common in this section of genesis, for example Noah
sounds similar to the hebrew word for comfort and Noah’s
designates the man in the narrative who brings confront. (Gen 5:29).
Abraham means father of many and the whole story of abrham is a story
about how he is promised that he will have many children. Jacob means
*pulls his leg* and the story is of a trickster In each case the name
is deliberately used to emphasis a characteristic or feature of the
person named. In gen 4 it is noted that they aquired a child by the
LORD the child is named Cain which sounds like the hebrew word
acquired.
Similarly use of word plays occurs here in Genesis. Adam is similar
to the hebrew word for dust (adamah) and the emphasis of Gen 2-3 is
that man has kinship with the dust, he is made from it, (2.7) will
return to it (3.19) will toil it (3:17) his sin curses it once again
the clearest use in (3:19) where it says “dust you are”
name adam is used to point to a feature or character of man. Similar
things can be said a boy eve the word eve sound like the hebrew word
for mother so the text notes that she was called eve because she was
the mother of the living, again the name is deliberately chosen to
reinforce a point or teaching.
In this passage the play is on the hebrew word for women 'ishshah: and
man 'iysh the idea is that she is called ishshah because she comes
from man iysh, the point is that the two are fundamentally of the same
nature. Understood in its genre then the passage asserts that women
and man are very close kinsman they are fundamentally of the same
nature they are one.
The passage then states that it was not good for man to be without a
helper equal to or like him. The animals though helpful are not like
him they are different and hence won’t do however women and men
are of the same nature they are close kinsmen. That is the point of
the passage.
Now all this could have easily been discovered by reading any standard
commentary on the passage. Evangelicals have been pointing it out for
years.
> Well, you do realise that Gen 1 and Gen 5 are from two different (and
> quite incompatible) creation myths?
First, Gen 5 is not a creation myth at all, I take it you mean Gen 2.
Second I do not think Gen 1 and 2 are incompatible at all, of course
if you fail to take into account the literary genre and rhetorical
modes of the text and assume that the author is simply giving a
chronological description of what happend then perhaps they will be
interpreted as asserting contradictory things. But that does not show
they do assert different things.
> >Now it is abundantly clear from both history and the Old Testament that the Jews
> >are a staunchly monotheistic people, but then so is Christianity with its
> >understanding of the Godhead consisting in three Persons, the Father, Son, and
> >Holy Spirit.
>
> If you can call that "staunchly monotheistic" you can believe
> anything.
Here Hugh you simply demonstrate how poorly you understand
Christainity. Trinitarians do not believe in more than one God,
Moreover to assert that all trinitarians are gullible people is simply
a bigoted comment.
>
> But you've forgotten those christians who don't accept the scriptures
> literally.
Actually interpreting a text literally ( as the word literal is
understood in reformed hermenutics) is simply commonsense. Would you
like it if I decided to take your comments in some way other than you
intended and allegorised them to mean different things to what you
mean't.
No
Matt
Chuck Stamford
Hugh, the topic thread at the time seemed to be becoming little more than an
exercise in intellectual bigotry, which is as it has always been, the death
knell of reasonable discourse. Your post further punches up the fact that
agreement with a belief, point of view, etc. that is laid out according to an
objective, critical interpretation of the written word, be it whatever kind of
literature, is not required, but a reasonable objection to that belief, pov, is
if an objection is to be provided, and sadly, Hugh seems to ignore this fact
between reasonable people.
I did find one small point in your post that I question, however. It may be
nit-picking a flea's eyelash, but I'll let you be the judge. You wrote:
"Jacob means *pulls his leg* and the story is of a trickster In each case the
name is deliberately used to emphasis a characteristic or feature of the person
named."
This reference to Jacob appears in the midst of some excellent examples you
provide of persons in the Bible being named for what their lives will come to
embody, yet, as stated, the inference that you are equating "pulls his leg" with
the modern phrase "pulling my leg" is difficult to avoid. If there is any
connection between what the ancient name means in English and how we use the
phrase "pulling my leg" today (i.e., to denote a trickster exercising their
craft), I would suggest to you that this result of that linkage looks backward
to the name Jacob, not forward from it, and adds some modern connotations to it
that aren't necessarily present, or perhaps more accurately, predominate in the
biblical story of his life. I would suggest that his name comes from the
description of his birth in supplanting (even then!) the birth right of the
first-born, and in fact, many respectable translations of the Hebrew use the
word "supplanter" as the English meaning for "Jacob". Saying someone is a
"trickster", pulling someone's leg doesn't really say the same thing as someone
who supplanted another's perceived birth right, and it completely ignores the
fact that absent the action of an over-achieving midwife, Jacob would have been
raised as the first-born, just as God intended as so clearly demonstrated by his
subsequent life and use in carrying the Seed of Promise into another generation.
This then is the difference I see between Jacob and your other examples. All
their names were given to them as a prophecy of what they would become in later
life, while Jacob was named for something he'd already done in accomplishing
God's intention that he be the first-born...and would continue to do throughout
most of his young adulthood (I.e., act as the first-born, even if that meant
doing so by deceit to overcome the mistaken impression of his father, Isaac).
It's a small difference, but as you're using him here, I think a note worthy
one.
(It is also interesting that Jacob is the first in the line of promise to
Abraham both NOT to be promised beforehand by God, and NOT to be an only male
child of the Patriarch's wedded wife. He is also the last generation in which
God's promise to Abraham depends on one man's life.)
I'm snipping your original post to keep this short, but I want to again say I
thought it was excellent. Unfortunately, the Hebrew words you provided didn't
appear to make the transition well from whatever your source to the body of your
post, but the rest of it came across very clear in my estimation.
Brian Logan
>if you fail to take into account the literary genre and rhetorical
>modes of the text and assume that the author is simply giving a
>chronological description of what happend then perhaps they will be
>interpreted as asserting contradictory things. But that does not show
>they do assert different things.
>Actually interpreting a text literally ( as the word literal is
>understood in reformed hermenutics) is simply commonsense. Would you
>like it if I decided to take your comments in some way other than you
>intended and allegorised them to mean different things to what you
>mean't.
I'm confused. Doesn't a rhetorical mode conflict with interpreting a
text literally?
b.
Hugh Young
<shells...@cox.net> said:
>Matt, first of all, thank you for your comments. As I noted in my response to
>Hugh, the topic thread at the time seemed to be becoming little more than an
>exercise in intellectual bigotry,
You must have come in partway through. This thread STARTED - as its
name implies - with not very intellectual bigotry, using the bible to
bash gay people (again).
> Your post further punches up the fact that
>agreement with a belief, point of view, etc. that is laid out according to an
>objective, critical interpretation of the written word, be it whatever kind of
>literature, is not required, but a reasonable objection to that belief, pov, is
>if an objection is to be provided, and sadly, Hugh seems to ignore this fact
>between reasonable people.
If I understand the above at all, I doubt that the word "objective"
can be applicable here.
I do take Matt's point that the Hebrew makes Eve more equal than the
KJV. Glenn the Christian Mystic, however was using the post-KJV
non-word, "helpmeet".
Flannagan
No
The word "literal interpretation" has changed its meaning since the reformation.
Matt
Brian Logan
So are you using the current meaning or the meaning the phrase had
before the reformation?
b.
Chuck Stamford
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 22:17:25 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
> <shells...@cox.net> said:
>
> >Matt, first of all, thank you for your comments. As I noted in my response
to
> >Hugh, the topic thread at the time seemed to be becoming little more than an
> >exercise in intellectual bigotry,
>
> You must have come in partway through. This thread STARTED - as its
> name implies - with not very intellectual bigotry, using the bible to
> bash gay people (again).
People don't need to use the Bible to "bash" gay people...they will use anything
that comes to hand and seems to them useful to that end.
However, I can't help but wonder if your use of the word "bash" means taking the
position that the Bible clearly condemns the practice of homosexuality as
against God's will for mankind, and is thus sinful. I know there has recently
been a veritable blossoming of both scholarly and not so scholarly treatments on
the subject of the biblical stance toward homosexuality, enough to completely
mesmerize those that don't care all that much one way or the other, and more
than sufficient to "justify" those with a personal stake in the issue, but most
of these works simply ignore or deny the work that has already been done, and
without very good reason for doing so to my way of thinking.
For instance, the interpretation of the passages in Genesis that I presented
earlier, especially when compared to Paul's writing, on the role of the woman in
"man" demonstrates pretty well that the marriage relationship ordained by God is
between a man and a woman, and that this ordination is for not only the purpose
of reproduction, but acts as a prophetic "imaging" in physical format of the
Godhead itself...something it wouldn't do and doesn't do when we consider gay
"marriages". Further, there is the doctrine of God's holiness, which demands
that His ordinances be followed while they remain in force; that no man could
with safety restate them beyond their original meaning...when that meaning is
clear. It IS clear that marriage between a man and a woman is God's ordination
by creation on marriage (according to the Bible), and His holiness brooks no
expansion of this Divine proclamation in the flesh to include men with men,
women with women, or any other combination mankind can think of out of the
animal kingdom. Therefore, since it is equally clear (at least!) that sexual
liaisons outside the marriage contract are condemned as fornication, and only
heterosexual liaisons are ordained by the biblical God inside marriage, the
practicing homosexual is sinful both by the fact of having a sexual liaison
outside of marriage (fornication), and destroying, or attempting to destroy
God's revelation of the Godhead in "man" by rearranging the roles.
>
> > Your post further punches up the fact that
> >agreement with a belief, point of view, etc. that is laid out according to an
> >objective, critical interpretation of the written word, be it whatever kind
of
> >literature, is not required, but a reasonable objection to that belief, pov,
is
> >if an objection is to be provided, and sadly, Hugh seems to ignore this fact
> >between reasonable people.
>
> If I understand the above at all, I doubt that the word "objective"
> can be applicable here.
It can be at least as applicable in my comments as it would be in any others I'd
seen in this topic thread when I wrote it. However, your point is taken. There
most likely is no "objective" view on this subject no matter what side of the
question is adopted. It is probably true that any opposing view here is going
to be seen as at least giving the appearance of subjectivity. There is,
however, a view that sticks more closely to the biblical text and one that
doesn't, but rather seeks to make excuses (some of them laughably weak!) for
what is seen there. It would be the Bible itself, therefore, that "bashes"
gays, rather than those who simply rely on it for truth. But even this is not
really true, for the Bible presents a God who is loathe to see anyone die in
their sins. For this reason He is very slow to judge, and quick to grant mercy
and grace, and He calls ALL men to come out of their sin, whatever manifestation
it takes in their lives, and receive the eternal life He desires to give to
them. The revelation of God does not "bash" anyone really, unless that term is
stretched to mean anything critical that is said. However, if we are to
consistently apply so broad a meaning to the term "bash", we'd find that a
"Watch Your Step" sign is "bashing" the intelligence of those who read it!
>
> I do take Matt's point that the Hebrew makes Eve more equal than the
> KJV. Glenn the Christian Mystic, however was using the post-KJV
> non-word, "helpmeet".
Well, you don't really need to be a Hebrew scholar to find the biblical position
on homosexuality, but it certainly doesn't hurt either. As for Glenn, much as I
love him in the Spirit, he wouldn't know a Christian doctrine or where it comes
from if he tripped over it...repeatedly. Glenn is walking, talking proof that
you can call yourself anything you like, so he styles himself a "Christian",
even though he pretty much makes up his doctrine as he goes. If it happens to
coincide with biblical doctrine, it's just a happy coincidence. He gets as much
insight into the nature of God from a Campbell's soup label (I swear, he
actually said this one time!) as he does from the Bible.
Hugh Young
<shells...@cox.net> said:
How so? I know plenty faithful gay christians whose marriages are just
as phophetically imaging in physical format of the Godhead itself as
any strait marriage - and more than many.
"relying on it for truth" is far from "simple". People choose to rely
on it for truth. They deviate from it when it suits them (stoning
adulterers, etc).
Since there was no concept of "gays" at the time the bible was written
(there was none before Oscar Wilde!), there is no way the bible itself
can bash gays. (Men commonly shared beds with men and women with
women, well into the 19th century. Who knows what happened there? They
just didn't talk about it, probably didn't consider whether it was
"sinful" and certainly didn't make it part of their identity.) It is
all a matter of interpretation.
>> I do take Matt's point that the Hebrew makes Eve more equal than the
>> KJV. Glenn the Christian Mystic, however was using the post-KJV
>> non-word, "helpmeet".
>
>Well, you don't really need to be a Hebrew scholar to find the biblical position
>on homosexuality, but it certainly doesn't hurt either.
Since there was no concept of "homosexuality" (orientation, identity)
till the late 19th century, I assume you mean same-sex acts. You
certainly do need to be a Hebrew and Greek scholar to extract the
original meaning from the homophobic overlay of the 13th-20th
centuries.
> As for Glenn, much as I
>love him in the Spirit, he wouldn't know a Christian doctrine or where it comes
>from if he tripped over it...repeatedly. Glenn is walking, talking proof that
>you can call yourself anything you like, so he styles himself a "Christian",
>even though he pretty much makes up his doctrine as he goes. If it happens to
>coincide with biblical doctrine, it's just a happy coincidence. He gets as much
>insight into the nature of God from a Campbell's soup label (I swear, he
>actually said this one time!) as he does from the Bible.
I didn't read it when he said it, but I understand what he meant. He
is a true mystic, who sees god in everything. More power to him - his
god is that much further from god as an old man with a long beard.
aa#158
Chuck Stamford
And in these "marriages", which of the partners is physically created the male
authority figure, and which the female submissive figure? If it's God ordained
it can't be merely by agreement between the partners because that would make it
man/woman ordained.
>
>
> > Further, there is the doctrine of God's holiness, which demands
> >that His ordinances be followed while they remain in force; that no man could
> >with safety restate them beyond their original meaning...when that meaning is
> >clear. It IS clear that marriage between a man and a woman is God's
ordination
> >by creation on marriage (according to the Bible), and His holiness brooks no
> >expansion of this Divine proclamation in the flesh to include men with men,
> >women with women, or any other combination mankind can think of out of the
> >animal kingdom. Therefore, since it is equally clear (at least!) that sexual
> >liaisons outside the marriage contract are condemned as fornication, and only
> >heterosexual liaisons are ordained by the biblical God inside marriage, the
> >practicing homosexual is sinful both by the fact of having a sexual liaison
> >outside of marriage (fornication), and destroying, or attempting to destroy
> >God's revelation of the Godhead in "man" by rearranging the roles.
You did not dispute any of the above, and you did not snip it. Am I to assume
that you agree with it?
Actually, relying on it is both the simplest and most difficult thing in the
world.
>
> Since there was no concept of "gays" at the time the bible was written
> (there was none before Oscar Wilde!), there is no way the bible itself
> can bash gays. (Men commonly shared beds with men and women with
> women, well into the 19th century. Who knows what happened there? They
> just didn't talk about it, probably didn't consider whether it was
> "sinful" and certainly didn't make it part of their identity.) It is
> all a matter of interpretation.
So is your use of the term "gays". Before I could comment on your above, I'd
need to know your interpretation of the term.
>
> >> I do take Matt's point that the Hebrew makes Eve more equal than the
> >> KJV. Glenn the Christian Mystic, however was using the post-KJV
> >> non-word, "helpmeet".
> >
> >Well, you don't really need to be a Hebrew scholar to find the biblical
position
> >on homosexuality, but it certainly doesn't hurt either.
>
> Since there was no concept of "homosexuality" (orientation, identity)
> till the late 19th century, I assume you mean same-sex acts. You
> certainly do need to be a Hebrew and Greek scholar to extract the
> original meaning from the homophobic overlay of the 13th-20th
> centuries.
Actually, you're just flat wrong here. There is enough evidence in ancient
Greek literature for a reasonable person to conclude that homosexual sexual
orientation was recognized well before Christ. There is also some very good
evidence of Oriental homosexuality very early in the relevant literature. There
is in fact several cultures (very ancient Egyptian literature, for example)
whose literature implies or assumes an awareness of homosexuality in very
ancient times. Modern scholarship has recently uncovered enough ancient
references that have nothing to do with pagan worship that it is not
unreasonable to suppose there is no end to homosexuality and the recognition of
it no matter how far back one goes in history. It is one of the most ancient of
sins, not something new.
>
>
> > As for Glenn, much as I
> >love him in the Spirit, he wouldn't know a Christian doctrine or where it
comes
> >from if he tripped over it...repeatedly. Glenn is walking, talking proof
that
> >you can call yourself anything you like, so he styles himself a "Christian",
> >even though he pretty much makes up his doctrine as he goes. If it happens
to
> >coincide with biblical doctrine, it's just a happy coincidence. He gets as
much
> >insight into the nature of God from a Campbell's soup label (I swear, he
> >actually said this one time!) as he does from the Bible.
>
> I didn't read it when he said it, but I understand what he meant. He
> is a true mystic, who sees god in everything. More power to him - his
> god is that much further from god as an old man with a long beard.
And whose religion has God as an old man?
Bob Howard
"Flannagan" <n...@soul.org.nz> wrote in message
news:4e3facfd.03043...@posting.google.com...
>
> The reference to eve being made from Adams *rib* in its context
> emphasises the equality of men and women. First the word is not *rib*
> the hebrew word used is side.
Rubbish! It clearly means a woman is secondary to a man which reflects the
patriarchal society of the time it was written. If God had meant a woman to
be equal to man he would have turned two handfulls of dust into a man and a
woman together.
The Feminist Movement has a lot to answer for. Get back in the kitchen woman
and be subservient to your man.
Bob Howard.
Flannagan
> So are you using the current meaning or the meaning the phrase had
> before the reformation?
>
I am using the older sense. No sect that I know of employs literal
interpretation in the other sense of the word.
Matt
Flannagan
you do here is assert your position is clearly correct and call mine
rubbish.
What I have said is not controversial as I said any decent commentary
would point out the same thing.
Matt
"Bob Howard" <n...@spam.none.com> wrote in message news:<b96ddv$mqo$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>...
Brian Logan
So that means you do not interpret it to mean what it actually says.
b.
Flannagan
Not at all, as I said in previous posts I am attempting to ascertain
what the author mean't taking into account the genre and rhetorical
technques being used.
Modern critics set up a strawman by ignoring what the word literal
mean't in reformed hermenutics and instead claim that it means there
is no figurative language, smiles metaphors, idoims, symbolism
parables etc in scripture and then mock this as absurd ( which it is)
however when evangelicals claim to interpret scripture literally that
is not what they mean.
The point I was making regarding Hugh was his claim that Gen 1 and Gen
2 contradicted each other, for this to be correct then one would have
to argue that Genesis 1 asserts a proposition one and Genesis 2
asserts the denail of this proposition. I am querying wether this is
the case, wether in fact when one interprets these texts in light of
the genre and rhetorical techniques and context in which they occur
they in fact do this.
Matt
Flannagan
Not at all, as I said in previous posts I am attempting to ascertain
what the author mean't taking into account the genre and rhetorical
technques being used.
Modern critics set up a strawman by ignoring what the word literal
mean't in reformed hermenutics and instead claim that it means there
is no figurative language, smiles metaphors, idoims, symbolism
parables etc in scripture and then mock this as absurd ( which it is)
however when evangelicals claim to interpret scripture literally that
is not what they mean.
The point I was making regarding Hugh was his claim that Gen 1 and Gen
2 contradicted each other, for this to be correct then one would have
to argue that Genesis 1 asserts a proposition and Genesis 2 asserts
the denial of this proposition. I am querying wether this is the case,
Brian Logan
>Brian Logan <shado...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:<2iohbv00uvd3nrj8f...@4ax.com>...
>> n...@soul.org.nz (Flannagan) wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> So are you using the current meaning or the meaning the phrase had
>> >> before the reformation?
>> >>
>> >
>> >I am using the older sense. No sect that I know of employs literal
>> >interpretation in the other sense of the word.
>>
>> So that means you do not interpret it to mean what it actually says.
>>
>> b.
>
>Not at all, as I said in previous posts I am attempting to ascertain
>what the author mean't taking into account the genre and rhetorical
>technques being used.
>
>Modern critics set up a strawman by ignoring what the word literal
>mean't in reformed hermenutics and instead claim that it means there
>is no figurative language, smiles metaphors, idoims, symbolism
>parables etc in scripture and then mock this as absurd ( which it is)
>however when evangelicals claim to interpret scripture literally that
>is not what they mean.
It would be clearer for the modern reader if you, and the
evangelicals, said that you don't interpret the bible literally, but
that you look at the context of the time and purpose of the stories.
Much better than the "it says this and that's exactly what it means"
approach. The contextual interpretation is prone to errors though, as
it is interpreted in light of current understanding and with
linguistic drift from the original meanings of any words in the
original languages. This language difficulty is compounded by the
translations of the original where the references are no longer
relevant.
b.
Hugh Young
This morning, being in Whitby, I had the misfortune to hear Genesis
FM, R*nt*n M*cl*chl*n's little fundie station, on which an American
was saying that he believes the bible literally, that days mean days
and men walked the earth with (or more likely, ran away from)
dinosaurs.
Since there ARE people who mean "literally" literally, it would be
good if those who don't, use another word.
Chuck Stamford
What one word would you suggest, since in the English language the word
"literal" means taking one's inference from the author's "literal", i.e.,
expressed intent, within the context of the author's reasonably discernable
assumptions, cultural bias, etc.? Are you suggesting that Christians who take
the Bible "literally" be held to some standard of language that other's are not
simply because there exist those who use the term poorly? Or that they be so
held simply to avoid some degree of personal confusion on your part??
Practically every post I write is held up to scrutiny and criticism on the basis
of misunderstood vocabulary. The list of words I could reasonably object to
being "misused" by those who disagree with my world view could fill dozens of
pages just from newsgroup posting over the last several years! Quit your
whining and just ask if you don't know...like the rest of us have to do. It may
also help get you out of a bad habit of making assumptions without a proper
foundation.
Flannagan
Hugh
I do not deny that some people believe that Genesis 1
"literalistically" i.e believe does give an chronological description
of the processes that brought the world into being. However that was
not what i affirmed what I affirmed was that no Theological tradition
I am aware of would claim that there is no figurative language or
metaphors etc used in scripture. I no of know one who thinks that
Isreal flowed with milk and honey in the sense that you had to take
gumboots with you. Or that the beast of revelation or Daniel were
mean't to tell us about real dragons etc. This is because it is
recognised that the phrase flowing with milk and honey is an idoim and
that the Genre of revelation and Daniel are Apocalyptic. Similarly we
know that Jesus's parables are parables because the context says they
are.
When a person argues over the meaning of the word *day* in genesis one
is arguing over what the author is conveying using this hebrew word
in this context to assert. Incidently I agree that the word day (yom
in hebrew) means day and not *age* as some early Church fathers
argued. However I also think that when jesus used the word *seed* in
the parable of the sower he mean't *seeds*, that does not show that
his parable was not a parable. Similarly I think that the author
mean't *honey* by milk and honey and that the word *beast* mean't
beast (though it could have had adouble reference alluding to neros
neickname)none of this entails that these terms are being used in
figures if speech. I think that their is plenty in the context such as
the obvious parallelisms, the deliberate structuring of the events and
use of certain motiffs and anithesis as well as its contrasts with
other ANE creation stories to suggest that the author did not have
cosmology in the modern sense in mind. Others such as Renton disagree
they argue that the genre of the book of Genesis is historical
narrative and there is no basis for claiming that the opening chapters
are not. Both are interpreting the bible literally in the sense that
evangelical or reformed hermenuetics are literal.
Your other points are well taken there is confusion amougst
contemporary people over what is mean't by literal and perhaps a
different word should be used. At Bible College this point was
stressed by our lecturers and some exegetes now use the word natural
interpretation, though this term has problems of its own. Some call it
the historical grammatical method etc
Matt
Hugh Young
Well Gen 1 24 says the animals were made before Adam, and Gen 2 19
says after.
David Bisman
The problem that you have when you try to look at someone else's
sacred texts is that you have no experience of their understanding of
them. This is compounded when you attempt to study these in
translation, without knowledge of or facility with the original text.
This leads to the silly concept that different stories form part of
the same narrative or that contradictions (real or imagined) destroy
the entire work. The facts are much more mundane. The two stories that
are set out (roughly)in chapters one and two of Bereishit (Genesis)
are two different genres, they both deal with roughly similar concepts
but the first is concerned with the mystical - the 32 mentions of God
divided into 3, 7, 10, & 12 grammatical contexts, starting the entire
Torah with the SECOND letter of the alephbeit, the prominence of the
letter lamed
in conjunction with the beit (remembering that the last letter of the
Torah is a lamed), that these two letters add to 32 and that they
spell lev (heart), and a great deal more - and the mechanics of
creation whereas the second is an etiological tale answering some
fairly basic questions - Why is it hard to work the land? Why is
childbirth painful and dangerous? Why don't snakes have feet? Why is
the world ordered the way it is? Why are we on this earth? And so on.
When looked at for what they are (rather than as the kind of
literalist that most atheists seem to be and to be upset that most
believers are not) then it is easy to see that far from contradicting
each other they compliment each other. Each does its own job, and does
it well. It is because they are doing their own unique and different
jobs that they appear contradictory to the casual observer. They are
not.
Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand