Where does which Bible condem Homosexuality?
dion...@infinet.com
fal...@n-jcenter.com said:
}I'm just responding to the header of this post. It seems that you hit
}on the right section of the Bible, at least the author, Paul.
}Specifically in Romans Chapter 1 vs 26 thru 27,
Try starting at verse 23. Otherwise you read things out of context. God
was not punishing homosexuals, he was punishing idolators with homosexuality.
--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key
And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...
I just had a mental breakdown. Got any jumper cables?
dion...@infinet.com
Dave G. (d...@rsvl.unisys.com) said:
}In my opinion, Romans 1: 26-27 clearly identifies homosexuality as
}"sinful" without ever using the word "homosexual". Verse 24
}reads:
[ inserting verses 21-23 so that this isn't taken out of context ]
21 because, having known God they did not glorify [Him] as God, nor gave
thanks, but were made vain in their reasonings, and their unintelligent
heart was darkened, 22 professing to be wise, they were made fools, 23 and
changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image
of corruptible man, and of fowls, and of quadrupeds, and of reptiles.
}"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their
}hearts to sinful impurity for the degrading of their bodies with
}one another."
}I think the sinfulness of homosexuality is quite clear.
Yes, it's a punishment for idolatry.
--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key
And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...
The buck doesn't even slow down here.
John A. Stanley
In article <4orib0$c...@news1.infinet.com>, dion...@infinet.com () wrote:
>fal...@n-jcenter.com said:
>
>}I'm just responding to the header of this post. It seems that you hit
>}on the right section of the Bible, at least the author, Paul.
>}Specifically in Romans Chapter 1 vs 26 thru 27,
>
>Try starting at verse 23. Otherwise you read things out of context. God
>was not punishing homosexuals, he was punishing idolators with homosexuality.
Does this mean all us queer folk are idolaters?
--
John A. Stanley jsta...@gate.net
John Sanger
In article <31B014...@deltanet.com> Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> writes:
>John A. Stanley wrote:
>>
>> In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.960530130...@river.it.gvsu.edu>,
>> Revolution Calling You <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >Todd, this is so true. Militant homosexual activists are the ones who
>> >are waging war on our culture. Then have stormed over the boundries we
>> >have set up as norms for are culture and then they wonder why they take
>> >the heat for it.
>>
>> I'll bet you said the same thing about those upity militant
>> niggers back in the 60's.>Yet another personal attack, providing further evidence to my original
>statement that as the quality of the arguments go down, the personal
>attacks go up.
>
Since you have yet to provide any argument that is rediculous. Your
opinions are not argument.
>John, the battle over homosexual rights is not the same as the battle
>over civil rights.
>
>Your comparison of us, who have sincerely held beliefs about what
>relationships should be legally sanctioned, essentially to a bigoted
>southernor who didn't believe that blacks deserved any civil rights and
>were inferior as individual people is, in a word, ridiculous and
>unworthy of further comment.
>
Todd, your own words are still the ones that show the entire world that
you are indeed a bigot, jerk, closed-minded idiot.
--
Ciao!
John S. 8^{)>
tedd...@netcom.com
__
John Sanger
In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.960601...@river.it.gvsu.edu> Revolution Calling You <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> writes:
>On Fri, 31 May 1996, John Sanger wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.960530130...@river.it.gvsu.edu> Revolution Calling You <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> writes:
>> >
>>
>> Shawn, I would suggest that you educate yourself a bit better. Perhaps
>> reading the entire post that Todd butchered might help. That is after
>> you set aside your prejudice against your fellowman.
>> It is individuals such as yourself that continue the spread of the
>> ignorance and hate the your kind espouse.
>> Oh, BTW there are no "norms" in society. Society is a dynamic entity.
>> It is always changing. What you do not seem to understand is that
>
>yes, John society is always changing does that mean it is always for the
>better? I don't think so. We had plenty of norms in American society
>with respect for God and following his principles. Now that the Liberals
>have control of our colleges etc.. these norms were replaced and look
>what has happened.
>
>
You seem to always be blaming the wrong people for the problems you
think that society has. Try placing that blame on the people known as
parents. The problems that you think society has are all due to failed
responsibility for the upbringing of children by the parents of those
children. When parents accept the responsibility for the upbringing of
their own children then those children are better citizens and better
able to deal with the problems of life in an adult world. But foisting
the job of upbringing to a stranger aka the public schools is not going
to produce a very satisfactory result as we can readily see.
The basics of right and wrong and the instilling of sound moral thinking
is the duty of the parents. It should never be attempted by the schools
as they cannot act as parents due to the fact that the children have no
love relationship with them. When parents accept the fact that they
must teach their children how to behave and what is right and wrong and
proper respect for others and their property, then perhaps you will see
that the problems of society that you think are there will go away.
But until your hate filled community stops with it's preaching of hate
toward the rest of society and accepts it's responsibility for the
failure to bringup it's children properly, then this condition will
continue as the status quo.
>
>
>> homosexuals have always been a part of society. So much so that they
>> often have been the leaders of the advances that society has made to
>> propell it forward into the future. Homosexuals have frequently led the
>> technological advances that society has made good use of. An example is
>> the device that you use when you are using the usenet, you know, your
>> computer. It is there infront of you because of what homosexuals did.
>> Homosexuals have been great philosphers, great artists, great generals,
>> great politicians, great scholars, great scientists and great in all
>> other categories of endeavour that man has attempted.
>> Life would not exist as it does today if it were not for the
>> contributions of the homosexuals, both male and female.
>
>
>John, I don't deny this. However, It kind of ticks me off that you think
>I hate gays or are going "gay" bashing. I have not been gay bashing and
>will not be gay bashing. I don't hate gays, I hate their actions. I
>don't believe gays should be fired from their jobs because of their
>sexuality. ..and I believe that they are entitled to all the righs of
>citizens of this country.
>
You espouse a hate filled philosphy which is based upon a book of
mythos.
Your philosphy has not one iota of evidence to provide even a clue let
alone proof that your deity exists.
You are constantly spouting hate for your fellowman.
>
>Now John is that so full of hate? If so make the most of it.
>
Yes, it is!
g...@cbvcp.com
Revolution Calling You <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>Now that the Liberals
You've got to get a new whipping boy. This one is wearing thin.
BTW, the college I attended was dominated by conservative Xtian
fundementalists, including the faculty.
And that had to be the most entertaining group of anti-intellectuals I
have ever seen.
Geo
Myco
TA>Skylos the Doggie wrote:
TA>>
TA>> the ROYster-Meister wrote:
TA>> >
TA>> > On Tue, 28 May 1996, Skylos the Doggie wrote:
TA>> >
TA>> > > Bill Douglass wrote:
TA>> > > >
TA>> > > > Dead wrong. The Bible was written through men who were inspired by t
TA>> > > > Spirit of God.
TA>> > >
TA>> > > In your faith it is.
TA>> > > but that's not a reality for many millions of people.
TA>> > >
TA>> > > making such absolute statements is bound to be wrong sooner or later.
TA>> > >
TA>> > Better be careful -- making such an absolute statement is bound
TA>> > to be wrong sooner or later.
TA>>
TA>> *grin*
TA>>
TA>> Let me qualify
TA>>
TA>> To quote somebody, i don't remember who
TA>>
TA>> All absolute statements are wrong, including this one.
TA>>
TA>> skylos
TA>test
And let's not forget that Jesus (if there ever was such a person)
preached the Old Testament, which if interpreted correctly had almost
nothing to say about homoseuality. The New Testament was written by
money grubbers an power hungry men who, in mosst cases, never knew
Jesus.
Myco
UE>g.com>
UE>MIME-Version: 1.0
UE>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
UE>The bible states Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. Try Gen. 19.
UE>And on ther other hand where does the Bible say take this (samensex)
UE>person for your lover, husband etc.
Of course God said that. He didn't want to get in trouble with the
higher powers.
/
Apuleius
"Dave G." <d...@rsvl.unisys.com> wrote to and
alt.politics.homosexuality:
== fal...@n-jcenter.com wrote:
== >
== > I'm just responding to the header of this post. It seems that you hit
== > on the right section of the Bible, at least the author, Paul.
== > Specifically in Romans Chapter 1 vs 26 thru 27, although it is my
== > interpretation that this is not a condemnation but I did infer that it
== > is against Gods will and design. From the Revised Standard Version "
== > For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their
== > women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise
== > gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion
== > for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving
== > in their own persons the due penelty for their error."
== > What do you think?
== In my opinion, Romans 1: 26-27 clearly identifies homosexuality as
== "sinful" without ever using the word "homosexual". Verse 24
== reads:
== "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their
== hearts to sinful impurity for the degrading of their bodies with
== one another."
== I think the sinfulness of homosexuality is quite clear.
Your problem is that you're taking this completely out of context.
You refer to verse 24, but you ignore verse 23.
Don't you know that "Therefore" means?
You have a poor translation that is pushing an "agenda" by
mistranslating the bible.
There's nothing in the original about "sinful" in verse 24. The New
American Bible, for example has "In consequence, God delivered them up
in their lusts to unclean practices...."
The original Greek, as given in the Interlinear Bible is
"Therefore also gave up them God in the lusts of the hearts of them to
uncleanness."
{Paul says that after reciting their idolatry, which is the reason God
gave them up to uncleanness.}
Your bible is simply a work of blasphemy, which has been falsely and
corruptly mistranslated in order to further the "agenda" of your
translator.
You'll never find salvation
In a false translation.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Romans referred to Jesus using "ECCE HOMO", not "ECCE HETERO"
Jesus Christ: first victim of homophobia
Jesus was crucified at the insistence of the world's worst homophobes.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Apuleius
Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> wrote to and
alt.politics.homosexuality:
== > Not that it matters. Your existence proves that Christianity
== > is false and Christ was evil, and it is his own words by which
== > the standard for demonstrating this is given. By their fruits,
== > ye shall know them. Christianity has brought forth an evil bigot
== > like you. Obviously it is poison, root and limb. It could
== > not be divinely inspired else it could not be subject to the
== > corruption you espouse.
== >
== I am consistently fascinated by the degree to which the gay lobby
== attempts to make its points be known by ad hominem arguments.
== "As the arguments grow weaker, the personal attacks grow stronger."
Your remark is equally "ad hominem" asserting that the poster belongs
to a "gay lobby", which is obviously meant to be pejorative. Why
didn't you call him a "militant" also?
Apuleius
Revolution Calling You <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote to and
alt.politics.homosexuality:
== >
== Todd, this is so true. Militant homosexual activists are the ones who
== are waging war on our culture. Then have stormed over the boundries we
== have set up as norms for are culture and then they wonder why they take
== the heat for it.
== shawn
You sound sooo much like a 1960s segregationist talking about "outside
agitators".
But then you're cut from the same cloth, aren't you.
Whassa matta? 'Fraid we'll cause your niggers to get uppity ideas?
==
Apuleius
Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> wrote to and
alt.politics.homosexuality:
== John, the battle over homosexual rights is not the same as the battle
== over civil rights.
It is very much the same. You don't realize how much like an old
redneck segregationist you sound. You simply have a different victim.
== Your comparison of us, who have sincerely held beliefs about what
== relationships should be legally sanctioned, essentially to a bigoted
== southernor who didn't believe that blacks deserved any civil rights and
== were inferior as individual people is, in a word, ridiculous and
== unworthy of further comment.
They quoted the bible to support segregation just as readily as you
quote it. You're a phony hypocrite.
== --
== "I Love Animals. They taste great!" - Me
== "Society has the obligation to not harm those who do not accept the
== prevailing moral beliefs. Society doesn't have the obligation to accept
== those moral beliefs that are contrary to those prevailing moral
== beliefs." - Me
== "I didn't inhale." - Bill Clinton
== "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use
== being a fool about it!" - W.C. Fields
== "Animals have rights, you know! They have the right to be my lunch!" -
== Me
Mike Best
In article <4p2ceh$j...@homer.alpha.net> eea...@mixcom.com (Apuleius) writes:
>Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> wrote to and
>alt.politics.homosexuality:
>
>== John, the battle over homosexual rights is not the same as the battle
>== over civil rights.
>
>It is very much the same. You don't realize how much like an old
>redneck segregationist you sound. You simply have a different victim.
Nothing you've quoted in any way warrants calling John a "redneck", are
you certain it isn't you who is the bigot?
Also, it is not clear that the basis for granting homosexual rights to
things such as marriage would not open the door to others who perhaps
want to have the right to polygamy and so on. If the basis is that one
is attracted to and loves another then what is it that then would be a
justifiable basis to prevent someone from marrying (who knows what)?
In a very real sense homosexuals already have equal rights, there is no
law that prevents a homosexual from marrying a member of the opposite sex.
What they are asking for are rights based upon behavior which is quite a
different thing than what african americans and others sought in the
civil rights movement and justly were recognized.
Mike Best
be...@anasazi.com
Dan Lyons
> In a very real sense homosexuals already have equal rights, there is no
> law that prevents a homosexual from marrying a member of the opposite sex.
> What they are asking for are rights based upon behavior which is quite a
> different thing than what african americans and others sought in the
> civil rights movement and justly were recognized.
No, we still don't have the right to marry the person we love, and accrue
the same legal benefits as somebody who happens to love somebody of the
opposite sex.
Suppose the government gave everybody the right to a free supply of
left-handed baseball gloves. Is that an equal right? It's great if you
wear a baseball glove on your left hand, but useless if you wear it on
your right hand.
My right to marry a member of the opposite sex is just as useless to me.
Suppose everybody had the right to free schooling if they became Southern
Baptist, married, had 6 kids, etc. etc. Equal?
Dan
David J. Saab
Mike Best wrote:
>
> Also, it is not clear that the basis for granting homosexual rights to
> things such as marriage would not open the door to others who perhaps
> want to have the right to polygamy and so on. If the basis is that one
> is attracted to and loves another then what is it that then would be a
> justifiable basis to prevent someone from marrying (who knows what)?
Since marriage is a contract, wouldn't it be necessary for the parties
(however many) to consent? Isn't consent the determining factor?
> What they are asking for are rights based upon behavior which is quite a
> different thing than what african americans and others sought in the
> civil rights movement and justly were recognized.
What behavior would that be? Can you be more specific about how what African
Americans sought was just while what gay people seek is not?
--
Safe journey,
David
djs...@shore.net
The difficulty with being thrust into a global village is that we do not yet
know how to live like villagers; there are too many of us who do not want to
live with "them."
Heather Downs
Mike Best wrote:
> Also, it is not clear that the basis for granting homosexual rights to
> things such as marriage would not open the door to others who perhaps
> want to have the right to polygamy and so on. If the basis is that one
> is attracted to and loves another then what is it that then would be a
> justifiable basis to prevent someone from marrying (who knows what)?
This slippery-slope argument is an old one and is not very compelling.
Prohibiting same-sex marriage is discrimination on the basis of sex, which
the government can't do without a good reason (a "substantial" government
interest). Prohibitions against polygamy, incest, etc., do not involve
discrimination on the basis of sex, so the government only needs a rational
basis to restrict marriages in those ways. The sky will not fall if the
government stops limiting rights based on sex.
> In a very real sense homosexuals already have equal rights, there is no
> law that prevents a homosexual from marrying a member of the opposite sex.
Do you think blacks had equal rights when there were laws banning
inter-racial marriages, since there were no laws preventing them from
marrying within their race?
> What they are asking for are rights based upon behavior which is quite a
> different thing than what african americans and others sought in the
> civil rights movement and justly were recognized.
How is a black man's attraction to a white woman any less a behavior than a
white woman's attraction to a white woman, especially since no one would
ever claim that an attraction to members of a given race is an
"orientation", whereas most people agree that attraction to members of a
given sex *is*?
--
Heather Downs
mailto:hea...@bungalow.com
http://www.bungalow.com/
Todd Andrews
John Sanger wrote a bunch of stuff, including the following self-aggrandizing, though somewhat true,
observation:
>
> Shawn, I would suggest that you educate yourself a bit better. Perhaps
> reading the entire post that Todd butchered might help. That is after
> you set aside your prejudice against your fellowman.
> It is individuals such as yourself that continue the spread of the
> ignorance and hate the your kind espouse.
hate hate hate. ho ho ho. Doesn't a good argument make.
> Oh, BTW there are no "norms" in society. Society is a dynamic entity.
> It is always changing.
And always trying to determine what is advantageous for society.
What you do not seem to understand is that
> homosexuals have always been a part of society. So much so that they
> often have been the leaders of the advances that society has made to
> propell it forward into the future. Homosexuals have frequently led the
> technological advances that society has made good use of. An example is
> the device that you use when you are using the usenet, you know, your
> computer. It is there infront of you because of what homosexuals did.
> Homosexuals have been great philosphers, great artists, great generals,
> great politicians, great scholars, great scientists and great in all
> other categories of endeavour that man has attempted.
And I'll agree with you here. But, as usual, it's irrelevant to societal determination as to what special
preferences homosexuals should receive.
> Life would not exist as it does today if it were not for the
> contributions of the homosexuals, both male and female.
>
This goes a bit too far.
Maybe, in John's mind, if he weren't here, society would be a horrible place to live.
What John may not realize is the amazing degree to which he is irrelevant, like anyone else. He has just not
come to grips with reality yet.
Maybe some day he will.
> --
> Ciao!
> John S. 8^{)>
> tedd...@netcom.com
> __
--
"I Love Animals. They taste great!" - Me
"Society has the obligation to not harm those who do not accept the prevailing moral beliefs. Society doesn't
have the obligation to accept those moral beliefs that are contrary to those prevailing moral beliefs." - Me
"I didn't inhale." - Bill Clinton
"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a fool about it!" - W.C. Fields
"Yes, I'm a member of the 'religious right.'" - Me
dion...@infinet.com
John A. Stanley (jsta...@gate.net) said:
}Does this mean all us queer folk are idolaters?
Yes, but only from 5am to 8pm. Once Pat Robertson's phone banks close, we
revert back to normal people.
--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key
And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...
__&__
/ \
| |
^^ (o)(o)
C ,---_)
| |,___| "I am Homer of Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance
| \__/ is futi... MMMmmm... doughnuts!"
/_____\
/_____/ \
Alan Miles
Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>
> What you do not seem to understand is that
>> homosexuals have always been a part of society. So much so that they
>> often have been the leaders of the advances that society has made to
>> propell it forward into the future. Homosexuals have frequently led the
>> technological advances that society has made good use of. An example is
>> the device that you use when you are using the usenet, you know, your
>> computer. It is there infront of you because of what homosexuals did.
>> Homosexuals have been great philosphers, great artists, great generals,
>> great politicians, great scholars, great scientists and great in all
>> other categories of endeavour that man has attempted.
>
>And I'll agree with you here. But, as usual, it's irrelevant to societal determination as to what special
>preferences homosexuals should receive.
>
Suppose:
There are gay people who lose their jobs simply because they are gay. Let's also suppose that their being gay has no bearing on the=
ir ability to perform those same jobs. (E.g. they don't work for a church that opposes homosexuality as a matter of policy).
Query: Is this moral?
Is this permissable conduct under our Constitution?
If it is, how are gay people to become productive citizens?
If this is unconstitutional, what measures should society take to ensure it doesn't happen?
The "special rights" argument ultimately boils down to an argument that gays don't face unique hardships. Therfore they don't need =
to be protected.
How can anyone read the posts here and reach this conclusion?
Alan Miles
John Sanger
In article <31B772...@deltanet.com> Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> writes:
>John Sanger wrote a bunch of stuff, including the following self-aggrandizing, though somewhat true,
Sorry Toddie, but I did not say a thing about myself in this post.
You are once again lying to this newsgroup.
>observation:
>
>>
>> Shawn, I would suggest that you educate yourself a bit better. Perhaps
>> reading the entire post that Todd butchered might help. That is after
>> you set aside your prejudice against your fellowman.
>> It is individuals such as yourself that continue the spread of the
>> ignorance and hate the your kind espouse.
>
>hate hate hate. ho ho ho. Doesn't a good argument make.
>
You should know as none of your socalled argument has anything in it but
your hate of your fellowman.
>
>
>> Oh, BTW there are no "norms" in society. Society is a dynamic entity.
>> It is always changing.
>
>And always trying to determine what is advantageous for society.
>
>
> What you do not seem to understand is that
>> homosexuals have always been a part of society. So much so that they
>> often have been the leaders of the advances that society has made to
>> propell it forward into the future. Homosexuals have frequently led the
>> technological advances that society has made good use of. An example is
>> the device that you use when you are using the usenet, you know, your
>> computer. It is there infront of you because of what homosexuals did.
>> Homosexuals have been great philosphers, great artists, great generals,
>> great politicians, great scholars, great scientists and great in all
>> other categories of endeavour that man has attempted.
>
>And I'll agree with you here. But, as usual, it's irrelevant to societal determination as to what special
>preferences homosexuals should receive.
>
Well, Toddie you still do not understand that the Homosexual does not
seek "special preferances" but only equal application of the laws and
equal treatment in all aspects of society. They are your equal you know
or in your special case the Homosexual is superior to you. The
Homosexual has intelligence and you do not seem to be demonstrating any.
>
>
>> Life would not exist as it does today if it were not for the
>> contributions of the homosexuals, both male and female.
>>
>
>This goes a bit too far.
>
Oh, really, then it is you who needs to check who it is that made what
you use in your daily life.
>Maybe, in John's mind, if he weren't here, society would be a horrible place to live.
>
I have never said anything of that sort at all.
It is you who has stated how important your opinion is to the world. I
only point out that your opinion is just your opinion and not argument
for anything except how ignorant you look when you do not understand
what it is that you are told regarding your attempt to force your
opinion upon the world.
>What John may not realize is the amazing degree to which he is irrelevant, like anyone else. He has just not
>come to grips with reality yet.
>
Toddie, it is you who is really not looking at the world but have your
eyes closed or clogged with the shit from having your head up your
minister's arse. You do not seem to understand that your opinions are
filled with bogus concepts and you do not want to learn from your
mistakes. You continue to try and force your opinion upon the world
after they have been soundly put down. It is you who is not facing
reality. The reality of how irrelevant your opinion really is to
mankind.
>Maybe some day he will.
>
Maybe some day you will pull your head out of your minister's arse.
Remember it is by your own words that you show the entire world that you
are a bigot, jerk, closed-minded idiot.
Paul S. Person
tedd...@netcom.com (John Sanger) wrote:
<stuff related to the thread cut. sorry 'bout that>
>Also you must realise that your illustrious leader paul is corrupting
>the teaching of your carpenter whom he never met. The mythology you
>call xian is in reality the result of the warpped mind of that person
>paul. He was afraid of his own attraction to his fellow man and he was
>against anyone ever having sexual relations with anyone. He was a
>taxcollector and had a taxcollectors mind, which are all greedy little
>minds at best. Your carpenter never called the mythology he was
>founding as xian. It is from paul that you hear that expression in his
>effort to destroy the teaching and to corrupt the purpose of the
>carpenter. One could almost say paul was evil incarnate.
>And what you follow today is the mythology according to paul not
>according to your carpenter.
This was a very popular theory back in the 60s. It even made it into
Kazantzaki's _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_, both book and (as a
result) much-later movie, which may show that it is even older than
that.
If you really believe you know what Jesus, as opposed to Paul or the
early Church, was saying, I suggest you contact an effort I believe is
called The Jesus Seminar, as they would doubtless value your input!
Apuleius
tcam...@tir.com (Tim Campbell) wrote to and
alt.politics.homosexuality:
== To add some supporting info to your statement. If you do go read Genesis,
== you'll notice that God makes the observation that Adam is alone and that
== this is not good. So God decides to make a COMPANION (so that Adam will
== not be alone). At not point does God say "gee, I better make Eve so that
== Adam can procreate". There's nothing wrong with being heterosexual or
== procreating (although I admit to hoping *some* people wont procreate ;-) )
== but as you say, some christians think this is just so profound.
An excellent point. The FIRST purpose of "marriage" is companionship,
not procreation.
But there's more.
Eve was made from Adam. Adam was a male. Is not Eve then a male, being
made from the rib of a male?
The first couple were indeed homosexual.
== I am gay and I have a partner. Some "Christians" have actually conceded
== that homosexuals are born that way and as such, shouldn't get married to
== a partner of the opposite sex because they wouldn't do it for love (which
== they presume to be the "right and noble" reason.) so they we should just
== be single so we don't "sin". Being alone and signle is precisely what God
== decided (in Genesis) was "not good".
== ----------------------------------------------------
== Timothy S. Campbell - tcam...@tir.com
== "Very funny Scotty... Now beam down my clothes."
== ----------------------------------------------------
Apuleius
johngr19 <john...@mail.idt.net> wrote to and
alt.politics.homosexuality:
== Having studied Latin for years.... the phrase Ecce Homo means "Behold
== the man" (Homo in Latin means "man", Homo in Greek means "same"). The
== terms HOMOgenous, HOMOsexual, etc... all mean SAME-<something> based on
== the Greek prefix, while terms like Homoerectus, Homosapiens etc.. are
== Latin derived and used to classify the species of Man.
== Ecce homo "Behold the MAN" was said by Pilate to imply Christ was
== completely mortal, rather than saying Ecce Deo, "Behold the God".
== See the difference.
Nonsense. Pilate didn't intend any such thing. You're misreading
arcane christian theology into this.
Pilate scourged Jesus, put a crown of thorns on him, and then showed
him to the crowd saying "Here the man is."
The New American Bible renders it "Look at the man."
Read the preceding verses, like verse 4, where Pilate says "Observe
what I do. I am going to bring him out to you to make you realize that
I find no case [against him]."
There's no nonsense about saying "ecce homo" because he didn't want to
say "ecce deo."
== I wish this Christian debate over homosexuality was less hostile toward
== Christians/-ity... there are gay Christians in this world.
Todd Andrews
Alan Miles wrote:
> >
> I know this is a tired old question, but what special preferences do you refer to?
>
> Suppose:
>
> There are gay people who lose their jobs simply because they are gay. Let's also suppose that their being gay has no bearing on their ability to perform those
>
> Query: Is this moral?
Nope.
>
> Is this permissable conduct under our Constitution?
>
Nope.
> If it is, how are gay people to become productive citizens?
>
> If this is unconstitutional, what measures should society take to ensure it doesn't happen?
>
> The "special rights" argument ultimately boils down to an argument that gays don't face unique hardships. Therfore they don't need to be protected.
>
It boils down to the fact, I believe, that gays are already protected from any unique hardships by the same
laws that I am protected by.
If someone beats up on a person simply because they're gay, they're going to go to jail for assault and
battery. If someone beats upon on me because I'm tall, they're going to go to jail for assault and battery.
If someone fires me for a reason I disagree with, I can sue them for unfair termination.
If someone fires a gay person simply because he's gay, he can be sued for unfair termination. Plus, he's
plain old stupid, because if he can do the job it's to the employer's advantage.
Todd Andrews
Andrew Hall wrote:
>
> >>>>> Todd Andrews writes:
>
> Todd> And I'll agree with you here. But, as usual, it's irrelevant to societal determination as to what special
> Todd> preferences homosexuals should receive.
>
> Could you name a single "special" preference that the mainstream
> gay rights movement is asking for? Just one?
Here's three:
1) The right to marry someone outside the traditional form of marriage.
2) Special "gay bashing" laws with special penalties on an idiot who
bashes someone simply because he bashed the person because he was gay.
The idiot should simply be put in jail because he beat on somebody.
3) Specific laws stating that discrimination on the basis of "sexual
orientation" is wrong. If you get a law for that, I want a law that
states that discrimination on the basis of my height is wrong. Both
cases of discrimination are already covered by general law - asking for
a specific law is indeed request for special privileges.
>
> ah
Lars Eighner
In our last episode <31BB4D...@deltanet.com>,
Broadcast on alt.homosexual,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.men,soc.women,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.mens-rights,soc.motss,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.sex,alt.christnet.second-coming.real-soon-now,alt.atheism
The lovely and talented Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>Andrew Hall wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Todd Andrews writes:
>>
>> Todd> And I'll agree with you here. But, as usual, it's irrelevant to societal determination as to what special
>> Todd> preferences homosexuals should receive.
>>
>> Could you name a single "special" preference that the mainstream
>> gay rights movement is asking for? Just one?
>
>Here's three:
>
>1) The right to marry someone outside the traditional form of marriage.
This is not a special right. Removing gender discrimination from
civil marriage would not be a special right of gay people.
A nongay person could choose to marry someone of the same sex.
>2) Special "gay bashing" laws with special penalties on an idiot who
>bashes someone simply because he bashed the person because he was gay.
>The idiot should simply be put in jail because he beat on somebody.
This is not a special protection of gay people. As plainclothes
Los Angeles police officers discovered recently, gay bashers will
attack any two men walking together even if the men are doing nothing
to indicate any special affection between them.
None of the anti-gay-bashing laws depend upon the sexuality of
the victim. They protect straight people from gay-bashing as
much as they protect gays from gay-bashing.
Very many laws consider as aggravating factors the state of mind
of the criminal. There is nothing unusual or special about defining
a conspiracy to bash people because of their perceived sexuality as
an aggravating factor in assault or as a crime in itself.
>3) Specific laws stating that discrimination on the basis of "sexual
>orientation" is wrong. If you get a law for that, I want a law that
>states that discrimination on the basis of my height is wrong. Both
>cases of discrimination are already covered by general law - asking for
>a specific law is indeed request for special privileges.
These laws do not specially protect gays. People who are denied
public accommodations or who otherwise discriminated against because
they are perceived as gay are protected by such laws whether they
are in fact gay or not. Two heterosexual males who wanted to rent
an apartment together (perhaps for economic reasons) would be protected
from being discriminated against because of the perception that they
were gay just as much as a gay male couple. In other words, the
crime of discrimination does not depend up the accuracy of the
criminal in applying his or her discriminatory practices. Such
laws protect heterosexuals as much as homosexuals. Such laws
would protect you in your job if someone started a rumor that
you were gay.
If you can produce nearly so much evidence that tall people have
historically been discriminated against then you certainly would
be justified in asking legislatures to protect you. Such
ordinances or laws are seldom enacted without a great
quantity of evidence of discrimination being placed on the record.
The particular laws are passed because there is a particular
history of discrimination, a pattern that can be and is
demonstrated with evidence of past abuses.
--
=Lars Eighner===4103 Ave D (512)459-6693==Pawn to Queen Four==QSFx2==BMOC==
=eig...@io.com=Austin TX 78751-4617 ==Travels with Lizbeth==Bayou Boy==
= http://www.io.com/~eighner/ =====American Prelude==Gay Cosmos==
="Yes, Lizbeth is well."=======Whispered in the Dark==Elements of Arousal==
G. Harrow
Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>Here's three:
>1) The right to marry someone outside the traditional form of marriage.
If the basis for claiming that this is a "special right" (and
therefore shouldn't be "granted") is on the concept that it falls
"outside the traditional form of marriage", then by definition of what
fell "outside the traditional form of marriage" in Virginia in 1967, a
black man asking to legally be able to marry somebody white was asking
for a "special right").
>2) Special "gay bashing" laws with special penalties on an idiot who
>bashes someone simply because he bashed the person because he was gay.
>The idiot should simply be put in jail because he beat on somebody.
If you mean that gays are asking that there be "special" gay bashing
laws independent of pre-existing hate-crime laws, you are 100%
correct, and this should be denied.
If, though, gays are actually asking that hate-crime laws be applied
equally to gay-bashing as they are to, say, racially-motivated acts of
violence, then you are incorrect; the request for the application of
the law to apply equally to one group as another is NOT equivalent
(legally OR logically) to the request for "special rights"--in fact,
the 14th Amendment (as I've stated in SEVERAL other posts where it
applies) guarantees the former request.
Hmm...I have personally made no opinion, one way or another, on the
constitutionality of "hate crimes." But if hate crimes are in fact
permissible under the Constitution, then the crime given in your above
example would fall under the definition of a hate crime, and
additional penalties can apply. Remember, though, that the 14th
Amendment would force the application of "hate crimes" equally upon
all citizens. But what I gather of hate crimes, though, is that it is
the plaintiff's responsibility (because the defendant is innocent
until PROVEN guilty) to prove that the crime was motivated by hate.
Sometimes it's self-evident, sometimes it's confessed, and sometimes
it's completely inferred by the plaintiff.
>3) Specific laws stating that discrimination on the basis of "sexual
>orientation" is wrong. If you get a law for that, I want a law that
>states that discrimination on the basis of my height is wrong. Both
>cases of discrimination are already covered by general law - asking for
>a specific law is indeed request for special privileges.
See my explanation in #2 above.
If gays are asking for specific laws be crafted to protect against
discrimination, then you would be correct, IF there are laws already
in existence which do that job.
CURRENTLY THERE ARE NONE. (Proof? It is perfectly legal to fire
somebody based SOLELY on sexual orientation, in all 50 states.)
The 14th Amendment has yet to be applied to homosexual discrimination;
when and if it does, then your statement will be wholly correct.
Until (or if never) it does, then it is perfectly legitmate, legally,
to craft or expand laws to protect against homosexual discrimination,
which would most sensibly be done under the umbrella of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act.
>>
>> ah
>--
>"I Love Animals. They taste great!" - Me
>"Society has the obligation to not harm those who do not accept the
>prevailing moral beliefs. Society doesn't have the obligation to accept
>those moral beliefs that are contrary to those prevailing moral
>beliefs." - Me
>"I didn't inhale." - Bill Clinton
>"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use
>being a fool about it!" - W.C. Fields
>"Yes, I'm a member of the 'religious right.'" - Me
f
--
Dana A. Fillhart | Wherever you will go, I will go
gha...@dmv.com | Wherever you will turn I will follow so
http://www.dmv.com/~gharrow/gharrow.html | Take me to the Land of Youth
http://www.dmv.com/~gharrow/Mundane.HTML | --Maire, "Tir na nOg"
Ward Stewart
Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>Andrew Hall wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Todd Andrews writes:
>>
>> Todd> And I'll agree with you here. But, as usual, it's irrelevant to societal determination as to what special
>> Todd> preferences homosexuals should receive.
>>
>> Could you name a single "special" preference that the mainstream
>> gay rights movement is asking for? Just one?
>Here's three:
>1) The right to marry someone outside the traditional form of marriage.
First, the "traditional form of marriage" has been changing and is
continuing to change on an hourly basis. -- the word obey has been
dropped in recent years and we will soon see the termination of the
peculiar business of the father "giving" his daughter .. no one
"gives" the groom, HE is not property to be given, SHE is.
Perhaps the one certain constant in social institutions, the ONE
unchanging freature is CHANGE.
>2) Special "gay bashing" laws with special penalties on an idiot who
>bashes someone simply because he bashed the person because he was gay.
>The idiot should simply be put in jail because he beat on somebody.
These protections, which are supposedly availabel to all are simply
not adequte. did not help Rodney KIng.
>3) Specific laws stating that discrimination on the basis of "sexual
>orientation" is wrong. If you get a law for that, I want a law that
>states that discrimination on the basis of my height is wrong. Both
>cases of discrimination are already covered by general law - asking for
>a specific law is indeed request for special privileges.
If you can demonstrate thet you have been damaged or discriminated
against by reason of your height I, for one, would cheerfully support
such legislation.
ward
Bob Donahue
Todd Andrews wrote:
> If someone fires a gay person simply because he's gay,
> he can be sued for unfair termination.
But he wouldn't lose in 41 states, because it's
completely legal to fire someone solely on their perceived
orientation (please remember that heterosexuality is an
orientation).
> Plus, he's
> plain old stupid, because if he can do the job it's to the employer's advantage.
Well, most of the time. I have no problem with
equal opportunity laws inclusive of orientation (remember
that heterosexuality is an orientation) that also give
exemptions for things like Fundamentalist churches, etc.
However, in the secular mainstream, equal is supposed
to mean equal.
Mr. Andrews' list of so-called special rights falls
on its face because extending them to non-heterosexuals in
no way denies heterosexuals from access to them.
Civil marriage (note: not religious marriage) will
in no way be harmed by including same sex couples.
The compiling of hate crime statistics with categories
related to orientation does include the possibility of
heterosexuality-motivated hate crimes (although I've never
heard of bunch of gay teens going out straight-bashing).
Equal opportunity laws inclusive of orientation also
(gasp) protect heterosexuals from being fired on the basis
of their (heterosexual) orientation.
The fact of the matter is, there are no "special" rights
in the gay rights platform. What they do tend to remove is the
status of "special" rights for heterosexuals.
It's all very simple, really.
Newsgroups trimmed - followups set. This thread does
violate the soc.motss charter and shouldn't be returned there.
Bob
John Sanger
In article <31BB4C...@deltanet.com> Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> writes:
>Alan Miles wrote:
>
>> >
>> I know this is a tired old question, but what special preferences do you refer to?
>>
>> Suppose:
>>
>> There are gay people who lose their jobs simply because they are gay. Let's also suppose that their being gay has no bearing on their ability to perform those
>>
>> Query: Is this moral?
>
>Nope.
>
>>
>> Is this permissable conduct under our Constitution?
>>
>
>Nope.
>
>> If it is, how are gay people to become productive citizens?
>>
>> If this is unconstitutional, what measures should society take to ensure it doesn't happen?
>>
>> The "special rights" argument ultimately boils down to an argument that gays don't face unique hardships. Therfore they don't need to be protected.
>>
>
>It boils down to the fact, I believe, that gays are already protected from any unique hardships by the same
>laws that I am protected by.
>
>If someone beats up on a person simply because they're gay, they're going to go to jail for assault and
>battery. If someone beats upon on me because I'm tall, they're going to go to jail for assault and battery.
>
>If someone fires me for a reason I disagree with, I can sue them for unfair termination.
>
>
Toddie, is finally accepting the US Supreme Court making CO2
unconstitutional.
Toddie must have gone down to his local gay bar and found somebody who
provided him with a few minutes of pleasure.
He seems to have gotten an education on this issue of CO2.
John Sanger
In article <31BB4D...@deltanet.com> Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> writes:
>Andrew Hall wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Todd Andrews writes:
>>
>> Todd> And I'll agree with you here. But, as usual, it's irrelevant to societal determination as to what special
>> Todd> preferences homosexuals should receive.
>>
>> Could you name a single "special" preference that the mainstream
>> gay rights movement is asking for? Just one?
>
>Here's three:
>
>1) The right to marry someone outside the traditional form of marriage.
>
Sorry, Toddie, but gays are only asking that the same rules for
heterosexual marriages be applied to samesex marriages. That is not
asking for a change in the "form" of the marriage. The same civil
marriage would apply to all couples.
>2) Special "gay bashing" laws with special penalties on an idiot who
>bashes someone simply because he bashed the person because he was gay.
>The idiot should simply be put in jail because he beat on somebody.
>
Just as certain crimes do have more severe penalties than others this is
only right and proper and is often already in the laws that are now on
the books about violence regarding discrimination.
>3) Specific laws stating that discrimination on the basis of "sexual
>orientation" is wrong. If you get a law for that, I want a law that
>states that discrimination on the basis of my height is wrong. Both
>cases of discrimination are already covered by general law - asking for
>a specific law is indeed request for special privileges.
>
Then get your lobby together and go for it. Nothing is stopping you
except perhaps for your own lack of "balls" to do this.
Remember it is by your own words that you show the entire world that you
are a bigot, jerk, closed-minded idiot.
--
alo...@mail.netvision.net.il
In Article<4palic$f...@uhura.phoenix.net>, <fl...@phoenix.net> writes:
> Path: news.NetVision.net.il!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!EU.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp.earthlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-3.sprintlink.net!gryphon.phoenix.net!uhura.phoenix.net!usenet
> From: fl...@phoenix.net (Flyer)
> Newsgroups: alt.sex.bestiality,alt.censorship,alt.homosexual,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex,alt.sex.services,alt.sex.brothels,soc.men,soc.women,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.mens-rights,ne.motss,soc.motss,soc.culture.israel,comp.org.eff.talk,talk.rumors,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet,alt.chri
stnet.sex,alt.christnet.second-coming.real-soon-now,alt.atheism
> Subject: Re: Where does which Bible condem Homosexuality?
> Date: 8 Jun 1996 01:38:20 GMT
> Organization: Phoenix Data Net (713) 486-8337 http://www.phoenix.net
> Lines: 39
> Distribution: inet
> Message-ID: <4palic$f...@uhura.phoenix.net>
> References: <3199cedc...@news.zoomnet.net> <4nj6fo$3...@news2.nkn.net> <31a5144d....@news.ezo.net> <teddyburD...@netcom.com> <4oa3br$l...@ddi2.digital.net> <31b47...@news.sisna.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: dial169.phoenix.net
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.5
> Xref: news.NetVision.net.il alt.sex.bestiality:6853 alt.censorship:26611 alt.homosexual:13352 alt.politics.homosexuality:15528 alt.sex:34510 alt.sex.services:8793 alt.sex.brothels:4626 soc.men:26494 soc.women:15922 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:62987 alt.mens-rights:7608 soc.motss:28706 soc.culture.isra
el:14642 comp.org.eff.talk:8894 talk.rumors:3303 alt.christnet.bible:14282 alt.christnet:34142 alt.christnet.sex:5330 alt.christnet.second-coming.real-soon-now:5868 alt.atheism:36137
>
> Everyone try reading the last half of the first chapter of Romans. It's
> self-explanatory. Homosexuals are in the same category as drunkards, thieves,
> liars, adulterers, murdereres, you get the idea.
>
>
> In article <31b47...@news.sisna.com>, sp...@sisna.com says...
> >
> >kda...@digital.net (Kevin Davis) wrote:
> >
> >>tedd...@netcom.com (John Sanger) wrote:
> >
> >>>Sorry, Steve, but you are speaking of badly mistranslated version of
> >>>your book of mythos. The original text does not even mention
> >>>homosexuality. It cannot, the word was not created until 1869.
> >
> >>This is the one of the most stupidest arguments I've seen to date.
> >>Did homosexuality as a behavior exist before 1869? My best guess is
> >>that it did, therefore regardless if the specific word "homosexual"
> >>was literally in it (which I also suspect that it wasn't since most of
> >>the scriptures were written in Hebrew, greek, and or Aramaic) this
> >>does not mean that this particular activity can't be suffciently
> >>described.
> >
> >
> >I agree to the above post.
> >But I would also like to add that it dose't say anything about
> >"HOMOSEXUALITY" but it does say that any Man who lays down with
> >another man shall burn in the fires of hell for all eternity. I'd say
> >thats a pretty good discription. Do you agree? It also says the same
> >thing about women who lay down with women will also meet the same
> >fate.
> >
> >
> >FUCK YOURSELF
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Kevin R. Davis
In article <teddyburD...@netcom.com>, tedd...@netcom.com says...
> >2) Special "gay bashing" laws with special penalties on an idiot who
> >bashes someone simply because he bashed the person because he was gay.
> >The idiot should simply be put in jail because he beat on somebody.
> >
>
> Just as certain crimes do have more severe penalties than others this is
> only right and proper and is often already in the laws that are now on
> the books about violence regarding discrimination.
This is a ridiculous concept. Firstly it is asking the Judge and jury to
determine what was in a man's heart when taking an action. Secondly and most
ridiculously, it is saying that it is more wrong for a person to beat up a gay
person rather than to beat up a person who is a hippie, a short persoon, a
"redneck", a hippie, a democrat, a republican, or a Bulls fan (the list could
go on an on). All of the above actions concern an act of hatred. None are
worse than the others.
--
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Golf Tip: Don't pick up a lost ball until it stops rolling |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Kevin Davis "Hoser" | email - kda...@digital.net |
| | Home Page - http://ddi.digital.net/~kdavis |
| Standard Disclaimer | (Win95 Tips, sound bites, and more!) |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
Kevin R. Davis
In article <4pgito$a...@ns1.dmv.com>, gha...@dmv.com says...
> >2) Special "gay bashing" laws with special penalties on an idiot who
> >bashes someone simply because he bashed the person because he was gay.
> >The idiot should simply be put in jail because he beat on somebody.
>
> laws independent of pre-existing hate-crime laws, you are 100%
> correct, and this should be denied.
> If, though, gays are actually asking that hate-crime laws be applied
> equally to gay-bashing as they are to, say, racially-motivated acts of
> violence, then you are incorrect; the request for the application of
> the law to apply equally to one group as another is NOT equivalent
> (legally OR logically) to the request for "special rights"--in fact,
> the 14th Amendment (as I've stated in SEVERAL other posts where it
> applies) guarantees the former request.
>
> Hmm...I have personally made no opinion, one way or another, on the
> constitutionality of "hate crimes." But if hate crimes are in fact
> permissible under the Constitution, then the crime given in your above
> example would fall under the definition of a hate crime, and
> additional penalties can apply. Remember, though, that the 14th
> Amendment would force the application of "hate crimes" equally upon
> all citizens. But what I gather of hate crimes, though, is that it is
> the plaintiff's responsibility (because the defendant is innocent
> until PROVEN guilty) to prove that the crime was motivated by hate.
> Sometimes it's self-evident, sometimes it's confessed, and sometimes
> it's completely inferred by the plaintiff.
Hate crimes are a ridiculous concept. What group would not qualify for being
a victim of a hate crime?
If no groups don't qualify then logically the definition of the "hate crime"
boils down to simple "crime".
Jack B. Nimble
For you, dear Heather, I'd do it with a hug.
This excellent argument deserves a reprise, as I've yet to see a
retraction of any sort from Mr. Best (who really isn't).
---
Heather Downs (hea...@bungalow.com) wrote:
: Mike Best wrote:
: > Also, it is not clear that the basis for granting homosexual rights to
: > things such as marriage would not open the door to others who perhaps
: > want to have the right to polygamy and so on. If the basis is that one
: > is attracted to and loves another then what is it that then would be a
: > justifiable basis to prevent someone from marrying (who knows what)?
: This slippery-slope argument is an old one and is not very compelling.
: Prohibiting same-sex marriage is discrimination on the basis of sex, which
: the government can't do without a good reason (a "substantial" government
: interest). Prohibitions against polygamy, incest, etc., do not involve
: discrimination on the basis of sex, so the government only needs a rational
: basis to restrict marriages in those ways. The sky will not fall if the
: government stops limiting rights based on sex.
:
: > In a very real sense homosexuals already have equal rights, there is no
: > law that prevents a homosexual from marrying a member of the opposite sex.
: Do you think blacks had equal rights when there were laws banning
: inter-racial marriages, since there were no laws preventing them from
: marrying within their race?
: > What they are asking for are rights based upon behavior which is quite a
: > different thing than what african americans and others sought in the
: > civil rights movement and justly were recognized.
: How is a black man's attraction to a white woman any less a behavior than a
: white woman's attraction to a white woman, especially since no one would
: ever claim that an attraction to members of a given race is an
: "orientation", whereas most people agree that attraction to members of a
: given sex *is*?
: --
: Heather Downs
: mailto:hea...@bungalow.com
: http://www.bungalow.com/
--
Jack B. Nimble
ObRevelation: My real name is Jack Newsbaum, but I prefer to be called
Jack B. Nimble, not out of any dark motive, but simply because I like it.
Todd Andrews
G. Harrow wrote:
[big chunk of info snipped]
> If gays are asking for specific laws be crafted to protect against
> discrimination, then you would be correct, IF there are laws already
> in existence which do that job.
> CURRENTLY THERE ARE NONE. (Proof? It is perfectly legal to fire
> somebody based SOLELY on sexual orientation, in all 50 states.)
Is there a law that says this is illegal? No. Is there a law that says
it's illegal to fire me because I'm tall? No.
But all such acts are actionable as a civil case for unfair termination.
[more info snipped]
DK
alo...@mail.netvision.net.il wrote:
>> Everyone try reading the last half of the first chapter of Romans. It's
>> self-explanatory. Homosexuals are in the same category as drunkards, thieves,
>> liars, adulterers, murdereres, you get the idea.
all you Christians that are mixing meat and milk you are "unclean".
If you lay with the wife of your father even if she is not your mother
and even if he is dead and gone, you are unclean because you are in a
way laying with your father. You can't have a mule because you are
mixing animals. You can't graft a different species onto a tree or
mix the plants in your field. You better start thinking of the food
and ornamental plants you have to give up. More no-nos along with
mixing wool and linen. Men, you have to marry a virgin of your
people and if you don't she shall be put to death. Women be prepared
for the fire.
It always amuses me or saddens me on what people pick and choose from
the Torah to follow or discard. Some make only sense. If a son speaks
badly of his parents, even if they are dead he shall be stoned to
death. Others are only self serving to allow subjugating or hating
other people. Mormans claim blacks are not good enough to get into
their higher level of heaven because "they have the mark of Cain".
One line of text is spent on male homosexuality. A man shall not lay
down with a man as he would a woman. With this much misery is made.
How un Christ like. DK
>>
>> In article <31b47...@news.sisna.com>, sp...@sisna.com says...
>> >
>> >kda...@digital.net (Kevin Davis) wrote:
>> >
>> >>tedd...@netcom.com (John Sanger) wrote:
>> >
>> >I agree to the above post.
>> >But I would also like to add that it dose't say anything about
>> >"HOMOSEXUALITY" but it does say that any Man who lays down with
>> >another man shall burn in the fires of hell for all eternity.
NO it doesn't fool! Jews don't have a hell. That is a latter day
Christian fantasy.
>I'd say
>> >thats a pretty good discription. Do you agree? It also says the same
>> >thing about women who lay down with women will also meet the same
>> >fate.
Again folks, the line is "You shall not lie with a man as one lies
with a woman, it is an abomination." Keep in mind that these are
translations. In the same text Disgrace is use the same as Kindness
when the discussion of men laying with their sisters is being
discussed. Cain and Abel lay with their sisters because of ~god~'s
kindness (disgrace). Same word in Hebrew.
>> >
Ray Todd Sevens
In article <4pod06$8...@abel.cc.sunysb.edu> dk...@psych1.psy.sunysb.edu (DK) writes:
>From: dk...@psych1.psy.sunysb.edu (DK)
>Subject: Re: Where does which Bible condem Homosexuality?
>alo...@mail.netvision.net.il wrote:
>>> Everyone try reading the last half of the first chapter of Romans. It's
>>> self-explanatory. Homosexuals are in the same category as drunkards, thieves,
>>> liars, adulterers, murdereres, you get the idea.
>
> In Leviticus a great deal is written about what you cannot mix. For
>all you Christians that are mixing meat and milk you are "unclean".
Try again this is an adaption of what is written in the Bible. You really
need to read the Bible not some nut's comments on it.
>If you lay with the wife of your father even if she is not your mother
>and even if he is dead and gone, you are unclean because you are in a
>way laying with your father.
This certainly would have some good practical application.
> You can't have a mule because you are
>mixing animals.
So what ?????
> You can't graft a different species onto a tree or
>mix the plants in your field.
Good idea.
> You better start thinking of the food
>and ornamental plants you have to give up. More no-nos along with
>mixing wool and linen.
You have major problems with this.
> Men, you have to marry a virgin of your
>people and if you don't she shall be put to death. Women be prepared
>for the fire.
Again stop reading what some nut wrote.
>It always amuses me or saddens me on what people pick and choose from
>the Torah to follow or discard. Some make only sense. If a son speaks
>badly of his parents, even if they are dead he shall be stoned to
>death.
This might solve alot of our problems with our youth ;-)
> Others are only self serving to allow subjugating or hating
>other people. Mormans claim blacks are not good enough to get into
>their higher level of heaven because "they have the mark of Cain".
Do understand that Mormons are not Christians. They actually have more in
common with both Budists and Islam than the do with Christianity.
>One line of text is spent on male homosexuality. A man shall not lay
>down with a man as he would a woman. With this much misery is made.
>How un Christ like. DK
Actually this is mentioned many places.
Apuleius
Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> wrote to and
alt.politics.homosexuality:
== >
== > The "special rights" argument ultimately boils down to an argument that gays don't face unique hardships. Therfore they don't need to be protected.
== >
== It boils down to the fact, I believe, that gays are already protected from any unique hardships by the same
== laws that I am protected by.
== If someone beats up on a person simply because they're gay, they're going to go to jail for assault and
== battery. If someone beats upon on me because I'm tall, they're going to go to jail for assault and battery.
We've recently see a number of new federal laws that give special
protection to churches.
You can conduct certain types of demonstrations outside or inside
General Motors or Walt Disney and you're ok. But do the same thing
outside or inside a church, and you're breaking this new federal law.
Do you then think it wrong that churches now have "special rights"?
Apuleius
wste...@hi.net (Ward Stewart) wrote to and
alt.politics.homosexuality:
== >3) Specific laws stating that discrimination on the basis of "sexual
== >orientation" is wrong. If you get a law for that, I want a law that
== >states that discrimination on the basis of my height is wrong. Both
== >cases of discrimination are already covered by general law - asking for
== >a specific law is indeed request for special privileges.
== If you can demonstrate thet you have been damaged or discriminated
== against by reason of your height I, for one, would cheerfully support
== such legislation.
== ward
Well, the height, weight business is all baloney. It's perfectly legal
to discriminate in many cases. The government, for example, does it
all the time by setting height and weight restrictions for the
military, to name just one case.
The rationale is that the job requires certain limits, but whose to
say those aren't arbitrary. a midget can still do typing as an army
clerk.
G. Harrow
kda...@digital.net (Kevin R. Davis) wrote:
>In article <teddyburD...@netcom.com>, tedd...@netcom.com says...
>> >2) Special "gay bashing" laws with special penalties on an idiot who
>> >bashes someone simply because he bashed the person because he was gay.
>> >The idiot should simply be put in jail because he beat on somebody.
>> >
>>
>> Just as certain crimes do have more severe penalties than others this is
>> only right and proper and is often already in the laws that are now on
>> the books about violence regarding discrimination.
>This is a ridiculous concept. Firstly it is asking the Judge and jury to
>determine what was in a man's heart when taking an action. Secondly and most
>ridiculously, it is saying that it is more wrong for a person to beat up a gay
>person rather than to beat up a person who is a hippie, a short persoon, a
>"redneck", a hippie, a democrat, a republican, or a Bulls fan (the list could
>go on an on). All of the above actions concern an act of hatred. None are
>worse than the others.
Actually, it wasn't the different *type* of discrimination which was
replied to by tedd...@netcom.com, it was extra punishment for
discrimination, period.
How can we determine this, you ask? It isn't always easy, certaintly,
but it should follow the same kind of laws we already have on
murder--first, second, and third degree. Remember, it's not extra
punishment between one type of discriminatory crime and another
(gay-bashing vs. Christian-bashing), it's extra punishment between
discriminatory and non-discriminatory crime (Christian-bashing vs.
aggravated assault).
For example, a person who steals a loaf of bread from a store is going
to get less time (well, at least in legal theory, anyway) than
somebody who steals a car--unless, of course, it is shown that the guy
who stole the car did it to, say, save somebody from dying by getting
him to a hospital fast, while the guy who stole the bread was shown to
do it for the thrill of stealing.
What is the point I am making? It is that there isn't a uniform
punishment decided for a specific crime--reasons why the crime are
done *must* be considered in determining the punishment, or severe
misjustice can occur to those who do not deserve it (while
inappropriately lenient punishment can go to those who "deserve
more"). This is precisely why, I think, mandantory sentencing for
anything is wrong; there can be overriding circumstances (and
oftentimes in drug cases, there *are*) which would call for a
reduction in (or total removal of) jail time...this undermines the
authority of judges in general, by restricting their powers given to
them by the Constitution and state constitutions.
And the concept of hate crimes laws, while its true Constutitional
standing I am not certain, I happen to agree with, so long as they
aren't mandatory. You show the reason behind a murderer's actions as
premeditated, and he'll be punished under second or first degree
murder, which have more severe penalties than third degree or
manslaughter. You show the reason behind a beating as discriminatory
(based on race, religion, or sex--sexual status or sexual
orientation), then you've got a case for extra penalties over a case
where the criminal picked somebody at random for the need to pick up
some extra cash.
It may be easy, difficult, or impossible, at times, to show the
reasons behind the actions (very similar to discrimination in job
hirings, btw), but hate crimes laws exist to give appropriate
sentencing where the law would not otherwise allow it.
>--
>|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
>| Golf Tip: Don't pick up a lost ball until it stops rolling |
>|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
>| Kevin Davis "Hoser" | email - kda...@digital.net |
>| | Home Page - http://ddi.digital.net/~kdavis |
>| Standard Disclaimer | (Win95 Tips, sound bites, and more!) |
>|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
G. Harrow
(as an aside: I did a web search on Alta Vista's search engine for
"bible" near "leviticus". When you get the results, Alta Vista gives
you a tip near the top on how to make your search more efficient. The
tip differs each time. Care to know what tip I got this specific
time? ***Tip: To find a bed-time story: "fairy tale" +frog -dragon
*** I couldn't stop laughing for a minute.)
FOR ANYBODY WITHOUT A BIBLE ONHAND WHO WISHES TO QUICKLY REFERENCE
LEVITICUS, GO TO:
http://www.teachersoft.com/Library/religion/bible/kjvold03.htm
(I wanted to post Leviticus here, until I saw just how darned *long*
it is! WOW there are a LOT of proscriptions against a true plethora
of activity...)
ray...@tima.com (Ray Todd Sevens) wrote:
>> In Leviticus a great deal is written about what you cannot mix. For
>>all you Christians that are mixing meat and milk you are "unclean".
>Try again this is an adaption of what is written in the Bible. You really
>need to read the Bible not some nut's comments on it.
Hmm...I guess you might just say that what King James had as the
official translation of the Greek texts from the Council of Nicea was
indeed commentary from a crackpot.
But to actually comment on what you said:
Yes, you are correct. The restrictions on what may be mixed with
"meat" are all in reference to how you present your offerings to the
Altar of the Lord to "cleanse" yourself from your state of
uncleanliness.
Of course, if you are a Christian, these proscriptions do not apply,
as belief in Jesus as your savior takes precedence.
And of course, that means that ALL of the laws in Leviticus (and
Deuteronomy as well, I believe) takes subservience to Jesus'
commandments...which includes the proscription against "laying with
mankind as with womankind" (Lev. 18:22)
>>If you lay with the wife of your father even if she is not your mother
>>and even if he is dead and gone, you are unclean because you are in a
>>way laying with your father.
>This certainly would have some good practical application.
>> You can't have a mule because you are
>>mixing animals.
>So what ?????
So would you say that those who bred mules have committed a sin?
That's what.
>> You can't graft a different species onto a tree or
>>mix the plants in your field.
>Good idea.
It's an *irrelevant* idea.
>> You better start thinking of the food
>>and ornamental plants you have to give up. More no-nos along with
>>mixing wool and linen.
>You have major problems with this.
No, he has major problems with those who pick and choose which verses
of Leviticus to shove down other's throats.
>> Men, you have to marry a virgin of your
>>people and if you don't she shall be put to death. Women be prepared
>>for the fire.
>Again stop reading what some nut wrote.
His first assertion above is indeed not explicitly found in Leviticus,
but his second, while incomplete, is.
Here is Lev. 21:9:
"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the
whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with
fire."
So daughters of priests who are whores shall be burnt with fire.
My, what an appropriate form of punishment, eh?
>>It always amuses me or saddens me on what people pick and choose from
>>the Torah to follow or discard. Some make only sense. If a son speaks
>>badly of his parents, even if they are dead he shall be stoned to
>>death.
>This might solve alot of our problems with our youth ;-)
Not funny.
And hardly applicable in today's society.
>> Others are only self serving to allow subjugating or hating
>>other people. Mormans claim blacks are not good enough to get into
>>their higher level of heaven because "they have the mark of Cain".
>Do understand that Mormons are not Christians. They actually have more in
>common with both Budists and Islam than the do with Christianity.
Yeah, and neither are those weird Catholics, they're just a bunch of
idolators after all...you know, worshippin' Mary, they have more in
common with devil-worshippers and pagans and witches and...
And when you really start thinking about it, Methodists aren't
Christians either, and neither are the Episcopalians, and...
Heck...only Fundamentalist Baptists are *real* Christians. Do
understand this.
>>One line of text is spent on male homosexuality. A man shall not lay
>>down with a man as he would a woman. With this much misery is made.
>>How un Christ like. DK
>Actually this is mentioned many places.
You missed the point.
The emphasis was on the un-Christ-like nature of those who caused so
much misery from such little reference (many places is still not
*most* places).
Robert J. Fredricks
Apuleius wrote:
>
> Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> wrote to and
> alt.politics.homosexuality:
> == >
I believe that heterosexuals have special marriage rights now. Am I
wrong? If special rights are wrong, than gays should be allowed the
same marriage rights as heteros. Am I not consistant?
Bob
Russell Stewart
Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>
>"Society has the obligation to not harm those who do not accept the
>prevailing moral beliefs. Society doesn't have the obligation to accept
>those moral beliefs that are contrary to those prevailing moral
>beliefs." - Me
And since all of the rights that gays are pushing for fall under
the first category (the right not to be harmed by society for
their moral beliefs), not the second, then you should be supporting
them. Assuming, of course, that you truly uphold the moral values
that you claim to.
>"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use
>being a fool about it!" - W.C. Fields
The world would be a much better place if the Religious Reich would
take this advice to heart.
>"Yes, I'm a member of the 'religious right.'" - Me
My deepest condolences.
--
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | dia...@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
If Rush is Right, then I'll take what's Left.
Russell Stewart
In article <MPLANET.31be1b59kdavis989689@news>, kda...@digital.net says...
>
>Hate crimes are a ridiculous concept. What group would not qualify for being
>a victim of a hate crime?
>
>If no groups don't qualify then logically the definition of the "hate crime"
>boils down to simple "crime".
I don't know if I agree with this. A lot of crime is motivated
more by simple selfishness than by actual hate. Take burglary,
for example. A burgler doesn't hate his victim -- he just wants
his money (and other stuff). His goal is not to harm -- his goal
is to help himself, and any harm he does is merely a peripheral
side effect. Certainly his actions are wrong, and his indifferent
attitude towards the harm he is causing is also wrong, and he
should be punished accordingly. But his motivation is not hate.
However, a true "hate crime" (for example, a group of white
supremacists beating up a black) is an entirely different beast.
Whether or not it requires special laws, I am not totally sure.
But there is a definite difference.
eyl...@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
> kda...@digital.net (Kevin R. Davis) wrote:
>
> >In article <teddyburD...@netcom.com>, tedd...@netcom.com says...
> >> >2) Special "gay bashing" laws with special penalties on an idiot who
> >> >bashes someone simply because he bashed the person because he was gay.
> >> >The idiot should simply be put in jail because he beat on somebody.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Just as certain crimes do have more severe penalties than others this is
> >> only right and proper and is often already in the laws that are now on
> >> the books about violence regarding discrimination.
>
> >This is a ridiculous concept. Firstly it is asking the Judge and jury to
> >determine what was in a man's heart when taking an action. Secondly
and most
> >ridiculously, it is saying that it is more wrong for a person to beat
up a gay
> >person rather than to beat up a person who is a hippie, a short persoon, a
> >"redneck", a hippie, a democrat, a republican, or a Bulls fan (the list
could
> >go on an on). All of the above actions concern an act of hatred. None are
> >worse than the others.
Judges and juries always have to look into someone's heart i.e. their
motivation in deciding guilt and punishment. e.g. negligent driving leads
to a death and that is manslaughter whereas plotting to kill your wife or
boss is first degree murder. Two deaths -- what distinquishes them is what
was in the miscreants 'heart'.
Killing a police officer or assassinating a politician is a much greater
threat to society than drunkenly killing a friend in a barroom brawl. Thus
they usually carry heavier penalities. A terrorist who blows up a building
and kills 20 people will be more heavily judged and punished than a drunk
who rams a bus which bursts into flames killing 20 people. An underlying
principle is which behavior is the greater threat to a civilized society.
Crimes are 'against society' and are prosecuted by the state for that
reason [as opposed to civil suits] It is perfectly reasonable for a
society to decide that singling people out for assault or murder because
of their religion, sex, race etc is particularly heinous and deserves a
heavier punishment than other types of assault. Clearly civilization is
at far greater risk when individuals have to fear physical harm because of
who they are. Parents killing their children, girlffriends and boyfriends
killing each other etc etc are sad and ugly events, but they are essentially
private events which relatively little impact on the rest of society.
Acts of violence that are politically motivated or motivated by hate for
classes of people undermine a free society.
We can't have a civilized and free society if people have to fear assault
because they are black, or Mormons, or gays, or Catholics or Republicans
or whatever.
Todd Andrews
DK wrote:
> [the usual, boring discussion arguing that because we as Christians
don't do everything in the ceremonial levitical laws that we therefore
can't say that homosexuality as sin is operative either]
Christians are not subject to the levitical law.
In the new testament, the scripture teaches clearly that homosexual
behaviour is a sin.
You may not accept the BIble as the word of god, but you clearly need to
at least accept the fact that the BIble does clearly say that homosexual
behaviour is wrong.
--
"I Love Animals. They taste great!" - Me
"Society has the obligation to not harm those who do not accept the
prevailing moral beliefs. Society doesn't have the obligation to accept
those moral beliefs that are contrary to those prevailing moral
beliefs." - Me
"I didn't inhale." - Bill Clinton
"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use
being a fool about it!" - W.C. Fields
"Yes, I'm a member of the 'religious right.'" - Me
Ward Stewart
Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>DK wrote:
>> [the usual, boring discussion arguing that because we as Christians
>don't do everything in the ceremonial levitical laws that we therefore
>can't say that homosexuality as sin is operative either]
>Christians are not subject to the levitical law.
>In the new testament, the scripture teaches clearly that homosexual
>behaviour is a sin.
>You may not accept the BIble as the word of god, but you clearly need to
>at least accept the fact that the BIble does clearly say that homosexual
>behaviour is wrong.
It's not my bible, what should I care about such narrow strictures --
it also forbids the eating of cheese-burgers. SO WHAT!
I might try to remind you that it also it contains six or eight
admonitions against homosecual love and thousands of admonitions
against judgemental hate-mongering. Indeed, that may well be the
major theme of the NT.
ward
Apuleius
kda...@digital.net (Kevin R. Davis) wrote to and
alt.politics.homosexuality:
== Hate crimes are a ridiculous concept. What group would not qualify for being
== a victim of a hate crime?
== If no groups don't qualify then logically the definition of the "hate crime"
== boils down to simple "crime".
Your message points out exactly why hate crime laws are needed. You
can't see the big picture, that nobody should be judging people based
on the types of things covered by hate crime laws. You look only at
which "group" allegedly "benefits" from being covered.
The hate crime law that covers race ALSO COVERS WHITE PEOPLE.
Do you object to white people being protected by a hate crime law?
John Sanger
In article <31C3A1...@deltanet.com> Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> writes:
>DK wrote:
>> [the usual, boring discussion arguing that because we as Christians
>don't do everything in the ceremonial levitical laws that we therefore
>can't say that homosexuality as sin is operative either]
>
>Christians are not subject to the levitical law.
>
>In the new testament, the scripture teaches clearly that homosexual
>behaviour is a sin.
>
>You may not accept the BIble as the word of god, but you clearly need to
>at least accept the fact that the BIble does clearly say that homosexual
>behaviour is wrong.
>
According to which mistranslation? And you are referring to the church
of paul and not the churh of your carpenter, aren't you?
You carpenter had not one word to say about homosexuality. Why would he
as he was a screaming queen himself.
John Sanger
In article <31C3A1...@deltanet.com> Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> writes:
>DK wrote:
>> [the usual, boring discussion arguing that because we as Christians
>don't do everything in the ceremonial levitical laws that we therefore
>can't say that homosexuality as sin is operative either]
>
>Christians are not subject to the levitical law.
>
>In the new testament, the scripture teaches clearly that homosexual
>behaviour is a sin.
>
>You may not accept the BIble as the word of god, but you clearly need to
>at least accept the fact that the BIble does clearly say that homosexual
>behaviour is wrong.
>--
Ooh, Toddie you are showing your ignorance of your book of mythos again.
You book of mythos does not "clearly say that homosexual behaviour is
wrong". In fact it does not mention it at all. And your carpenter did
not say one word against it. How could he, he was a screaming queen!
Te O
In-Reply-To: <4q28pe$p...@nuhou.aloha.net>
On Sun, 16 Jun 1996, Ward Stewart wrote:
> Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>
> >DK wrote:
> >> [the usual, boring discussion arguing that because we as Christians
> >don't do everything in the ceremonial levitical laws that we therefore
> >can't say that homosexuality as sin is operative either]
>
> >Christians are not subject to the levitical law.
>
> >In the new testament, the scripture teaches clearly that homosexual
> >behaviour is a sin.
>
> >You may not accept the BIble as the word of god, but you clearly need to
> >at least accept the fact that the BIble does clearly say that homosexual
> >behaviour is wrong.
>
> It's not my bible, what should I care about such narrow strictures --
> it also forbids the eating of cheese-burgers. SO WHAT!
>
> I might try to remind you that it also it contains six or eight
> admonitions against homosecual love and thousands of admonitions
> against judgemental hate-mongering. Indeed, that may well be the
> major theme of the NT.
>
> ward
Well said Ward! Why would I want to believe in a God that preaches
love and yet teaches his followers to be hate-mongers, racists?
He has said himself to save only *HIS* people. What a forgiving
God that is, when during his supposed time on earth as Christ he
ignored to preach to several other races.
And condemning homosexuals? What have they ever done to you? They're
human like me and you. All they want to do is perhaps find a companion
to love and live a happy life like everyone else. Immoral, you
might say, yeah right, since when love is immoral? Then your God
would be the Immortally Immoral Guru.
There are bad people and so are there good ones. So how can you
condemn all homosexuals? If so, we are ALL condemned. It's
like one of those stupid and ridiculous laws in Leviticus. How many
Christians actually follow those mentally-impaired laws? Oh,
Christians are not subjected to the Levitical, you say, how
convenient. That's just it isn't it? I find it a tendency for
Christians to *conveniently* ignore and even deny parts of the
bible. Think with your brain, not attribute it to blind faith.
Either the bible is all right or all wrong. As yet it seems to show
to be the latter.
*-+-+ The irony of it all, the Inhumanity in Humanity. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*
| _____ _ _ _____ ____ |
* / ___/ | |_| | / _ \ | _ \ " I have never seen God, *
| / / | _ | | |_| | | | \ \ He is unknown to me. |
* \ \___ | | | | | _ | | |_/ / I have seen the Devil, *
| \____\ |_| |_| |_| |_| |____/ And his name is Humanity. " |
* *
-+-+-+-+-+- S460...@np.ac.sg -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-* Chadalthlas Lucasadisalamar *-+-
Steve Zink
Actually there are only 5 prohibitions against homosexuality in the Bible
and over 385 prohibitions against heterosexual activity. It's not that we're
better people, we just require less supervision!!
--
Steve Zink
*********************************************************************
You cannot walk in the same river twice,
but let me assure you, there are things you can walk in twice.
- Guru Kirby Dogma
*********************************************************************
Haim Guivon
In Article<6isxxcGU...@gate.net>,
<jsta...@gate.net> writes:
> Path:
news.NetVision.net.il!news-penn.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-r
es.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!nntp.coast.net!zombie.ncsc.mil!news
mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.corpcomm.net!n
ews.gate.net!news.gate.net!not-for-mail
> From: jsta...@gate.net (John A. Stanley)
> Newsgroups:
alt.sex.bestiality,alt.censorship,alt.homosexual,alt.politi
cs.homosexuality,alt.sex,alt.sex.services,alt.sex.brothels,
soc.men,soc.women,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.mens-rights,ne.
motss,soc.motss,soc.culture.israel,comp.org.eff.talk,talk.r
umors,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.sex,a
lt.christnet.second-coming.real-soon-now,alt.atheism
> Subject: Re: Where does which Bible condem
Homosexuality?
> Date: 18 Jun 1996 14:22:32 -0400
> Organization: Sendero Leguminoso
> Lines: 29
> Distribution: inet
> Message-ID: <6isxxcGU...@gate.net>
> References: <31b47...@news.sisna.com>
<teddyburD...@netcom.com>
> <31BB41...@deltanet.com>
<teddyburD...@netcom.com>
> <4q52h2$d...@bad-news.harborcom.net>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: clnt1.gate.net
> NNTP-Posting-User: jstanley
> X-Newsreader: Yarn 0.90 with YES 0.22
> Xref: news.NetVision.net.il alt.sex.bestiality:7250
alt.censorship:27588 alt.homosexual:13900
alt.politics.homosexuality:16551 alt.sex:36367
alt.sex.services:9446 alt.sex.brothels:4885 soc.men:27942
soc.women:17141 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:66727
alt.mens-rights:7836 soc.motss:30560
soc.culture.israel:15084 comp.org.eff.talk:9165
talk.rumors:3416 alt.christnet.bible:14779
alt.christnet:35670 alt.christnet.sex:5479
alt.christnet.second-coming.real-soon-now:6221
alt.atheism:38038
>
> In article <4q52h2$d...@bad-news.harborcom.net>,
> Jam...@harborcom.net (Healer Keth ) wrote:
> >tedd...@netcom.com (John Sanger) wrote:
> >>>> No, it is not a good description of homosexuality.
> >>>> The original text of your book of mythos does not
have any mention of
> >>>> homosexuality anywhere from page 01 to the very
last page.
> >
> > Leviticus 20:13
>
> > If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a
woman, both of
> >
> > them has commited an abomination.
>
> Homosexual males lie with a man as he lieth with a man.
>
> >--------------------------------------------------__
> > 1 Corinthians 6:9
> > Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not
inherit the kingdom
> > of God? Be not DECEIVED: neither
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
> > adulterers, nor EFFEMINATE nor abusers of
themselves with mankind.
>
> I'm 100% queer and not effeminate in the least.
>
> So shove that stinking bullshit bible up your ass and
fuck off.
>
> --
> John A. Stanley jsta...@gate.net
>
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Please add: Deuteronomy 23:17. This is Haim. Your dirty
adjectives toward the Bible, Mr Queer, point to your
breeding. I used to respect homosexuals as any other human
beings (see Oscar Wilde, Andre Gide, Leonard Berenstein
and many others) but, unfortunately for you, you don't
seem to belong to the same species. And what are you
looking for in decent groups like christnet or
soc.culture.israel? Go back to bestiality. It might suit
you better. Haim
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Ray Todd Sevens
In article <teddyburD...@netcom.com> tedd...@netcom.com (John Sanger) writes:
>From: tedd...@netcom.com (John Sanger)
>Subject: Re: Where does which Bible condem Homosexuality?
>In article <31C3A1...@deltanet.com> Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> writes:
>>DK wrote:
>>> [the usual, boring discussion arguing that because we as Christians
>>don't do everything in the ceremonial levitical laws that we therefore
>>can't say that homosexuality as sin is operative either]
>>
>>Christians are not subject to the levitical law.
>>
>>In the new testament, the scripture teaches clearly that homosexual
>>behaviour is a sin.
>>
>>You may not accept the BIble as the word of god, but you clearly need to
>>at least accept the fact that the BIble does clearly say that homosexual
>>behaviour is wrong.
>>--
>Ooh, Toddie you are showing your ignorance of your book of mythos again.
>You book of mythos does not "clearly say that homosexual behaviour is
>wrong". In fact it does not mention it at all. And your carpenter did
>not say one word against it. How could he, he was a screaming queen!
He didn't preach on many subjects. He did say that the scriptures were valid
and from God. The scriptures he refers to calls for the execution of
homosexuals.
I also see no evidence in the bible (or else where) that Jesus ever had sex
with anyone male or female. The only way to justify this claim is to say that
a person can not have a deep relationship with another person without having
sex. If you really believe and practice this I certainly feel sorry for you,
and even sorrier for those around you.
Just remember that Christ loves you and desires to have a relationship with
you (without sex). He also desires that you come to heaven. But in the end
it is yuor choice.
>Remember it is by your own words that you show the entire world that you
>are a bigot, jerk, closed-minded idiot.
Let's see bigot, jerk, closed-minded ------ John you are looking at a mirror
instead of your computer screen again.
Don Hinds
In article <31C3A1...@deltanet.com>, tand...@deltanet.com says...
>
>DK wrote:
>> [the usual, boring discussion arguing that because we as Christians
>don't do everything in the ceremonial levitical laws that we therefore
>can't say that homosexuality as sin is operative either]
>
>Christians are not subject to the levitical law.
>
ahhhh... you pick the parts of the Bible that are OK to follow. Did you
know Christ was Jewish?
>In the new testament, the scripture teaches clearly that homosexual
>behaviour is a sin.
>
>
Several people have said there is no mention in the New Testament. So you
tell us where ?
Rev. Abe
Don Hinds
. And your carpenter did
>not say one word against it. How could he, he was a screaming queen!
>
Let's not get carried away, that makes you no better than him. ;-(
Don
Haim Guivon
> From: Stephen Di Ciano <sdic...@carmen.murdoch.edu.au>
> Newsgroups:
alt.sex.bestiality,alt.censorship,alt.homosexual,alt.politi
cs.homosexuality,alt.sex,alt.sex.services,alt.sex.brothels,
soc.men,soc.women,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.mens-rights,ne.
motss,soc.motss,soc.culture.israel,comp.org.eff.talk,talk.r
umors,alt.christnet
> Subject: Re: Where does which Bible condem
Homosexuality?
> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 02:40:14 +0800
> Organization: Murdoch University (WA, Australia).
> Lines: 22
news.NetVision.net.il alt.sex.bestiality:7269
alt.censorship:27636 alt.homosexual:13930
alt.politics.homosexuality:16595 alt.sex:36465
alt.sex.services:9485 alt.sex.brothels:4901 soc.men:28032
soc.women:17193 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:66880
alt.mens-rights:7861 soc.motss:30707
soc.culture.israel:15110 comp.org.eff.talk:9184
talk.rumors:3430 alt.christnet:35745
>
> > You need to go to the original text of your book of
mythos and try to
> > find the word "homosexuality". You will not find it
anywhere in the
> > original text of that work of fiction.
> > Since you cannot even prove that your deity exists you
cannot provide
> > any evidence for what it might have said.
> > Everyone in this country and in the world does not
follow your fictional
> > deity. So do not try to force your concepts upon the
world that has
> > rejected them.
> >
> > --
> > Ciao!
> > John S. 8^{)>
> > tedd...@netcom.com
> > __
>
> Your a stupid dickhead, the question of it being fiction
is not the issue.
> The bible does deal well enough with the homosexuality
issue, as he said.
> Why don't you try to fucking provide evidence of our
creation smartass.
> Your the fucking idiot who should be rejected!!!
>
>
> Steve.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
To Mr. Di Ciano: (Any relation to Count Galeazzo?)
You are a complete ignoramus of the Bible. See, for
instance Deuteronomy 23:17 and many others. Sodom was
destroyed because their men wanted to rape men.
But this is not the main issue: What are you looking for
amongst decent groups like soc.culture.israel and
alt.chrisnet?. I can see your true interests lie in
bestiality, homosexuality, brothels and so on.
And why should you be so interested in the Book of Books?
Only to desecrate it? You are entitled to employ your ass
as it better suits your needs, but not to vilify other
peoples' beliefs. Haim
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
John A. Stanley
In article <NEWTNews.835192...@dialup.netvision.net.il>,
I'm not Jewish; it is irrelevant.
>This is Haim. Your dirty
>adjectives toward the Bible, Mr Queer, point to your
>breeding. I used to respect homosexuals as any other human
>beings (see Oscar Wilde, Andre Gide, Leonard Berenstein
>and many others) but, unfortunately for you, you don't
>seem to belong to the same species. And what are you
>looking for in decent groups like christnet or
>soc.culture.israel? Go back to bestiality. It might suit
>you better. Haim
Don't ever forget, Haim, that Jews as well as homosexuals were
gassed and made into fashionable lampshades by Bible believers.
John Sanger
In article <raytodd.84...@tima.com> ray...@tima.com (Ray Todd Stevens) writes:
>In article <teddyburD...@netcom.com> tedd...@netcom.com (John Sanger) writes:
>>From: tedd...@netcom.com (John Sanger)
>
>>In article <31C3A1...@deltanet.com> Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> writes:
>>>> [the usual, boring discussion arguing that because we as Christians
>>>don't do everything in the ceremonial levitical laws that we therefore
>>>can't say that homosexuality as sin is operative either]
>>>
>>>Christians are not subject to the levitical law.
>>>
>>>behaviour is a sin.
>>>
>>>at least accept the fact that the BIble does clearly say that homosexual
>>>behaviour is wrong.
>>>--
>
>>Ooh, Toddie you are showing your ignorance of your book of mythos again.
>>You book of mythos does not "clearly say that homosexual behaviour is
>>not say one word against it. How could he, he was a screaming queen!
>
>and from God. The scriptures he refers to calls for the execution of
>homosexuals.
>
since the basis cannot be proven. Namely the existance of your deity.
Without that your book of mythos has nothing of value in it.
>I also see no evidence in the bible (or else where) that Jesus ever had sex
>with anyone male or female. The only way to justify this claim is to say that
>a person can not have a deep relationship with another person without having
>sex. If you really believe and practice this I certainly feel sorry for you,
>and even sorrier for those around you.
>
Please provide what he did all those nights and days in the outback with
Lazarus..... and that special follower who he loved above all
others..... that does not sound like he was just being platonic!
You are the sorry one. You are so pathetic with your espousement of a
religion which cannot provide the proof that it's deity even exists.
You do not seem to understand that your religion has no basis to exist
if you cannot prove that you deity exists. Without a foundation your
religion is only the figment of your imagination that it always has
been.
>Just remember that Christ loves you and desires to have a relationship with
>you (without sex). He also desires that you come to heaven. But in the end
>it is yuor choice.
>
Your carpenter died of old age in the South of France where he went
after the bigest con of his time in the middle east. He was not any
less human than you are. He certainly was not a deity.
>>Remember it is by your own words that you show the entire world that you
>>are a bigot, jerk, closed-minded idiot.
>
>Let's see bigot, jerk, closed-minded ------ John you are looking at a mirror
>instead of your computer screen again.
>
Ray Todd Stevens you are the one who seems to be the mirror image of
Todd Andrews. Are you sure you are not the same individual both of you
seem to have bigotted, closed minds and are certainly jerks and idiots.
Your posts prove this beyond any doubt.
BTW, Toddie did admit that he is a "bigot, jerk and closed-minded idiot"
in his own words in his own post. So I did not make that up like Toddie
does so often do with the little asides that he posts.
Ward Stewart
Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>DK wrote:
>> [the usual, boring discussion arguing that because we as Christians
>don't do everything in the ceremonial levitical laws that we therefore
>can't say that homosexuality as sin is operative either]
>Christians are not subject to the levitical law.
>In the new testament, the scripture teaches clearly that homosexual
>behaviour is a sin.
>You may not accept the BIble as the word of god, but you clearly need to
>at least accept the fact that the BIble does clearly say that homosexual
>behaviour is wrong.
I have no problem with that at all, I am neither Jewish nor Christian
-- why should I give a rats ass what this particualr book says.
If YOU believe that the bible forbids this particular vairety of love,
fine -- DON'T DO IT. As simple as that.
If you have decided that YOUR bible requires that you poke your nose
into MY life that is a very strange reading.
ward
Todd Andrews
John Sanger wrote:
>
> In article <raytodd.84...@tima.com> ray...@tima.com (Ray Todd Stevens) writes:
> >In article <teddyburD...@netcom.com> tedd...@netcom.com (John Sanger) writes:
> >>From: tedd...@netcom.com (John Sanger)
> >>Subject: Re: Where does which Bible condem Homosexuality?
> >>Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 00:21:13 GMT
> >
> >>In article <31C3A1...@deltanet.com> Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> writes:
> >>>> [the usual, boring discussion arguing that because we as Christians
> >>>don't do everything in the ceremonial levitical laws that we therefore
> >>>can't say that homosexuality as sin is operative either]
> >>>
> >>>Christians are not subject to the levitical law.
> >>>
> >>>In the new testament, the scripture teaches clearly that homosexual
> >>>behaviour is a sin.
> >>>
> >>>You may not accept the BIble as the word of god, but you clearly need to
> >>>at least accept the fact that the BIble does clearly say that homosexual
> >>>behaviour is wrong.
"I don't care what effect it has on society. I want homosexual marriage
now. ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ! - A homosexual activist, such as John
Sanger.
Anonymous
1 Corinthians 6:9 says;
What! Do you not know that unriteous persons will not inherit god's
kingdom? Do not be mislead. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adultrers nor men hept for unnatural purposes, nor MEN WHO LIE WITH MEN,
nor theves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
extortioners will inherit Gods kingdom.
How's that for food for thought?
John Simpson
On Mon, 24 Jun 1996 08:19:14 -0800, Anonymous <bi...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>How's that for food for thought?
Not food for thought--it is a law to be followed without thought. And it
has been a tool for the intolerant down through the centuries. Think of all the
violence for which this and similar verses have been used for justification.
I prefer Jesus' two commandments: love the Lord, and love your neighbor.
Just how big your definition of "neighbor" is, is a measure of your character,
IMO.
Who have you loved today?
Peace,
John Simpson
fe...@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~feste
---------------------------------------
"A crowded elevator smells different to a dwarf."
slyh...@southeast.net
Anonymous <bi...@nowhere.com> wrote:
You fucking idiot, thats the bible.
ITS A LIE. You ever hear of brainwashing? ORGANIZED RELIGION ?
John Simpson
On Fri, 21 Jun 1996 23:13:41 -0700, Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>"I don't care what effect it has on society. I want homosexual marriage
>now. ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ! - A homosexual activist, such as John
>Sanger.
"I don't care how badly homosexuals want to marry. I say it would have some
vaguely bad effect on society which I can't begin to explain!"
--my interpretation of Mr. Andrews' anti-gay threads
Please tell us what bad effects on society you foresee. And please define
"society" while you're at it.
alan miles
> How's that for food for thought?
If wish you'd read the title of the post.
Correct me if I'm mistaken.
The point is that the world is multi-religious.
It is unproductive to claim "my scripture says you're damned so there."
It's far more productive to exchange views.
My religion, Christianity, seems to me to be extremely tolerant (e.g. the
golden rules, "Turn your left cheek...." and "Love your neighbors....")
But I am constantly challenged with folks who who seem obsessed with gay
sex - as oppossed to homosexuality who are in a fit.
The Catholic Bible - only one Christian sect is full of contradictions.
It requires concentration and debate. This is what I so admire admire
about Protestant sects.
Instead, I read a constant anti-gay, and hateful, rant.
Can we have an intellectual argument instead of an emotional one for once?
Alan Miles
dion...@infinet.com
}1 Corinthians 6:9 says;
}What! Do you not know that unriteous persons will not inherit god's
}kingdom? Do not be mislead. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
}adultrers nor men hept for unnatural purposes, nor MEN WHO LIE WITH MEN,
}nor theves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
}extortioners will inherit Gods kingdom.
}How's that for food for thought?
How's this for an answer?
KJV:
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of
God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves,
nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall
inherit the kingdom of God.
Young's Literal Translation:
9 have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not
inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor
covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, the reign of God
shall inherit.
American Standard Version:
9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of
God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, 10 nor thieves, nor
covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit
the kingdom of God.
Greek:
9 h ouk oidate oti adikoi basileian qeou ou klhronomhsousin mh planasqe
oute pornoi oute eidwlolatrai oute moicoi oute malakoi oute arsenokoitai
10 oute kleptai oute pleonektai oute mequsoi ou loidoroi ouc arpageV
basileian qeou ou klhronomhsousin
Food for thought: Revelations 22:18: For I testify unto every man that
heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto
these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this
book
--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key
And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...
United States Code, Title 10, Section 311
Simplified: All able-bodied men between 17 and 45 are part of the "militia
of the United States of America", unless they are members of the National
Guard. The militia can be called into service at any time by appropriate
legal authority.
Don Hinds
>"I don't care how badly homosexuals want to marry. I say it would have
some
>vaguely bad effect on society which I can't begin to explain!"
>
vaguely bad effect I can't explian... of course you can't. There is no
bad effect. It makes families stronger, not weaker. The notion familties
and marraige is to have children is dumb. Else hetros who get married and
don't have children have invalid marraiges, if their marraiges are valid,
they married for LOVE, so any marraige for love is valid.
Don
Don Hinds
Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
>adultrers nor men hept for unnatural purposes, nor MEN WHO LIE WITH MEN,
>nor theves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
>extortioners will inherit Gods kingdom.
>
>How's that for food for thought?
Pretty good. I guess that passage covers everybody.
Don
Don Hinds
>>In the new testament, the scripture teaches clearly that homosexual
>>behaviour is a sin.
>
In MANY more places Jesus says it is Wrong to judge your fellow man. So
you are sinning many more times over it would seem.... And it say you
will be judged as you judge. So if you comndemn, you are condemned.
simple isnt; it?
Don
Jugghead
without sin cast the first stone."
--
-Jugghead-
The bigger the better!
Don Hinds
>
>1 Corinthians 6:9 says;
>What! Do you not know that unriteous persons will not inherit god's
>nor theves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
>extortioners will inherit Gods kingdom.
>
>How's that for food for thought?
How about people who judge others? 'do not judge others, or so you will
be judged' and 'people who condemn will be condemned'
you're digging your own hole, right before our eyes....
Don
Steve Zink
telling the truth. How do you know it means sex. Why didn't it say
homosexuality or mention sex. The untruth tellers certainly will not
go to heaven. Try another quote, buddy.
By the way, if you loosely count this and others, there are only five
places in the Bible that talk about homosexuality, but there are
385 condemnations of heterosexual behavior. It's not that gays are
better people, it's just that heterosexuals apparently need more
David Wall
read (and I don't read Usenet news that often anyway), but just in case,
here are the verses I found that specifically condemn homosexuality, at least
for men. The Bible doesn't seem to consider that women might be attracted to
each other instead of the virile males writing the histories.
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is]
abomination. [list of abominations continues...]
Leviticus 18:29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the
souls that commit [them] shall be cut off from among their people.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both
of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death;
their blood [shall be] upon them.
Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is
unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was
meet.
Apologies if this has been posted already.
David Wall
PS I trimmed the newsgroups, too. The thread I saw was in all of the
following groups: alt.sex.bestiality, alt.censorship, alt.homosexual,
alt.politics.homosexuality, alt.sex, alt.sex.services, alt.sex.brothels,
soc.men, soc.women, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.mens-rights, ne.motss,
soc.motss, soc.culture.israel, comp.org.eff.talk, talk.rumors,
alt.christnet.bible, alt.christnet, alt.christnet.sex,
alt.christnet.second-coming.real-soon-now, alt.atheism
Lars Eighner
Broadcast on alt.homosexual,alt.sex,soc.motss,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.sex,alt.atheism
The lovely and talented dk...@nioshe2.em.cdc.gov (David Wall) wrote:
>Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is]
>abomination.
If anything this passage is against bisexuality. If a homosexual
male lay with a woman nothing would happen, so when he lies with
a man, they should have sex. The translation "abomination" here
has simply been made up out of whole cloth. The Hebrew "toebah"
means "ritual uncleanliness," not moral evil.
These laws were meant to apply only to Jews in Isreal. And indeed,
hardly anyone who raises the issue of this verse really observes
any of the customs described in the nearby verses,
Just as the story of Ham was used for many years to justify
slavery and then Jim Crow by racist churches such as the
Southern Baptists, so modern-day homophobes continue to seek
to twist scripture to fit their hateful agenda.
>Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
>burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is
>unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was
>meet.
Here, of course, "para phusis" has been wrongly translated as
"against nature." It means nothing of the sort.
But what Paul may have meant or not meant is the furthest thing
from the minds of those whose only objective in opening the Bible
is to try to rationalize homophobia.
--
=Lars Eighner=4103 Ave D (512)459-6693==_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
= eig...@io.com =Austin TX 78751-4617_/ alt.books.lars-eighner _/
= http://www.io.com/~eighner/ _/ now at better ISPs everywhere _/
="Yes, Lizbeth is fine."==========_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Barry Hofstetter
> >Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
> >burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is
> >unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was
> >meet.
> Here, of course, "para phusis" has been wrongly translated as
> "against nature." It means nothing of the sort.
The phrase *para phusin* does not occur in 1:27, but in 1:26. What is
your basis for this assertion, and what do you propose as an alternate
translation?
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
...fecisti nos ad te,
et inquietum est cor nostrum,
donec requiescat in te.
-Augustine
Lars Eighner
Broadcast on alt.homosexual,alt.sex,soc.motss,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.sex,alt.atheism
neb...@netaxs.com (Barry Hofstetter) wrote:
In article <MrArnCBg...@netaxs.com>, you wrote:
>In article <rgE1xAwZ...@io.com>, eig...@io.com (Lars Eighner) wrote:
>
>> >Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
>> >burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is
>> >unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was
>> >meet.
>
>> Here, of course, "para phusis" has been wrongly translated as
>> "against nature." It means nothing of the sort.
>
>The phrase *para phusin* does not occur in 1:27, but in 1:26. What is
>your basis for this assertion, and what do you propose as an alternate
>translation?
"Para" doesn't mean "against." Against would be "kata." "Para"
means something like "beyond," "outside of," or "besides" (and this
meaning is preserved in the modern English prefix).
"Phusis" means nature, but not in the sense of natural law. This
concept was unknown to the Greeks and to Paul. It means "nature"
in the sense of "character" or "disposition" (as we might say
in English "Meanness isn't in his nature"). The concept of
natural law is not found in Christian theology until almost
a thousand years after this passage was written.
Thus for "para phusis," the reading is "out of character" or
"excessive of (their) natural disposition."
Notice that the men and women mentioned in this
passage are explicitly identified as those
who had previously had heterosexual relations:
Romans 1:26-27 reads, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile
affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which
^^^^^^
is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of
^^^^^^^
the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working
that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of
their error which was meet."
The women "did change," the men "leaving."
Early Christian theologians did not ignore these references,
among them Saint John Chrysostom writing "No one can claim,
[Paul] points out, that she came to this because she was
precluded from lawful intercourse or that...she was unable to satisfy her
desire..."
The passage does not apply to those who are by nature homosexual,
but to heterosexuals who are immoderate, who go beyond their natures
in their immoderate desires, who change or leave their natural
courses in the pursuit of excess.
After all, a homosexual woman is not changing her nature
to have a lesbian relationship, but is fulfilling what
is within her nature. A homosexual man is not leaving
his "natural use of women"--he has no sexual "use" for
women. Either the passage is utter nonsense, or it
was never meant for those with a natural disposition toward
homosexuality.
I am not commiting myself here to spoonfeed ALL of Boswell's
book to the USENET, as the book should be readily available
at public and university libraries, and is also (I think) still
in print.
Barry Hofstetter
> In our last episode <MrArnCBg...@netaxs.com>,
> Broadcast on alt.homosexual,alt.sex,soc.motss,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.sex,alt.atheism
> neb...@netaxs.com (Barry Hofstetter) wrote:
> >In article <rgE1xAwZ...@io.com>, eig...@io.com (Lars Eighner) wrote:
> >> >Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
> >> >burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is
> >> >unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was
> >> >meet.
> >> Here, of course, "para phusis" has been wrongly translated as
> >> "against nature." It means nothing of the sort.
> >The phrase *para phusin* does not occur in 1:27, but in 1:26. What is
> >your basis for this assertion, and what do you propose as an alternate
> >translation?
>
> "Para" doesn't mean "against." Against would be "kata." "Para"
> means something like "beyond," "outside of," or "besides" (and this
> meaning is preserved in the modern English prefix).
> "Phusis" means nature, but not in the sense of natural law. This
> concept was unknown to the Greeks and to Paul. It means "nature"
> in the sense of "character" or "disposition" (as we might say
> in English "Meanness isn't in his nature"). The concept of
> natural law is not found in Christian theology until almost
> a thousand years after this passage was written.
There are a number of considerations which you have left out of your
exegesis (btw, have you yourself studied the original languages, culture
and history of the biblical documents?):
1) *Para* with the accusative may mean "beyond," "outside of," or
"besides" but it is not restricted that usage. Every major
lexicon (I referenced Bauer, Liddel & Scott, Thayer, Louw &
Nida) list also the "adversative" or "contrastive" meaning of
the preposition, with copious references. The fact that it
can be used in such a sense, of course, does not mean that it
is used in such a sense, but here, I would think, Paul's
language and flow of discourse up to this point demand the
adversative meaning. The fallacy involved in your statement
is that of "selective evidence," citing only that which
supports your conclusion.
2) I agree that Paul almost certainly is not importing "natural
law" theory as it developed in later Greek and Western
philosophy. Rather, he is writing in the biblical tradition,
and it is to the biblical tradition that we must go to
understand Paul's definition and use of *phusis.* If we do
so, we will see that what Paul has in mind is not natural law,
but rather the divine order of creation, and particularly the
creation of the human species male and female. For Paul, this
order is primary, and not to be violated.
> Thus for "para phusis," the reading is "out of character" or
> "excessive of (their) natural disposition."
Since you have left out important elements in your consideration, you
have come to a quite shallow conclusion.
> Notice that the men and women mentioned in this
> passage are explicitly identified as those
> who had previously had heterosexual relations:
> Romans 1:26-27 reads, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile
> affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which
> ^^^^^^
> is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of
> ^^^^^^^
> the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working
> that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of
> their error which was meet."
The flow of Paul's argument indicates that he is speaking of the human
race as a class, and then citing specific examples - in other words, an
argument from the general to the specific. Same-sex relationships are
one example of the way in which the wrath of God is worked out against a
humanity which is in rebellion against God. Certainly, you cannot prove
from the text the rather modern idea that homosexuality is in some way
innate or natural. This argument depends on importing into the text
an idea which is not found in the text (that same-sex relationships are
genetic or normal for some people). From Paul's perspective, any departure
from the orders and institutions of God in creation are a violation of
God's law.
> Early Christian theologians did not ignore these references,
> among them Saint John Chrysostom writing "No one can claim,
> [Paul] points out, that she came to this because she was
> precluded from lawful intercourse or that...she was unable to satisfy her
> desire..."
I fail to see how this citation supports your argument. Chrysostom seems to
be saying that the woman cannot claim exculpation because she did not have
the opportunity for heterosexual relationships.
> The passage does not apply to those who are by nature homosexual,
> but to heterosexuals who are immoderate, who go beyond their natures
> in their immoderate desires, who change or leave their natural
> courses in the pursuit of excess.
Since the text does not say this, your conclusion is invalid and false.
> I am not commiting myself here to spoonfeed ALL of Boswell's
> book to the USENET, as the book should be readily available
> at public and university libraries, and is also (I think) still
> in print.
I thought I recognized typical Boswellian eisegesis and disinformation.
I assume you mean John Boswell of *Christianity, Social Tolerance, and
Homosexuality* (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1980)? I have read
this, and in particular carefully worked through chapter 4, "The
Scriptures" (p. 91-117). I concur with the general opinion of biblical
scholarship on Boswell. A fair historian he might be, but he is no
biblical scholar. I noted numerous problems with his discussion in that
chapter, including multiple assertions and assumptions without proof or
reference, selective evidence, inadequate footnote references, and less
than adequate ability with the original languages. The following was
posted sometime ago in a different discussion:
****************************************************************
This article will briefly summarize the various magazine articles
which have been published in response to the late Professor John
Boswell's 1980 book, "Christianity, Social Tolerance and
Homosexuality". Boswell was a professor at Yale University, a Roman
Catholic and a homosexual.
Boswell covered a lot of territory in his book. I will only address a
few areas here. For those who may not be familiar with Boswell, he
argued, forcefully and convincingly, that the Bible does not condemn a
loving, monogamous relationship between two members of the same sex.
Was he right?
In the 1982 edition of Crux (no. 4, pp.21-27), in "John Boswell's
corruption of the Greeks", Jonathan Mills addresses Boswell's comments
regarding the ancient Greek view of homosexuality. Contrary to
Boswell's assertion that the Greeks were highly in favor of
homosexuality, and actually preferred it to heterosexual
relationships, Mills shows that even the ancients, who were accustomed
to homosexual behavior, viewed it as "unrighteous" (Aristophenes),
"against nature" (Plato; this phrase, "para phusin", will come up
again later), and "sickly" and "bestial" (Aristotle). Boswell gets
around the bestial description in Aristotle by mistranslating
"theriodeis", a technique he uses frequently in his book.
In the January 1984 edition of the Anglican Theological Review (no.
66, pp.79-94), in "Boswell on homosexuality: a case undemonstrated",
J. Robert Wright reviews Boswell's book and points out the lack of
scholarship, the failure to reference legitimate scholarly works and
the overall failure of Boswell to prove his thesis. He reveals
Boswell's error in stating that Eusebius did not use the word in his
"Demonstrations..." and offers several books as references for
scholarship on homosexuality and the church.
In the 1984 edition of Vigilae Christianae, (no. 2, pp.125-153), in
"Homosexuals or prostitutes: the meaning of arsenokoitai (1 Cor 6:9; 1
Tim 1:10)", David F. Wright addresses Boswell's handling of the
biblical Greek. He begins with an overview of Boswell's exegesis of
the Sodom story, the OT records and Rom 1, pointing out the oversights
and omissions in Boswell's work, including incorrect cites,
mistranslations and false statements of fact.
Then he addresses at length Boswell's attempt to translate
arsenokoitai as "male temple prostitutes". He cites several
additional sources for the word (23 total: Boswell + additionals), as
well as pointing out the parallel to Leviticus in the LXX. He states
that the proper translation should be "homosexual".
Wright's article destroys any pretense to translating the word as
"male temple prostitute", demonstrating convincingly that it simply
will not work in many passages. Of particular note is his discussion
of a passage from St. John the Faster, which Boswell uses to state
that arsenokoitai can even refer to men having sex with their wives.
Boswell accomplishes this, Wright says, by mistranslating the passage
and giving it a most peculiar meaning if we are to believe his male
temple prostitute definition. Boswell would have the husband acting
as a male temple prostitute to his own wife!
The passage, properly translated, reads "Incredibly enough, some men
even go as far as having incestuous intercourse with their own
mothers, or their daughters, or their goddaughters, and even engage in
homosexual relations in the company of their wives and the wives in
front of their husbands."
Wright also points out Boswell's disingenuous reference to "foreign
translations" which purportedly do not handle arsenokoitai as the
English translations do. Boswell fails to reference the Syriac, which
translates arsenokoitai as "those who lie with men", the Latin, which
renders it "masculorum concubitores", or the Coptic, which renders it
"sleeping with males".
In the 1985 edition of the Union Seminary Quarterly Review, (no.2,
pp.13-35), in "The use of scripture within the Christian ethical
debate concerning same-sex oriented persons", Gerald T. Sheppard
argues that despite the Bible's obvious condemnation of homosexuality,
which he concedes without argument, Christians should accept loving,
monogamous same-sex relationships within the church. He provides no
sound scriptural basis for doing so.
In the Spring 1986 edition of the Journal of Religious Ethics, (sorry,
I neglected to note the page numbers), in "Relations natural and
unnatural: a response to J Boswell's exegesis of Rom 1", Richard B.
Hays discusses Boswell's handling of Romans 1. He points out that
Boswell cites other pro-homosexual writers, such as Bailey, but fails
to cite even one legitimate scholar or commentary to support his
interpretation.
In particular he takes issue with Boswell's handling of the phrase
"para phusin" (against nature). He cites Plutarch, quoting Plato, who
uses the phrase "he para phusin homilia pros arrenos" (union contrary
to nature with males). Plato also contrasts sex between males and
females, which he calls "kata phusin" (according to nature), with
homosexual sex, which he calls "para phusin" (against nature).
To Hays it is obvious that Paul used a common phrase, "para phusin",
in the same context which other writers had used it, to condemn
homosexuality as "unnatural". Other writers who used the same phrase,
in the same context, are; Philo, Josephus and Clement of Alexandria.
In the June 1986 edition of Vigilae Christianae, (no. 2, pp.187-191),
in "Can arsenokoitai be translated by "homosexuals" (1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim
1:10)", William L. Petersen takes issue with Wright's translation of
arsenokoitai. Petersen concedes all of Wright's major points
regarding Boswell's book but argues that he would prefer "men who
sleep with men". He says the Greeks knew nothing of sexual
orientation, only behavior, and therefore translating arsenokoitai as
"homosexual" projects 20th century understandings onto 1st century
word usage.
Petersen promised a followup article in which he would go into much
greater detail regarding the subject. To my knowledge he has yet to
write it.
In the Fall 1992 edition of Masters Seminary Journal, (again I
neglected to note the page numbers), in "The source and NT meaning of
arsenokoitai", DeYoung addresses all the work that has preceded him,
briefly summarizing each of the above articles. He then engages in a
lengthy discussion of arsenokoitai, referring to the rabbincal purity
code, Leviticus and Hellenic Judaism, as well as numerous other
sources for the word.
He points out a number of errors and omissions in Boswell's work,
including a glaring misstatement of fact. Boswell argues that
Chrysostom never used arsenokoitai even though he wrote extensively
and quite heatedly, and negatively about homosexuality. DeYoung
reveals that Chrysostom used the word, in its various forms, 20 times
in his writings. Boswell could not have been more wrong.
DeYoung, using the TLG (Theasarus Lingae Graecae) to search
manuscripts, (which Boswell did not have access to), cites over 50
different references for the word. He points out that Aristedes, in
"Apology", used arrenomaneis, androbateen and arsenokoitias
interchangeably. All three words are understood as "homosexual".
DeYoung again reveals Boswell's error in stating that Eusebius never
used the word arsenokoitia. In fact, he used it in the same
manuscript which Boswell quotes, mere pages away from where Boswell
references him. He also points out that the terms paiderastes and
arsenokoites seemed to be interchangeable. Both were used in the same
context by various writers. This is understandable because, in those
days, the predominant form of homosexual behavior was pederasty.
Taking up the discussion of the origins of arsenokoitai, DeYoung
argues that Paul either coined it himself or he borrowed it from
rabbinical literature. He suggests that it replaced the more coarse
Greek term, "arsenos kuprin", which the Jews found offensive. Whether
it is possible to definitively say that Paul coined the term, DeYoung
does not say. But he seems to favor that theory over the rabbincal
one.
Interestingly, DeYoung points out that the list of sins in 1 Cor
6:9,10 is the exact same as the ones listed in Leviticus 18-20, which
was known as the purity code. The only sin (in the 1 Cor list)
missing from Leviticus is "drunkards". This lends strength to the
argument that either Paul or the rabbis coined the term from the
Leviticus use of arsen with koite.
DeYoung also refutes Petersen's contention that the Greeks knew
nothing of sexual orientation, citing Plato's discussion of the
"third" sex in "Symposium", as well as other classic Greek writers.
He demonstrates that the classical Greek writers were well aware of a
"homosexual orientation" as we call it today. He argues that
"homosexual" is the best possible translation of arsenokoitai based
upon all the available evidence.
It is unfortunate that Boswell chose to use his position to promote
ideas which are unsupported by the texts. Obviously most who read his
book are not scholars and would be unable to verfiy his "facts". He
has done a grave disservice to the Christian community and
particularly to homosexuals who desire to become Christians.
bald...@airmail.net (Paul Schmehl)
****************************************************************
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
M.A., M.Div., Th.M.
Ph.D. Candidate, Westsminster Theological Seminary
-Acts 4:13
Lars Eighner
The false conclusion proves the falseness of the premises.
So you reveal yourself to be nothing more than a homophobe and
a fascist. You will not win, however many libels you recite,
however many cross you burn, however many parades in your white
sheets you make. You reveal the evil of your hate filled religion.
Yesterday you taught slavery was justified and Jim Crow was
righteous because black skin was the mark of Ham. Today you
have changed your target, but not your wicked tactics.
Clearly your philosophy is evil at the root. You are the product
of a poisonous tree.
Barry Hofstetter
> In our last episode <CHJrnCBg...@netaxs.com>,
> Broadcast on alt.homosexual,alt.sex,soc.motss,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.sex,alt.atheism
> neb...@netaxs.com (Barry Hofstetter) wrote:
> >It is unfortunate that Boswell chose to use his position to promote
> >ideas which are unsupported by the texts. Obviously most who read his
> >book are not scholars and would be unable to verfiy his "facts". He
> >has done a grave disservice to the Christian community and
> >particularly to homosexuals who desire to become Christians.
> The false conclusion proves the falseness of the premises.
Note that I did not draw this conclusion, but it was part of a quoted
post which consisted of a summary of scholarly reviews on Boswell's
work. Also, how can you simply assert that the conclusion is false
without first analyzing the premises and supporting arguments?
> So you reveal yourself to be nothing more than a homophobe and
> a fascist. You will not win, however many libels you recite,
> however many cross you burn, however many parades in your white
> sheets you make. You reveal the evil of your hate filled religion.
In case nobody every told you, insults and abusive ad hominem attacks do
not win arguments. The issue was the interpretation of Rom 1:26-27,
concerning which you made several comments, and I responded to the
specific points of your claims. If you have the will, ability, and
maturity to do so, please respond to what I actually said. Try to avoid
irrelevant comments.
> Yesterday you taught slavery was justified and Jim Crow was
> righteous because black skin was the mark of Ham. Today you
> have changed your target, but not your wicked tactics.
Abusive rhetoric is really not necessary. I have never taught any such
thing, and can show exegetically why such conclusions are wrong.
> Clearly your philosophy is evil at the root. You are the product
> of a poisonous tree.
You do not know what my philosophy is, since all I have done is argued
against your interpretation of one passage in the Bible. This is simply
an emotive assertion, and does nothing except to ensure loss of respect
for you.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
If it were true - as conceited shrewdness, proud of not being
deceived, thinks - that one should believe nothing which he
cannot see by means of his physical eyes, then first and foremost one
ought to give up believing in love.
- S. Kierkegaard
Lars Eighner
Broadcast on alt.homosexual,alt.sex,soc.motss,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.sex,alt.atheism
The lovely and talented neb...@netaxs.com (Barry Hofstetter) wrote:
>In article <r1V1xAwZ...@io.com>, eig...@io.com (Lars Eighner) wrote:
>
>> In our last episode <CHJrnCBg...@netaxs.com>,
>> Broadcast on alt.homosexual,alt.sex,soc.motss,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.sex,alt.atheism
>> neb...@netaxs.com (Barry Hofstetter) wrote:
>
>> >It is unfortunate that Boswell chose to use his position to promote
>> >ideas which are unsupported by the texts. Obviously most who read his
>> >book are not scholars and would be unable to verfiy his "facts". He
>> >has done a grave disservice to the Christian community and
>> >particularly to homosexuals who desire to become Christians.
>
>
>> The false conclusion proves the falseness of the premises.
>
>Note that I did not draw this conclusion, but it was part of a quoted
>post which consisted of a summary of scholarly reviews on Boswell's
>work. Also, how can you simply assert that the conclusion is false
>without first analyzing the premises and supporting arguments?
I hear reports that Christianity is not thoroughly evil. People
tell me that in spite of history there is some potential for
good in the Christian philosophy. People tell me it is a mistake
to call gay Christian quislings, that there is some form of Christianity
that is not wholly devoted to wickedness.
As there is scarcely too much good in the world, it would be very foolish
of me to reject these claims without seeing whether there wasn't
some truth to them. If Christianity could become a force for good
in the world that would be a wonderful thing. So, from time to time
I can't help but let my hope overcome my experience and test whether
Christianity has indeed rehabilitated itself. But of course it hasn't.
So when I write:
>>> Notice that the men and women mentioned in this
>>> passage are explicitly identified as those
>>> who had previously had heterosexual relations:
>>> Romans 1:26-27 reads, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile
>>> affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which
>>> ^^^^^^
>>> is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of
>>> ^^^^^^^
>>> the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working
>>> that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of
>>> their error which was meet."
The response is:
>>The flow of Paul's argument indicates that he is speaking of the human
>>race as a class, and then citing specific examples - in other words, an
>>argument from the general to the specific.
Which is to say: when the words do not serve an evil purpose they
must be interpreted in the light of the "flow of Paul's argument"
until they justify wickedness. Of course, when the words do
serve an evil purpose, then they should NOT be interpreted.
Whatever the words are, they must serve homophobia, and if they
don't, they must be made to.
You will take the passage literally when it serves homophobia to
interpret it literally. But where it does not serve homophobia
literally, then it must be interpreted. In truth it doesn't matter
to you what it says, but only that it can be turned into the
blood and broken bodies of gay people.
Obviously Christianity is a philosophy that cannot be used for
the improvement of self, but must always work to do harm to
other people. Sometimes it is Africans, sometimes it is Jews,
today the target of Christianity is gay people. The god of
Christianity demands blood.
How do I know Christianity is a false conclusion? Because
that of which I am most certain is that I am gay. Descartes
had to think to know that he was. But I know I am gay before
thinking. It is the central aspect of identity. It comes
before what "I think" and before what "I believe" because it
is what "I" means.
Therefore, when you say "There is a being that created you
and everything else, and that being does not want you to be gay"
you are speaking utter nonsense. You would have me believe
that the creator of everything is a sadistic monster--in other
words that there is no Problem of Evil, because it is freely
admitted that god is the genesis of evil. While this is
a refreshingly candid position, still it is unacceptable.
Barry Hofstetter
> In our last episode <18NrnCBg...@netaxs.com>,
> Broadcast on alt.homosexual,alt.sex,soc.motss,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.sex,alt.atheism
> The lovely and talented neb...@netaxs.com (Barry Hofstetter) wrote:
>
> >In article <r1V1xAwZ...@io.com>, eig...@io.com (Lars Eighner) wrote:
> >> In our last episode <CHJrnCBg...@netaxs.com>,
> >> Broadcast on alt.homosexual,alt.sex,soc.motss,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.sex,alt.atheism
> >> neb...@netaxs.com (Barry Hofstetter) wrote:
> >> >It is unfortunate that Boswell chose to use his position to promote
> >> >ideas which are unsupported by the texts. Obviously most who read his
> >> >book are not scholars and would be unable to verfiy his "facts". He
> >> >has done a grave disservice to the Christian community and
> >> >particularly to homosexuals who desire to become Christians.
> >> The false conclusion proves the falseness of the premises.
> >Note that I did not draw this conclusion, but it was part of a quoted
> >post which consisted of a summary of scholarly reviews on Boswell's
> >work. Also, how can you simply assert that the conclusion is false
> >without first analyzing the premises and supporting arguments?
[Irrelevant opinion about Christianity snipped]
You do seem to have trouble sticking to the subject, don't you?
> So when I write:
> >>> Notice that the men and women mentioned in this
> >>> passage are explicitly identified as those
> >>> who had previously had heterosexual relations:
[Rom 1:26-27, KJV, cut]
> The response is:
> >>The flow of Paul's argument indicates that he is speaking of the human
> >>race as a class, and then citing specific examples - in other words, an
> >>argument from the general to the specific.
> Which is to say: when the words do not serve an evil purpose they
> must be interpreted in the light of the "flow of Paul's argument"
> until they justify wickedness. Of course, when the words do
> serve an evil purpose, then they should NOT be interpreted.
> Whatever the words are, they must serve homophobia, and if they
> don't, they must be made to.
This is not even a straw man - it is a complete deflection from the
subject. If my claims are wrong, show from the text why they are wrong.
BTW, I am not concerned about your lifestyle - that is your business. I
am concerned that when people use the Bible in their arguments, they
understand what the Bible is actually saying. In your dependence on
Boswell, you made what to me appear to be several errors. I am inviting
you to defend your position, if you are capable of doing so.
> You will take the passage literally when it serves homophobia to
> interpret it literally. But where it does not serve homophobia
> literally, then it must be interpreted. In truth it doesn't matter
> to you what it says, but only that it can be turned into the
> blood and broken bodies of gay people.
Please spare me irrelevant, though impassioned, comments. I am
concerned with the proper interpretation of the text, wherever that
leads me. If it is to the conclusion that Paul teaches that same-sex
relationships are against the will and purpose of God, then so be it.
If it is to the conclusion that same-sex relationships are honoring to
God, then so be that. But please do not accuse me of homophobia -
rather, of a passion for correct understanding. I could as easily
accuse you of christophobia, the fear and hatred of Christ and things
Christian.
> Obviously Christianity is a philosophy that cannot be used for
> the improvement of self, but must always work to do harm to
> other people. Sometimes it is Africans, sometimes it is Jews,
> today the target of Christianity is gay people. The god of
> Christianity demands blood.
This is a non-argument (and also not relevant to the subject).
Christians have done bad things... So what? Christians have also fed
the hungry, taken care of widows and orphans, rescued infants exposed to
die, brought literacy to hundreds of people groups, built hospitals, and
worked for peace. When there are enough examples and counter examples,
nothing is proven, but another principle must be sought to explain the
phenonemon.
> How do I know Christianity is a false conclusion? Because
> that of which I am most certain is that I am gay. Descartes
> had to think to know that he was. But I know I am gay before
> thinking. It is the central aspect of identity. It comes
> before what "I think" and before what "I believe" because it
> is what "I" means.
I was not arguing whether or not you are gay (and I could not care
less). Your feelings hardly constitute the evaluation of an argument.
All you are saying is "my personal experience indicates that a certain
statement is false." But that does not *prove* that it is false. Try
answering the specific points that I raised in my earlier response, and
then maybe we'll begin to get somewhere.
> Therefore, when you say "There is a being that created you
> and everything else, and that being does not want you to be gay"
> you are speaking utter nonsense. You would have me believe
> that the creator of everything is a sadistic monster--in other
> words that there is no Problem of Evil, because it is freely
> admitted that god is the genesis of evil. While this is
> a refreshingly candid position, still it is unacceptable.
This is, of course, a false disjunction. In the biblical tradition, in
point of fact, all people are born evil, and prove it as soon as they are
able to act independently. Whether that evil takes the form of
homosexuality, lying, murder, other types of sexual sin, etc., it is
simply the working out the principle. The Bible itself never attributes
the cause of this to God, but rather the responsibility to mankind, both
as a species and as individuals.
Hans-Michael
Barry Hofstetter (neb...@netaxs.com) wrote:
: eig...@io.com (Lars Eighner) wrote:
: > Here, of course, "para phusis" has been wrongly translated as
: > "against nature." It means nothing of the sort.
: The phrase *para phusin* does not occur in 1:27, but in 1:26. What is
: your basis for this assertion, and what do you propose as an alternate
: translation?
One reason i am less than comfortable with the translation "against
nature" or "unnatural" is the pejorative nuance inherant therein. I think
that most identify that which is "against nature" with something that is
automatically and inherantly sinful. Yet Paul uses the same term in the
same Letter with regard to God. He grafted a wild olive branch onto a
cultivated plant. (Rom 11:24) This act could be called "unnatural" if
translators were consistant, but many render Paul's phrase as "contrary to
nature." I have read before of the proposed translation "beyond nature."
It kind of works for me. What do you think, Barry?
Peace, ha...@teleport.com
Don Hinds
>>
>I've always thought that Men who lie with men' was about lying ie, not
>telling the truth. How do you know it means sex. Why didn't it say
>homosexuality or mention sex. The untruth tellers certainly will not
>go to heaven. Try another quote, buddy.
Actually, since it says 'as with women' in that passage... But I still
don't think it means anything. In the ancient world procreation was all
important. Men had more than 1 wife so they could have more children.
Anything that took away from procreation was not well though of. So it is
likely they were unhappy when men 'lied' with men. But only 'cause they
couldn't have babies. Since we're overpopulated now, we should welcome
men with men and women with women. ;-)
Don
James
What a waste of net space. Pointless arguements about mystic topics of none
to little real consequence to anyone.
In article <4quaqk$6...@shore.shore.net>, do...@zoomtel.com says...
Robbie Langton
eig...@io.com (Lars Eighner) wrote:
>How do I know Christianity is a false conclusion? Because
>that of which I am most certain is that I am gay. Descartes
>had to think to know that he was. But I know I am gay before
>thinking. It is the central aspect of identity. It comes
>before what "I think" and before what "I believe" because it
>is what "I" means.
>
>Therefore, when you say "There is a being that created you
>and everything else, and that being does not want you to be gay"
>you are speaking utter nonsense. You would have me believe
>that the creator of everything is a sadistic monster--in other
>words that there is no Problem of Evil, because it is freely
>admitted that god is the genesis of evil. While this is
>a refreshingly candid position, still it is unacceptable.
Absolutely brilliantly put! These people will never understood you,
though, because they don't know, as you and I do, what it feels like
to be gay. In order to make sense to them, it *has* to be a conscious
and perverse choice that we have made, in order to fit into their
preconceptions derived from their silly book of rules. We've *got* to
be evil deviants or else the bottom falls out of their world. They
talk of love, but can't recognize it when it is staring them in the
face.
----
Robbie Langton Hey, this web thing's immense -
rob...@roblang.demon.co.uk must be one HELL of a spider!
Tom Tureman
Don Hinds wrote:
>
> >"I don't care how badly homosexuals want to marry. I say it would have
> some
> >vaguely bad effect on society which I can't begin to explain!"
> >
>
> vaguely bad effect I can't explian... of course you can't. There is no
> bad effect. It makes families stronger, not weaker. The notion familties
> and marraige is to have children is dumb. Else hetros who get married and
> don't have children have invalid marraiges, if their marraiges are valid,
> they married for LOVE, so any marraige for love is valid.
>
legit committed relationship is a statement of fear. The demise of family, which I
think is truly terrible, has a number of causes, lack of commitment, sense that I can
make or break a relationship when I please, (ie unbridled individualism without
responsibility.), an economic system that pays little and forces workers to be away too
much from their families are the real causes. There are others of course. Remember the
idea of a contract of marriage was only initiated in the Middle Ages to control abusive
men.
Scripture has wonderful examples of committed relationship between all sorts of people
and groups. If a couple wants to make a contractual commitment to each other to serve
and to love, that is healthy and important. This is the type of stability we all need.
If humans are constituted to live in relationship then who has the right to stand in
someones shoes and decide what commitment is or is not. No religious organization,
claiming to speak the mind of God, has the right or the deep power to know what love or
commitment really is. Only God can truly say in the individuals involved what love is
or is not.
We can say some general things about the characteristics of what love and commitment
might mean. For example in Catholic thought we would ask: Is their equality in the
love between the two? Is this relationship abusive or controling? Is there a centering
of one's life in the other? Is there a deep sense of being at home in the other that
goes beyonds words. Is there a shared belief of commitment and calling that centers on
the other person. Only the individual involved can truly answer that. Sorry some
stressed out christian can not pontificate or make that decision for the couple.
I would suggest to those who oppose the possibility of other relationship need to
re-read scripture and in the process learn about what commitment and love is all about.
Ward Stewart
Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>Don Hinds wrote:
>>
>> The worst immorality, is hurting a fellow human being. Whether it be
>> physical or emotional. as you can see, we have quite a few immoral people
>> here, preaching in the name of the Lord.
>Assuming that homosexuality is immoral and ultimately destructive (which
>is what most Christians believe) why is it "hurting" a human being to
>tell them that?
You are, once again, making an assertion based on your sunday school
tracts --
If you could pull your head out of your fundament you might well be
greatly surprised to discover what "most Christians believe."
ward
Timothy
eig...@io.com (Lars Eighner) wrote:
>I hear reports that Christianity is not thoroughly evil. People
>tell me that in spite of history there is some potential for
>good in the Christian philosophy. People tell me it is a mistake
>to call gay Christian quislings, that there is some form of Christianity
>that is not wholly devoted to wickedness
>
>So when I write:
>Obviously Christianity is a philosophy that cannot be used for
>the improvement of self, but must always work to do harm to
>other people. Sometimes it is Africans, sometimes it is Jews,
>today the target of Christianity is gay people. The god of
>Christianity demands blood.
>
>How do I know Christianity is a false conclusion? Because
>that of which I am most certain is that I am gay. Descartes
>had to think to know that he was. But I know I am gay before
>thinking. It is the central aspect of identity. It comes
>before what "I think" and before what "I believe" because it
>is what "I" means.
>
>Therefore, when you say "There is a being that created you
>and everything else, and that being does not want you to be gay"
>you are speaking utter nonsense. You would have me believe
>that the creator of everything is a sadistic monster--in other
>words that there is no Problem of Evil, because it is freely
>admitted that god is the genesis of evil. While this is
>a refreshingly candid position, still it is unacceptable.
Well, first of all, let me point out the the position on
homosexuality in the church is still up in the air. Knowing the
speed at which change occurs, it'll be settled sometime late in
the next century. Sigh. Sorry, but an institution with 2000 years
of history can be slightly slow to decide. Part of the problem
is the number of cultural Christians which have crept in. Jesus
made disciples but over the centuries we've made more converts
than disciples :<
We are also victims of our own cultures. Too often we accept our
own cultures as the test of right and wrong without question.
This stands against our purpose to act as the "salt of the
world".
The test of a Christian is: "you shall know them by their fruit".
If I don't stand the test, I'm not one no matter what I believe.
(I guess I'm a marginal pass on this).
I converted from being a atheist to Christian not because of any
arguments but because Christians were the only one who befriended
me. Many atheists seem to be reacting against Christianity rather
than from any deep convictions (bitter experiences?). Gay friends
developed a fortress mentality, pushing me away just because "I
didn't understand". In the end, only Christians remained in spite
of my beliefs.
In defense of Christianity's track record, Christians are
probably the most active in the social services.
Bear with us brother, we're still sinners.
Timothy
Jay Brazier
In <4rvjdp$b...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> jha...@ix.netcom.com (Luke!)
writes:
>
>chi...@pop.eclec.Com (Kenneth Chisholm) wrote:
>
>>neb...@netaxs.com (Barry Hofstetter) wrote:
>
>
>>>Yes, the Bible is rather true to life, not even whitewashing its
heroes,
>>>but presenting them faults and all. BTW, Rev, do you mind telling
us
>>>where you hold your ordination papers?
>
>>Including God, who ordered the EXTERMINATION of entire peoples like
>>the Alemkemites. Every man, woman, child and beast regardless of
what
>>their individual actions are.
>
>>Thus, the old testament God is guilty of direct and premeditated
>>genocide.
>
>
>that is because God knew their hearts were pure evil and could only
>corrupt the world more.
>
Even the beasts' hearts were pure evil?!!!
Are you for real?
Buddy Beaudoin
Kenneth Chisholm wrote:
>
> neb...@netaxs.com (Barry Hofstetter) wrote:
>
> >Yes, the Bible is rather true to life, not even whitewashing its heroes,
> >but presenting them faults and all. BTW, Rev, do you mind telling us
> >where you hold your ordination papers?
>
> Including God, who ordered the EXTERMINATION of entire peoples like
> the Alemkemites. Every man, woman, child and beast regardless of what
> their individual actions are.
And this is what He ordered the nations of Caanan destoyed for....
"When you enter the land which the Lord your God gives you, you
shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations.
There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or
his daughter pass through the fire (human sacrifice), one who
uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets
omens, or a sorcerer, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a
spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For whoever does these
things is detestable to the Lord; and because of these detestable
things the Lord your God will drive them out before you. You shall
be blameless before the Lord your God." [Deuteronomy 18:9-13]
To the God of Israel, those who practiced such things were guilty of
associating with devils.
> Thus, the old testament God is guilty of direct and premeditated
> genocide.
R-e-e-a-l-l-l-y.....and are you going to be the one who will serve Him
with your indictment?
--
**********************************************************************
* Buddy * The two-second gospel: "If therefore the Son shall *
* Beaudoin * make you free, you shall be free indeed." *
*************************John 8: 36***********************************
SCN User
In a previous article, yoipu () says:
>
>Jason Alexander <ja...@richnet.net> wrote:
>
>:Actually, in Romans 1:18-32, it not only makes it clear to
>:"me", (maybe not you), that homosexuality is wrong, but that it
>:isn't genetic either. Why would god destroy Sodom and Gommorah
>:if homosexuality was A-OK??
Sodom and Gomorrah had had reputations of being stingy and selfish.
The crime in question really wasn't homosexuality; wouldn't God have
destroyed the city anyways if the angels were female? (God didn't send
any female angels in the Bible, but....) Gee, these guys in the city
want to gang-rape Lot's guests (who just so happen to be angels). Oh, it
*must* be because they're the same sex! :-P The Jews were a nomadic people,
so kindness toward guests and strangers was very important. Haven't you
heard that rape (of anyone) is more about control and humiliation than it
is about sex?
I'm assuming that the Romans passage is about "going against their
nature" and blah blah blah. Homosexual behavior and relationships have
been found in animals, so it can't exactly be against nature. One thing
to keep in mind while reading Romans is that when the letter was written,
Rome was a pagan city. There were fertility cults where married
(straight) men would go and have sex with temple prostitutes -- male and
female. Now, if a straight man is just visiting a prostitute or having a
fling with another man, that might be against his "nature". (And if
he's married, it's adultery.) IMHO, it
is a crime that society tries to get gays and lesbians to go against
_their_ natural orientations and "convert" to heterosexuality.
>:Alot of people seem worried about
>:the cleanliness of the outside of the bowl, but ignore the
>:inside. You then eat your cheerios with cat hair, and spoiled
>:milk laceing the inside. And you wonder why your cheerios
>:taste so bad? Wash your dishes better, eh?
>: Jason Alexander --- follower of Christ
>
>Because of posts like these, I don't believe in the bible anymore,
>Jason.
<sigh.> It's not the Bible; it's the annoying trolls who think they're
doing some amazing good by saying, "You're sinful and gross". If you
truly _are_ a follower of Christ, Jason, then you will know that your
heterosexual (I presume) desires are just as sinful. :) This reminds me
of some of the protesters that hang around and shout at the Pride
Parade. Is your motivation _really_ to convince people that God loves
them, or to make them hide their gayness?
Audax
bd619
Don Hinds
In article <4rh2co$h...@nuhou.aloha.net>, wste...@hi.net says...
Be careful with your quotes! You are putting other peoples quotes under
MY NAME...
don
SCN User
In a previous article, laj...@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie) says:
>
>In article <4s5sgn$1...@shore.shore.net>, Don Hinds <do...@zoomtel.com> wrote:
>>Unfortunately, because of people's indiscriminate inclusion or old
>>messages, you have it wrong. I'm against gay bashing, and I don't beleive
>>the Bible has any admontions against men with men or women with women. I
>>beleive LOVE is LOVE, and that is what God and Jesus want. Hate and
>>intolerance is not a family value.
>>
>> rev Abe
>>
>
>Did you ever READ this book? Cover to cover?
>
>Leviticus, 20:13 "if a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them
>shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their
>lives."
>
>There are others...
The prohibition is becasue of the "as with a woman". Women were
considered unclean and less than men (ever heard of the Orthodox Jews who
thanked God every morning that they were men, not women?). If a man was
acting "as a woman", he was making himself like a woman, and therefore
debasing himself.
Besides, do you think that we should stone women to death who have sex
during their menstrual periods? (Also in Leviticus.)
Audax
bd619
Apuleius
neb...@netaxs.com (Barry Hofstetter) wrote to and
alt.politics.homosexuality:
==
== Then the advice of the writer of Ecclessiastes should apply to you:
== "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you may die." It is said that
== as allied forces approached Berlin many of the Germans partied
== ceaselessly and intensely, until they could party no more. Make the
== most of it while you can...
== N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Where does Ecclesiastes say this? I can't find it.
What I do find is 8:15, which, in the KJV, as cited in the Oxford
Dictionary of Quotations, reads "A man hath no better thing under the
sun, than to eat, drink, and to be merry." In the New American Bible
the full verse is
"Therefore I commend mirth, because there is nothing good for man
under the sun except eating and drinking and mirth: for this is the
accompaniment of his toil during the limited days of the life which
God gives him under the sun."
The note which the NAB refers the reader to says "The meaning is that
the joys of life, though temporary, keep a man from dwelling on the
ills which afflict humanity."
It would seem that Ecclesiastes is heartily recommending everyone to
have fun.
Are you perhaps confused? Maybe with Isaiah 22? That passage,
presumably condemning behavior during the siege of Jerusalem, would
certainly fit the alleged behavior of the Nazis in Berlin. But I don't
know that there's any truth is what you say about the Nazis either. Do
you have a citation from a reliable historian?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Romans referred to Jesus using "ECCE HOMO", not "ECCE HETERO"
Jesus Christ: first victim of homophobia
Jesus was crucified at the insistence of the world's worst homophobes.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Kenneth Chisholm
Buddy Beaudoin <bud...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>To the God of Israel, those who practiced such things were guilty of
>associating with devils.
>
That does not justify genocide anymore than Hitler's arguments did.
>> Thus, the old testament God is guilty of direct and premeditated
>> genocide.
>R-e-e-a-l-l-l-y.....and are you going to be the one who will serve Him
>with your indictment?
I'll just resolve that I will not worship a murderer. One can also
accept the idea that either God change radically with the New
Testament, or is simply made up.
--
*********************Kenneth Chisholm**************************
Love is a Temple
Love, the Higher Law - From One by U2
****************Brantford, Ontario, Canada*********************
Barry Hofstetter
In article <4sc29s$d...@homer.alpha.net>, eea...@mixcom.com (Apuleius) wrote:
> aloha.net> <YnRvnCBg...@netaxs.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: dial43-109.mixcom.com
> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
> Xref: netaxs.com alt.censorship:111069 alt.politics.homosexuality:118989 soc.men:220147 soc.women:218148 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:362380 alt.mens-rights:36022 ne.motss:5459 soc.motss:368402 alt.christnet.bible:62477 alt.christnet:115148 alt.christnet.sex:20183 alt.christnet.second-coming.real-soon-now:23804 alt.atheism:292969
> neb...@netaxs.com (Barry Hofstetter) wrote to and
> alt.politics.homosexuality:
> == Of course, the fact that Christians led in abolishing the slave trade,
> == providing homes for unwanted infants, feeding the poor, working for
> == world literacy, and other causes that most of us would feel are just and
>
> You're also wrong in making claims about literacy.
> Christianity ushered in and caused illiteracy in the ancient world,
> then, after hundreds of years, had people like you give them "credit"
> for slowly undoing somewhat of what they had done.
Prove this. I have a fairly extensive bibliography which will argue
against your assertion, should you wish to see it.
> Xians burned far, far more books than Adolf Hitler burned.
Prove it.
> Xians also burned the scholars who wrote books. At least Hitler let
> them leave the country.
Unless they were Jewish, right? But prove it. Let's see your sources,
and I mean full bibliographic citations and primary sources. It would
help if you listed somebody besides Boswell.