Christian Homophobia
hosi...@my-dejanews.com
homophobia. Christians are quick to point out that homosexuality is forbidden
in the Bible (Leviticus 21:13) but the death penalty it incurs is at odds
with what most civilised people consider a basic human right, i.e. summary
execution for what somone judges a 'moral' crime.' Leave me out. It is
Procrustean. (Look it up guys). So if the Christian right want Biblical
precedent to serve as a moral example why should they not espouse incest?
There are six incestuous couples in the Bible. First, Lot and his daughters.
After the destruction of Sodom and Gomorahh Lot and his two virgin daughters
hid in a cave where the daughters plied the old man with wine. The elder
daughter seduced Lot to 'preserve the seed...of their father.' The following
night the younger daughter had a go. This produced two offspring. (Genesis
19:30-38) Abraham and Sarah. They had the same father but different mothers.
Sarah married her half brother in Ur and they remained together till the 'age
of 127.' (Genesis 20:12). Nahor and Milcah. Abraham's brother married his
niece the daughter of his dead brother Haran and the sister of Lot. (Genesis
11:27-29). Amram and Jochebed. Amram married his father's sister and aunt
Jochebed bore his two sons, Aaron and Moses. (Exodus 6:20). Amnon and Tamar.
Amnon raped his half sister and was murdered in revenge two years later by
Tamar's full brother Absalom. (II Samuel 13:2; 14-28-29). So why are there
no Biblical admonitions about incest in the Scriptures? Let me return to
homophobia. Psychologists agree that is not possible for anyone to be one
hundred per cent 'heterosexual' as the human condition is far too complex for
it to be confined to such a simple definition. So simply we are capable or
being a 'bit gay.' Most people at one time in their lives will have
experienced some homosexual feelings, usually in childhood and school and
sometimes they find this is the sexual polarity that they choose which may
stem from vile relationships with a parent or early experiences in one's life
that went wrong or genetic disposition. Or perhaps combinations of all these
aspects. Irrational bigotry against a certain group's impulses betrays
repression of similar emotions. A racist attempts to stifle fear of or secret
willingness to accept foreigners. A misogynist wishes to constrain affection
for women; and a homophobe is merely trying to suppress his (yes - funny how
most are male, isn't it?) own homosexual feelings. The intensity of the anti
gay feelings is proportional to the amount of such impulses being covered up.
And the Bible provides spiritual justification that aids this bottling up.
Leave them alone Christians. The most repulsive aspect of your dogma is that
you are not content to leave alone people who are happy in their lifestyle
that hurts nor inconveniences anyone else. Why can you not just let people go
about what they want to do if it harms no one? But what if they don't
subscribe to Christianity anyway? Where does that leave you?
Ho Sin Tak, Hong Kong.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Marty Helgesen
phobia is an irrational fear of enclosed places. Ailurophobia is an
irrational fear of cats. (And, as a friend of mine once observed
tooraloorailurophobia is an irrational fear of Irish cats.) There-
fore, homophobia would be an irrational fear of homosexuals or of
homosexuality. No doubt there are some people with an irrational
fear like that, and the term "homophobia" would properly apply to
them, but that is not how it is used. If someone says a homosexual
orientation is a psychosexual disorder and not an "alternate but
equally valid sexual orientation," he is accused of homophobia. If
someone says that both the Old Testament and the New Testament con-
demn homosexual intercourse as sinful, he is accused of homophobia.
If someone opposes the political agenda of militant homosexuals, he
is accused of homophobia.
Those accusations are a smear. They attempt to dismiss and discredit
those positions as based on an irrational fear, since that is what a
phobia is. If those positions are the result of an irrational fear
there is no need to examine them or any arguments the proponents may
advance to support them. The arguments are just the rationalizations
of an irrational fear.
The following is an excerpt from a posting by Frank Beckwith (a
professor of philosophy) to a list on June 10, 1994:
------ BEGIN QUOTE -----
On Thursday night I called the Larry King Show, guest hosted by Nick
Charles (June 9, 1994). They were discussing the issue of whether
homosexuals can change and become heterosexuals via psychotherapy. One
of the guests Dr. Shelly Klinger, member of American Psychiatric
Association's Gay & Lesbian Committee, asserted that homosexuality is not
a dysfunction and that is wrong for therapists to treat it. So, I called
the show, got on the air, and the following ensued:
caller (Frank Beckwith): Dr. Klinger, I have a question. If it is wrong
for a psychiatrist to treat homosexuality as if it were a dysfunction,
would it not also be true that when gay activists use the term
"homophobia" as a term of derision that they are misusing psychiatry
as well?
Dr. Klinger (guest): The term "homophobia" is a misnomer. It's not
really a phobia. It's an ism. The true term should be heterosexism. And
it's not a psychiatric diagnosis.
There you have it from a homosexual psychiatrist who is on an APA
committee for gay and lesbians: there is no such thing as homophobia.
----- END QUOTE -----
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
"A sneer is a distortion of the face that reflects a worse
distortion of the soul." -- F. J. Sheed
Support H.R. 1748 Anti-Spam bill. For further information see
http://www.cauce.org/
Matthew Downey
liberal person, why are you so quick to judge Christians?
I happen to be a man who lived several years of my early life as an
out-of-the-closet homosexual. I had boyfriends in high school and
everybody knew it. I marched in gay pride parades and I also held a very
limited view of Christianity because it condemns homosexuality as a sin.
However, rather than focus on this, why not look at it this way. The
Bible condemns ALL fornication, no matter who's doing it, same sex or
opposite. See?
Here's my suggestion for you, if you consider yourself an "open minded"
person. READ THE BIBLE FOR YOURSELF. Decide if you believe it, based on
personal knowledge, and if you do, live your life like you believe it.
If you feel a turning in your gut, that's CONVICTION. Don't be afraid to
read the Bible knowing that if you did just happen to be convinced, you'd
have to to maybe make some changes in how you live. Rather, read what the
Bible says for yourself instead of looking to people who call themselves
Christians for your opinion.
If I did what you're doing about a black man who raped a small child, I'd
post a thread titled, "Black men's child raping." This would be
inappropriate and foolish, since one stupid man's actions don't really
reflect ALL of the populous.
Be educated. Read the BIBLE. If you're too cool to read the Bible, then
I'm sorry for you, since your mind is closed to something you might
actually find etertaining and maybe also, a life changing experience.
I'm not a "homophobe." I'm a SATAN-phobe. I don't like evil. When I
realized how I was living my life was displeasing to God, I WANTED to give
up certain things in my life, to reach a place of security and peace.
Homosexuality was one of the things that I found and indeed still find very
alluring, but which I realized was displeasing to God. I CHOSE to believe
for personal reasons. I CHOSE to be better than my "friends" who I
learned REALLY cared nothing about me because they were too cool to be
friends with a Christian.
Please notice that you can't be a cool Christian. It's impossible. The
too things are oxymoronic. If I said, "I'm a Zen Buddhist," most would
say, "Really? Tell me about it." If I said, "I'm a Christian," people
would either say, "A fundamentalist?!?!" or "Oh. Ok. Whatever." They
would make fun of me because THAT'S WHAT'S COOL. Defined. Mockery of
everything established. Too bad. People are puppets.
I CHOOSE to be Christian because I've discovered everything I ever need
to know or have or feel in Jesus Christ. His Light is amazing and better
than anything else in existance. I've done nearly every drug, had plenty
of all kinds of sex, and liveds all kinds of lifestyles. Nothing
satisfies except Christ.
If you want to write me an email, please do. I won't try to change you
or force my opinions on you. I'm a pretty normal person. Please be
careful in the furture when you prejudge people. Peace.
--
~~~~~~~
E-mail me at: mdo...@freenet.columbus.oh.us
Alexander R Pruss
: One of the most distasteful aspects of right wing Christianity is their
: homophobia. Christians are quick to point out that homosexuality is forbidden
: in the Bible (Leviticus 21:13) but the death penalty it incurs is at odds
: with what most civilised people consider a basic human right, i.e. summary
: execution for what somone judges a 'moral' crime.'
The execution was not a _summary_ one. A legal process would have had to have
been followed. In any case, the death penalty for such sins is no longer in
force in New Testament times, given what Jesus said about the woman caught in
adultery ("Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"). And when I
condemn homosexual acts, I do not do this on the basis of the Old Testament
(since the Torah has been transformed), but on the basis of the New Testament.
Alex
--
Alexander R. Pruss || e-mail: pru...@pitt.edu
Graduate Student || home page: http://www.pitt.edu/~pruss
Department of Philosophy || alternate e-mail address: pr...@member.ams.org
University of Pittsburgh || Erdos number: 4
Pittsburgh, PA 15260 ||
U.S.A. ||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Philosophiam discimus non ut tantum sciamus, sed ut boni efficiamur."
- Paul of Worczyn (1424)
Dave in Phoenix
> One of the most distasteful aspects of right wing Christianity is their
>homophobia. Christians are quick to point out that homosexuality is forbidden
>in the Bible (Leviticus 21:13
And they should be so ashamed of such ignorant lies!
Leviticus and Homosexuality
Eaten any ham sandwiches? Eaten at Red Lobster recently? Did you shave
this morning? How about the clothes you are wearing - are they made of any
blends of fibers? Had a haircut recently? Oh and by the way, have you been
to the temple to make a burnt offering ? Can you explain why it is OK to do
those things but not OK for people to love the consenting adult of their
choice?
More serious discussion:
Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both
of them have done what is detestable."
This was obviously directed at the majority heterosexual population. It
would be just as unnatural for a homosexual to lie with the opposite sex as
for a heterosexual to lie with the same sex. Gays are naturally attracted to
same sex - that is how God created them. It would be detestable to force
them into an unnatural act with a woman.
You also have to look at the context of the passage.
What you have to realize is these laws were designed to have priests
distinguish themselves from the practices of the religions of the peoples
around Israel in other parts of Canaan, especially those east of Jordan.
These people were involved in the worship of Molech and Baal and other gods
and goddesses. One of the common practices were for the heterosexual
priests of Molech to dress up as women as part of their rituals and have sex
with men who came to worship. Hence the prohibition of laying with men as
with women - it was part of the religious worship, not with other men as in
natural homosexuality.
In the start of chapter 20 if you read verse 2 it says to "speak to the
children of Israel." Christians are NOT the "children of Israel". No
Christians have an obligation to follow Jewish Levitical Laws- they just do
not apply. Have you eaten a ham sandwich lately? If so, thank Jesus for it.
Lev 20:13 is giving the penalties for the Lev 18:22 "abomination" or in the
Hebrew "toevah". Unlike what the English translation implies, toevah did
not usually signify something intrinsically evil, but something which is
ritually unclean for Jews. Eating pork, shellfish, lobster, trimming beards,
mixing fibers in clothing, and having sex during a women's menstrual period
is just as much an "abomination". It is used throughout the OT to designate
those Jewish sins which involve ethnic contamination or idolatry. In many
other OT verses it simply means idolatry.
Chapter 20 begins with a prohibition of sexual idolatry almost identical
with this, and like 18, its manifest purpose is to elaborate a system of
ritual "cleanliness" whereby the Jews will be distinguished from neighboring
peoples. This was also the interpretation given by later Jewish commentaries
such as those of Maimonides.
The struggle over the issue of Christian and the Mosaic law was a serious
area of confusion for the new converted Christians. Paul addresses this in
Gal 5:1-2 urging Christians not to be "entangled again with the yoke of
bondage" or to give "heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that
turn from the truth," for "unto the pure all things are pure" (Titus I:
14-15). Jesus set aside the purity laws and gave the commandment of love.
Almost no early Christian writers appealed to Leviticus as authority against
homosexual acts. Those few that did, exercised extreme selectivity in
selecting which Levitical laws to say are legitimate for Christians and
which are not, whatever suited their personal prejudice. It was clearly not
their respect for the law which created their hostility to homosexuality but
their hostility to homosexuality which led them to retain a few passages
from a law code largely discarded.
The Leviticus reference to toevah has nothing to do with homosexuality: A
further evidence of this is toevah is used throughout the OT to designate
those Jewish sins which involve ethnic contamination or idolatry and very
frequently occurs as part of the stock phrase "toevah ha-goyim" "the
uncleanness of the Gentiles" (e.g., 2 (4) Kings 16:3).
Another Hebrew word zimah could have been used - if that was what the
authors intended. Zimah means, not what is objectionable for religious or
cultural reasons, but what is wrong in itself. It means an injustice, a
sin. For example, in condemnation of temple prostitutes involving idolatry,
"toevah" is employed (e.g. 1 (3) Kings 14:24), while in prohibitions of
prostitution in general a different word "zimah," appears (e.g. Lev. 19:29).
Leviticus does not say that a man to lie with man is wrong or a sin. Rather,
it is a ritual violation, an uncleanness ; it is something dirty
ritualistically, just as was eating shellfish, mixing fibers etc. Lev 18 is
to distinguish the Jews from the pagans among whom they had been living, or
would live. The prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows
immediately upon a prohibition of idolatrous sexuality (the female temple
prostitutes worshipping the pagan fertility gods) (often mistranslated
fornication but a obvious mistranslation in the proper context).
This conclusion finds further support in the Septuagint where the toevah is
translated with the Greek word bdelygma . Fully consistent with the
Hebrew, the Greek bdelygma means a ritual impurity. Once again, other Greek
words were available, like anomia , meaning a violation of law or a wrong
or a sin. That word could have been used to translate toevah. In fact, in
some cases anomia was used to translate toevah- when the offense in question
was not just a ritual impurity but also a real wrong of an injustice, like
offering child sacrifice or having sex with another man s wife, in violation
of his property rights. The Greek translators could have used anomia; they
used bdelygma.
Evidently, the Jews of that pre-Christian era simply did not understand
Leviticus to forbid male-male sex because it is wrong in itself. They
understood Leviticus to forbid male-male sex because it offended ancient
Jewish sensitivities: it was dirty and Canaanite-like, it was unjewish. And
that is exactly how they translated the Hebrew text into Greek before
Christ. It makes no statement about the morality of homosexual acts as
such. In todays society similar unclean acts might include picking ones
nose, burping or passing gas. In Hebrew times wearing polyester, or eating
shellfish etc. would have been just as much an abomination as men laying
with men.
I think its not that useful to get all hung up on Lev cleanliness codes
which made pork eating and mixing of fibers just as terrible sins.
The NT is more significant for Christians following Christ instead of Jews
trying to follow the OT rituals to be accepted by God. Jesus said not a
word even mistranslated about homosexuality. In fact he praised as a great
example of love the Centurian's love for his slaveboy, an obviously
pederastrial relationship.
- The Holiness Code and the Legal Code -
The Yahwist and Priestly authors tell of Moses giving the Holiness Code in
Leviticus. They further credit the Legal Code in Deuteronomy to Moses,
although these texts were found centuries later. Scholars generally agree
that crediting Moses with delivering the laws of Deuteronomy was an attempt
to make the Legal Code legitimate.
As the Hebrews settled Canaan, their leaders worked to keep the identity of
Israel separate from that of the Canaanites. A principle way to do that was
to emphasize the Canaanites' practice of idolatry. The Yahwist and Priestly
authors of Genesis, Leviticus and Deuteronomy equated sacred prostitution
(an important part of Canaan's worship of fertility [footnote 3]) with
idolatry. Prostitution - and any sex act not contributing to procreation -
came to be equated with idolatry. When the Old Testament mentions homosexual
acts it is usually in the context of male worshipers using male prostitutes
in temples. In Deuteronomy 23:17 we find the main concern of the Hebrews
toward homosexual acts: "None of the Israelite women shall become a
temple-prostitute, nor shall any of the Israelite men become a
temple-prostitute. You shall never bring the gains of a harlot or the
earnings of a male prostitute as a votive offering to the temple of the Lord
your God; for both are abominable to the Lord your God." In Leviticus 18:22,
20:13 the Holiness Code establishes the association of homosexual acts and
idolatry. It specifically bans practicing the Canaanites' worship customs.
The concern with idolatry was not the only cultural or historical
consideration of the Hebrews when dealing with homosexuality:
1) According to Genesis, God chose the Hebrews as his children. Eternal life
with God was something God's people did, not something each person did
themselves. To be a part of God's eternal covenant required marriage and
bearing children. To be sterile, or to not bear children for any reason, was
one of the greatest curses a Hebrew male could suffer. It cut him off from
the covenant of God.
2) The Hebrews were a small tribe surrounded by big and powerful neighbors.
There was a desperate need to be sure every seed became a member of the
tribe. To "cast your seed on fallow ground" was a serious crime, whether
that casting be outside of the tribe or in nonreproductive sexual acts.
3) The concept of the absolute dignity of the male was central to Hebrew
values. In nomad societies, where life is hard and the tribe must always
move with the needs of the herds, the male is always revered for his
aggressiveness and dominance. These qualities are needed for protection and
survival. The gods of these societies are always male, while agricultural,
settled societies often have female as well as male gods. Also, the Hebrews
understood procreation as being purely the doing of the male. The visible
semen was the entire baby - the fertile seed. Females were understood only
as incubators for this seed [footnote 4].
The absolute dignity of the male was revered by the Hebrews, even to the
extent that virgin daughters were offered when that dignity might be
threatened. The homosexual act of anal intercourse was an affront to this
dignity, undermining the Hebrews' patriarchal society.
4) In biblical times, anal intercourse was used as an act of contempt,
domination, and scorn. The Egyptians used sodomy on their beaten enemy to
demonstrate domination. There were stories of Egyptian gods using sodomy to
demonstrate that they had the right to the inheritance of other male gods
[footnote 5]. Homosexual acts outside the temple were seen only as
violations of the sacredness of the guest: acts of violence and
inhospitality to others.
Dave, Liberated Christians, Phoenix AZ
Christian Poly Resource Center at http://www.libchrist.com
Promoting Intimacy & Other-Centered Loving Sexuality
Sybian for Maximum G-spot orgasms for womens pleasure and therapy.
Eearl2
>no Biblical admonitions about incest in the Scriptures?
If you read further in your Bible than Genesis you will find plenty of
admonition- things like
anyone who is the son/daughter of your father/mother ,includes aunts , uncles,
stepparents etc etc.
as far as homophobic I think a lot of it is when a person does realize the
truth of whats invovled - well it IS distasteful !! there is no other way
around it. The homosexual might be happy with his lifestyle but that doesn't
make it right or healthy. one example consider the hygeine part of it. I find
it interesting that schools and health facilities are REQUIRED to wear
protective gear for anything that invovles bodily fluids- yet we are to accept
the behaviour of people who participate in exchanges of ALL types of bodily
fluids( without requiring them to use protective gloves ) and say oh thats ok
But no one wants to talk about exactly what homosexuals DO. And it DOES hurt
and incovenience many people - just ask the child born of parent who has AIDS
or the insurance companies who have to pay outrageous costs to support the
"habit " of the gay lifestyle .
Ho...@reply.to.newsgroup.com
<snipped>
>Ho Sin Tak, Hong Kong.
Trouble is that as soon as someone points out anything the Bible condemns, you
have to call it a phobia. As soon as you do this you show your own phobia.
As for the lifestyle of Homosexuals nor hurting people, try telling that to a
woman I know and am counseling who has been married to her man for twenty two
years and has three children and he leaves to live with his "boyfriend".
I know that not all relationships are like this, but you make a statement
saying the lifestyle does not harm anyone, the truth is sometimes it does.
I agree that heterosexual relationship also hurt others sometimes. This does
not make either situation right in God's eyes.
Nor does pointing out the error of the lifestyles a phobia.
At least that is my opinion.
Hoppy.
Dave in Phoenix
>However, rather than focus on this, why not look at it this way. The
>Bible condemns ALL fornication, no matter who's doing it, same sex or
>opposite. See?
No. This is a total lie.
The scriptures were not written in English. None of the passages you quote
say "fornication" Some English bibles say that, others say the more correct
translation "sexual immorality". The koline Greek word that has been
mistranslated as fornication is porneia. There is no biblical basis
whatsoever to translate porneia into fornication (singles sex).
Adultery in biblical times did not mean what it means to us today. Clearly
there was never a word said about the fact Hebrew men could have as many
wives, concubines (breeders) and "other women" as they could afford. THIS
IS NOT ADULTERY, in the Hebrew understanding of the Adultery Commandment of
Moses. Adultery as understood by what Moses said was only wrong for married
women, never a married man. And fornication (singles sex) was clearly never
wrong and widely practiced.
Porneia meant sexual immorality which included:
1) Sex during women's menstruation.
2) Adultery which biblically was understood by the Hebrews to mean wrong for
a married women to have sex with another man since violated her husbands
property rights. It was never understood to be wrong for a married man
since his wife had no such rights. The married man could have as many wives
and concubines (breeders) as he wished as long as not married (another man's
property. Nothing ever was wrong with singles sexuality. "Fornication" is
a total mistranslation of Greek "porneia"
3) Pagan sex goddess prostitution. Porneia as used in I Cor 6-9, falsely
translated in some bibles as fornication was actually the practice of the
prostitutes in the Temples of Corinth selling their services as a part of
pagan fertility goddess worship which was what Paul was warning against.
Not even specifically about prostitution (still legal and very popular in
Israel today) but used as a pagan sexual goddess worship.
4) Pederasty - one of the worst of all sexual sins that took various forms:
The practice of pederasty falls into three distinct styles. First is the
relationship between an older man and a young boy. Second is the practice
of slave prostitutes. Third is that of the effeminate "call boy" or
prostitute. Other practices included a heterosexual male degrading another
heterosexual male by anal intercourse after capturing them in battle.
Another practice was heterosexual's using anal intercourse to drive out
other hetero strangers they didn't like such as the case of the Sodom story.
It had absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality as we know it today,
which is simply being as God designed some people to be.
Christ taught in the Sermon on the Mount that the only law is the law of
love. He demonstrated this by reversing four of the OT laws which
conflicted with loving people. Therefore anything that was hurtful, not by
mutual consent etc. would be immoral for a Christian, but obviously not
loving sexuality regardless of marital status or natural sexual orientation.
john kelley
>Dr. Klinger (guest): The term "homophobia" is a misnomer. It's not
>really a phobia. It's an ism. The true term should be heterosexism. And
>it's not a psychiatric diagnosis.
Quite right.
The term "homophobia" literally means fear of the same.
homos=same phobos=fear
hed...@geneva.rutgers.edu
As far as I can tell, homophobia is an attempt to manipulate language,
like many other self-serving political terms. (Another one that
recently came up here is "cultural genocide".)
The problem with these terms is that they tend to misdirect attention.
There actually is a problem with people hating and attacking
homosexuals. However calling everyone who thinks homosexuality is
sinful a homophobe tends to divert attention from dealing with this
serious problem.
Of course some people will say that the only way to stop hatred of
homosexuals is to convince everyone that homosexuality is a good
thing. I don't believe it. There are always going to be disagreements
on what is and is not appropriate behavior. And more to the point,
there will always be people who are visibly different. We have to be
able to deal with people we don't understand or approve of without
killing them. Otherwise a society permitting genuine differences
(which I take it is a basic principle behind the US) would not be
possible.
The churches should have a role here. However I'm not sure what the
right approach is. The Christians I know, liberal and conservative,
care even about people they disapprove of. I find the attitudes that
lead to Matthew Sheppard's murder completely foreign. This means that
I don't have much I can suggest about changing them. However I suspect
hatred of homosexuals is only one symptom. There seems to be a general
problem with people who are different. One of my staff tells me
stories about growing up in the South not all that long ago, where a
favorite sport was coon-hunting. For those who don't know the dark
side of US culture, this does not refer to hunting racoons, but to
regular harassment of humans with dark skin. I've got to believe that
many of the people involved went to church on Sunday and thought of
themselves as upstanding Christians.
Michael L. Siemon
[some comments I used as a springboard.]
I think I need to make a point. I regard Mr. Hedrick as a man of good
will, as one
who seriously attempts to live, act, and speak in Christ. If I berate him, it is
from an assumption that he is doing this, and that any distress I feel has some
chance of communicating itself to a receptive hearer -- whose judgment I do
not presume to constrain, however clear I myself feel the issue might be.
The "homophobia" problem is that *no one* in this country can possibly address
the issue of gay sexuality *without* a pre-existing exposure to some of the
nastiest prejudices that have ever inflicted human history. The vast majority
of gay men, certainly of gay Christians, have come to their current positions
*from* an original, unquestioning acceptance of those prejudices. My own
position is formed in strong *reaction* to those prejudices, and no one can
(I think) plausibly maintain that any judgment about the sinfullness or other-
wise of gay sexual unions is not strongly influenced by those prejudices
in making
whatever conclusion it makes.
No matter how honest you attempt to be with yourself, and with God, you are not
really able to set aside this cultural heritage, to judge as if it did not
exist. It
is a _lie_ (to yourself and to God) to claim that you can treat these
issues in a
manner that is *not* shaped by the bigotry of the world around you. We each
must make what allowance we may for that; but if we deny the problem we are
being false to the situation in which God has placed us.
I have come through a withering fire (much of it directed by myself *against*
myself) to the position I now hold. That fire may not be quite so withering as
the fire I may face at the Judgment by my Lord -- but much dross has already
passed away as a result of it. I see essentially *no* clue that any of the
critics of gay Christianity have even *glimpsed* the spiritual journey we have
taken, away from God only to find that we were despite ourselves moving to
Him.
Until our critics can manage to contain their silly stereotypes and confront us
as pilgrims and martyrs, as servants of the same Lord they claim to serve, we
are not going to be able to talk to each other very well. Dismissing us as
obstreperous, ignorant children who need to be forced into submission to
"better informed" adults will only make YOU look like idiots. Until you can
*hear* what we say, as witnesses to Christ and to the Gospel, you are only
stopping your ears against a wind that blows wherever it wills.
--
Michael L. Siemon We must know the truth, and we must
m...@panix.com love the truth we know, and we must
act according to the measure of our love.
-- Thomas Merton
Marc D. Miller
>stories about growing up in the South not all that long ago, where a
>favorite sport was coon-hunting. For those who don't know the dark
>side of US culture, this does not refer to hunting racoons, but to
>regular harassment of humans with dark skin. I've got to believe that
>many of the people involved went to church on Sunday and thought of
>themselves as upstanding Christians.
Though I am not a coon-hunter myself, I am from the South, and I can assure
you that coon-hunting does, if fact, refer to hunting raccoons.
Perhaps a few reprobates began using the term to refer to violent acts of
racism, but I've never heard it used that way. Additionally, it would be
cool if everyone would stop perpetuating the myth that Southerners have pent
up Civil War anxiety. It has been my experience that the vast majority does
not base its opinions about a person on the color of their skin... even in
the South. In any case, the rest of your post was pretty well said.
Marc
Marc D. Miller
I am appalled at the way you are perverting the Truth to suit your purposes.
We are all guilty. We all need God's provision through Christ. He changes
us when we make Him Lord of our life. We do not change Him to be agreeable
with the life we think we want to live. Anyone can take any passage and say
"well, the actual correct translation is..." Where do you come across this
information? Divine inspiration? I don't think so. Something you were
TOLD maybe? Definitely not something you felt in your heart to be the
truth.
Fornication under any circumstances is wrong. That includes homosexuality.
Just because someone is weak in a certain area of their life does not make
it okay to gratify themselves. Perhaps I have a "short fuse." Does this
excuse me from reacting with anger and hostility? Of course not, but I'm
sure someone thinks it does.
As for Jesus "reversing" ANYTHING from the Old Testament:
In Matthew 5:17-19 (part of the Sermon on the Mount) Jesus says: "Do not
think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to
abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth
pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law,
until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these
commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of
heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the
kingdom of heaven."
Scripture does not contradict itself. Furthermore, how can you possibly
reconcile the following with your view on fornication/adultery???
In Matthew 5:27-28 (more Sermon on the Mount) Jesus says: "You have heard
that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery'; but I say to you, that
everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with
her already in his heart."
I believe in the power of God's Word. Read it and pray for understanding.
Stop listening to voices that, somewhere deep and secret, you KNOW are
contrary to the voice of the One who gives life.
In Christ,
Marc
Giorgio Casinovi
Marty Helgesen <MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> wrote:
>A phobia is by definition an irrational or excessive fear. Claustro-
>phobia is an irrational fear of enclosed places. Ailurophobia is an
>irrational fear of cats. (And, as a friend of mine once observed
>tooraloorailurophobia is an irrational fear of Irish cats.) There-
>fore, homophobia would be an irrational fear of homosexuals or of
>homosexuality.
Methinks you need to revise your silly notion that the
meaning of a word is necessarily tied to its etymology.
According to your reasoning, xenophobia would be an
irrational fear of foreigners. Yet, if you look it up
in Webester's dictionary, you'll see that it means
"fear or HATRED of strangers or foreigners." Similarly,
if you look up "homophobia" in http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary,
you will find the following definition: "irrational fear of,
aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."
>[...]
>The following is an excerpt from a posting by Frank Beckwith (a
>professor of philosophy) to a list on June 10, 1994:
>
> ------ BEGIN QUOTE -----
>[...]
>caller (Frank Beckwith): Dr. Klinger, I have a question. If it is wrong
>for a psychiatrist to treat homosexuality as if it were a dysfunction,
>would it not also be true that when gay activists use the term
>"homophobia" as a term of derision that they are misusing psychiatry
>as well?
>
>Dr. Klinger (guest): The term "homophobia" is a misnomer. It's not
>really a phobia. It's an ism. The true term should be heterosexism. And
>it's not a psychiatric diagnosis.
>
>There you have it from a homosexual psychiatrist who is on an APA
>committee for gay and lesbians: there is no such thing as homophobia.
>
> ----- END QUOTE -----
Dr. Beckwith may be a professor of philosophy, but he seems
to have trouble understanding even elementary English.
Dr. Klinger didn't say that that "there is no such thing
as homophobia," he said that "it's not a psychiatric diagnosis."
Bigotry isn't a a psychiatric diagnosis either, but that
doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
--
Giorgio Casinovi, Senior Research Engineer | Georgia Tech has
Information Technology & Telecommunications Lab | no right to claim
Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA 30332-0832| my opinions as its
Giorgio....@gtri.gatech.edu | own.
CWBarton
<713bpb$i01$1...@geneva.rutgers.edu>...
>As for the lifestyle of Homosexuals nor hurting people, try telling that to
a
>woman I know and am counseling who has been married to her man for twenty
two
>years and has three children and he leaves to live with his "boyfriend".
>I know that not all relationships are like this, but you make a statement
>saying the lifestyle does not harm anyone, the truth is sometimes it does.
>I agree that heterosexual relationship also hurt others sometimes. This
does
>not make either situation right in God's eyes.
Interesting. So if this man had left his family for another woman, you'd
state the heterosexual lifestyle was to blame?
Robert D. Grob
<70op11$b2i$1...@geneva.rutgers.edu>...
> So if the Christian right want Biblical precedent to serve as a moral
example why should they not espouse incest?
Because incest is specifically prohibited in the Bible - see Lev. 18:6-18,
not far from where homosexuality is specifically prohibited (Lev. 18:22)
> There are six incestuous couples in the Bible ....
(some text deleted) ....
> Amnon raped his half sister and was murdered in revenge two years later
by Tamar's full brother Absalom. (II Samuel 13:2; 14-28-29).
> So why are there no Biblical admonitions about incest in the Scriptures?
See above (Lev. 18:6-18). See especially Lev. 18:9.
Just because something is spoken of in the Bible does not mean that it is
approved - in fact, just the opposite is true.
Michael L. Siemon
+ >Quite right.
+ >The term "homophobia" literally means fear of the same.
+
+ As far as I can tell, homophobia is an attempt to manipulate language,
+ like many other self-serving political terms. (Another one that
+ recently came up here is "cultural genocide".)
The word "homophobia" _means_ bigotry directed at homosexuals.
All attempts to evade that meaning, by spurious dissolution into
irrelevant "etymologies" or protest against the political origins
of the term, strike me as attempts to avoid the issue that _we_
mean by using the term. There is irrational hatred and bias against
homosexual persons inculcated systematically in our culture. This
bias is _fostered_ by the oh-so-smarmy blather of "condemn the
sin but love the sinner" when the apparent consquence of "loving"
the sinner is social pressure (to the point of brainwashing), threats
of violence, disinheritance, shunning and every other conceivable
negative social sanction if we do not completely jettison any sense
of integrity, as human beings and adoptive children of God, we might
have managed to retain in the face of these obnoxious pressures.
+ The problem with these terms is that they tend to misdirect attention.
The point of the term is to _direct_ attention. The problem is YOURS.
Not ours. YOU are the people who are obsessed with sex and sin. To
the point that you CANNOT hear the Gospel that is preached to us. You
are so blinded by petty (and pointless) legalisms, that you cannot see
the PEOPLE you condemn. Instead, you make excuses for oppressing us.
+ There actually is a problem with people hating and attacking
+ homosexuals. However calling everyone who thinks homosexuality is
+ sinful a homophobe tends to divert attention from dealing with this
+ serious problem.
Yes, indeed. You will not begin to deal with the problem until you can
see the point of our use of the term _homophobia_ to describe it. I
do not think it _possible_ in American culture (if in any) to divorce
the issue of "thinking homosexuality sinful" from the institutionalized
and massive social bigotry that surrounds *all* consideration of the
issue in this country.
I believe you actually understand this point, or you would not conclude
with the very telling (and entirely apposite) analogy:
+ One of my staff tells me
+ stories about growing up in the South not all that long ago, where a
+ favorite sport was coon-hunting. For those who don't know the dark
+ side of US culture, this does not refer to hunting racoons, but to
+ regular harassment of humans with dark skin. I've got to believe that
+ many of the people involved went to church on Sunday and thought of
+ themselves as upstanding Christians.
Until the churches that pander to racial and sexual bigotry have gone
through the Refiners fire and been reconstituted _without_ the ugly
sin which they so relish and indulge in today, they have NOTHING to
say to me and my homosexual brethren in Christ.
hed...@geneva.rutgers.edu
>The word "homophobia" _means_ bigotry directed at homosexuals.
>All attempts to evade that meaning, by spurious dissolution into
>irrelevant "etymologies" or protest against the political origins
>of the term, strike me as attempts to avoid the issue that _we_
>mean by using the term. There is irrational hatred and bias against
>homosexual persons inculcated systematically in our culture. This
>bias is _fostered_ by the oh-so-smarmy blather of "condemn the
>sin but love the sinner" when the apparent consquence of "loving"
>the sinner is social pressure (to the point of brainwashing), threats
>of violence, disinheritance, shunning and every other conceivable
>negative social sanction if we do not completely jettison any sense
>of integrity, as human beings and adoptive children of God, we might
>have managed to retain in the face of these obnoxious pressures.
If homophobic was used only in cases where someone actually hates
homosexuals, you might have a point. However in fact it is commonly
used of anyone who believes that homosexuality is wrong, whether that
person hates homosexuals or not. There is a distinction. If you
don't see it, it's probably don't going to be useful to talk with you
on this subject.
It's exactly like "pro life". You could claim that this is simply a
term used to refer to people who oppose abortion. But it's quite
clear that this the term is intended to imply that people who disagree
are "anti-life". This is an example of self-serving language.
>The point of the term is to _direct_ attention. The problem is YOURS.
>Not ours. YOU are the people who are obsessed with sex and sin. To
>the point that you CANNOT hear the Gospel that is preached to us. You
>are so blinded by petty (and pointless) legalisms, that you cannot see
>the PEOPLE you condemn. Instead, you make excuses for oppressing us.
As I'm sure you know, I am not obsessed with sex and sin, and I do not
oppress you. I am about as uninterested in sex and sexual sin as it is
possible for a human being to be and remain alive.
However I do not believe it is possible to base living in peace on
reaching agreement. There will always be people who disagree over
what it is proper to do. Given that we're required to love even
enemies, we should certainly be able to manage love for friends who do
things we think are wrong. We should also be able to manage it for
friends who think we're doing something wrong.
Similarly, with parents I think the most fruitful approach is to help
them understand how to deal with children who do things they don't
approve of.
CWBarton
>Scripture does not contradict itself.
Really? How many sons did Abraham have?
Paul says Abraham had two sons, but the author of Hebrews (whoever that was)
says Abraham offered for human sacrifice his ONLY son.
According to Genesis, Abraham had Ishmael (Gen 16:15) and Isaac (Gen 21:2)
Notice that Ishmael was born first. When Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac he
had TWO sons at that time.
(Gal 4:22) "For it is written that Abraham had TWO sons, one by a slave
woman and the other by a free woman."
(Heb 11:17) "By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac. He
who had received the promises was ready to offer up his ONLY son"
(Gen 17:19, 20) "God said, "No, but your wife Sarah shall bear you a son,
and you shall name him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an
everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. As for Ishmael, I have
heard you; I will bless him and make him fruitful and exceedingly numerous;
he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great
nation." (Ishmael is apparently already born)
(Gen 22:12) "He said, "Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to
him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son,
your ONLY son, from me."
So which was it? Did Abraham have one son or two?
For you to claim "scripture does not contradict itself" is
laughable. If it can't even get something this innocuous right, how can
anything at all in it be trusted to be "the" truth?
nyi...@math.sc.edu
retract something I carelessly said there.
In article <716beq$kla$1...@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
hed...@geneva.rutgers.edu wrote:
> If homophobic was used only in cases where someone actually hates
> homosexuals, you might have a point. However in fact it is commonly
> used of anyone who believes that homosexuality is wrong, whether that
> person hates homosexuals or not. There is a distinction. If you
> don't see it, it's probably don't going to be useful to talk with you
> on this subject.
>
> It's exactly like "pro life".
No, it is not. There are many differences, not least of
which is that "homophobia" is a negative word and "pro-life"
is a positive word. Why not compare "homophobia" to the
words "pro-abortion" on the one hand and "anti-choice" on
the other?
> You could claim that this is simply a
> term used to refer to people who oppose abortion.
I carelessly said that this is exactly what it means.
But opposition to abortion is not sufficient
for being "pro-life": the word has long been used
to include opposition to euthanasia as well; some
even stretch it to include opposition to capital punishment,
as in the late Cardinal Bernadin's "seamless garment"
attitude towards life issues.
More importantly, the pro-life movement has uniformly
condemned acts like the recent shooting of an abortionist,
and only a few fringe groups not deserving the "pro-life"
label have failed to do so. Murder makes a mockery
of the word "pro-life", just as forced abortion in
China makes a mockery of the word "pro-choice".
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
nyi...@math.sc.edu
>
> >The word "homophobia" _means_ bigotry directed at homosexuals.
This was a response to a person who claimed that it literally
means "fear of the same", opting for a Greek etymology,
as in "agoraphobia". One arguing in the same vein might
opt instead for Latin etymology, as in "claustrophobia",
in which case it would mean "fear of human beings".
Of course, since the gay liberation movement coined the
word "homophobia", they have the right to tell us what
it means; but I wonder whether Michael is giving us an
officially established meaning or his own private view
on what it means to most gays.
> >All attempts to evade that meaning, by spurious dissolution into
> >irrelevant "etymologies" or protest against the political origins
> >of the term, strike me as attempts to avoid the issue that _we_
> >mean by using the term.
Who is "we," I have to wonder. I wonder whether Michael
includes Carl Wittman, author of "A Gay Manifesto", published
in _Liberation_ magazine, which includes passages like
the following:
Homosexuality is the capacity to love someone
of the same sex. [Original in italics]
Bisexuality is good; it is the capacity to love
people of either sex. ... We continue to
call ourselves homosexual, not bisexual, even
if we do make it with the opposite sex also,
because saying "Oh, I'm Bi" is a cop out
for a gay...We'll be gay until everyone has forgotten
it is an issue. Then we'll begin to be complete.
I am especially curious to know what Michael thinks of the
following passage:
Exclusive heterosexuality is all fucked up. It
reflects a fear of people of the same sex, it's
anti-homosexual, and it is fraught with frustration.
Heterosexual sex is fucked up, too; ask women's
liberation what straight guys are like in bed.
It would appear that Carl Wittman classified everyone
who is exclusively heterosexual as a homophobe.
>[...]there is irrational hatred and bias against
> >homosexual persons inculcated systematically in our culture. This
> >bias is _fostered_ by the oh-so-smarmy blather of "condemn the
> >sin but love the sinner"
Homosexual acts have always been considered to be sinful
by the traditional Christian churches, just like pedophilic
acts are considered to be sinful. But just as a pedophile can
fail to act on his impulses and live a celibate life
(or bring him/herself to "make it with adults" in the
argot of Wittman) so the traditional Christian churches
call upon the homosexual and bisexual people to do behave
analogously.
>when the apparent consquence of "loving"
> >the sinner is social pressure (to the point of brainwashing), threats
> >of violence, disinheritance, shunning and every other conceivable
> >negative social sanction if we do not completely jettison any sense
> >of integrity,
None of this comes under the rubric of loving the sinner;
in fact it betokens the exact opposite. And I wonder
whether Michael his here trying to smear Christians who
DO love the sinner but hate the sin with the same wide
brush with which one can legitimately smear people who
hate the sinner along with the sin--mostly non-Christian
people, I strongly suspect, some of whom even love the
sin and hate the sinner, like the ones who crack put-down jokes
about X doing fellatio on them as though only the doers,
and not the receivers of fellatio were homosexual.
> >as human beings and adoptive children of God, we might
> >have managed to retain in the face of these obnoxious pressures.
Is Siemon suggesting that for a gay person to live
a celibate life is a form of jettisoning all integrity?
> If homophobic was used only in cases where someone actually hates
> homosexuals, you might have a point. However in fact it is commonly
> used of anyone who believes that homosexuality is wrong, whether that
> person hates homosexuals or not.
To be specific: of anyone who thinks homosexual acts are
wrong. Or of anyone who thinks the homosexual orientation
is intrinsically disordered in the same sense that the
pedophilic or necrophilic orientation is still generally
considered to be intrinsically disordered.
disordered.
There is a distinction. If you
> don't see it, it's probably don't going to be useful to talk with you
> on this subject.
>
> It's exactly like "pro life".
No, it is not. By the way, many pro-lifers who view
abortion as murder would have far more difficulty divesting
themselves of this view than the most complete homosexual
would have of divesting him/herself of his/her sexual
orientation. That is why I consider FACE and especially
"bubble zones" to be the analogue of similarly draconian
laws punishing homosexual behavior and even homosexual
solicitation.
>You could claim that this is simply a
> term used to refer to people who oppose abortion.
That is exactly what it refers to. That some misuse
it the way you indicate below is beside the point.
And it's part of a balance: many if not most pro-lifers
have made their peace with the word "pro-choice" as
long as pro-choicers don't smear pro-lifers with
epithets like "anti-choice" and "pro-force" and
"control freak".
>But it's quite
> clear that this the term is intended to imply that people who disagree
> are "anti-life".
Clear as mud.
>This is an example of self-serving language.
As is "pro-choice". That knife cuts both ways.
> >The point of the term is to _direct_ attention. The problem is YOURS.
> >Not ours. YOU are the people who are obsessed with sex
"A Gay Manifesto" is permeated with this kind of patently
false dichotomy.
and sin. To
> >the point that you CANNOT hear the Gospel that is preached to us. You
> >are so blinded by petty (and pointless) legalisms, that you cannot see
> >the PEOPLE you condemn. Instead, you make excuses for oppressing us.
>
> As I'm sure you know, I am not obsessed with sex and sin, and I do not
> oppress you. I am about as uninterested in sex and sexual sin as it is
> possible for a human being to be and remain alive.
>
> However I do not believe it is possible to base living in peace on
> reaching agreement. There will always be people who disagree over
> what it is proper to do. Given that we're required to love even
> enemies, we should certainly be able to manage love for friends who do
> things we think are wrong. We should also be able to manage it for
> friends who think we're doing something wrong.
I see too little of that kind of love in Michael Siemon.
Dave in Phoenix
>Anyone can take any passage and say
>"well, the actual correct translation is..." Where do you come across this
>information?
>From 20 years of serious biblical study. I started out very much like you
and set out to prove the liberals wrong. But after much study found I had
been lied to and now I show the liberal side.
The problem with many Christian ideas, especially regarding sexual issues,is
not God or the original scriptures but the perverted false translations of
the texts into English based on an agenda, not the original scripture texts.
The NIV is one example of this perversion of "Gods word". The co-founder of
Liberated Christians when in seminary had two professors who were on the NIV
committee. As with other translations, how to translate the texts into
English was in very hot debate regarding some controversial issues.
The debate within the NIV committee was between translating based on
traditional teachings vs a more literal (dynamic equivalency) translation
limited to what was actually said as understood by the exact words in the
culture it was written.
Since most of the NIV translators came from a traditional conservative
background, the majority view resulted in a traditional vs more historically
accurate English translation. This is also true of other English
translations which reflect more a conservative agenda than a search for God
s truth.
The original text should not be tampered with. That is why a serious
student looks only to the earliest known Hebrew/Greek texts seeking to
understand what they meant to the culture in which they were written. You
also have to realize the translation problems going from the words Jesus
spoke in Aramaic (a very vague language) to the written Greek.
Many serious biblical scholars are revealing false traditional biblical
teachings, especially regarding sexual issues which are based on Church
dogma, not original scriptural texts.
One clear example of this is the NIV s false translation of Ex 21:22 where
it tries to make a dead fetus a live birth to promote its anti-choice agenda
by changing what scripture really said. The NIV authors were caught in
their deception and in most texts there is a footnote correcting the live
birth mistake . Some think it was an oversight, others think it was to
promote the anti-choice agenda. Ex 21:22 clearly shows the non-soul status
of a fetus in the original texts and supported by Jewish tradition, Hebrew
scholars and more honest translators.
The deception of the English translations, in some areas, is far more of an
abomination and sin, for example in the area of homosexuality, than gays
living their lives in love as God created them. Scripture never says a word
about homosexuality the natural sexual orientation, only about the terrible
unnatural acts of pederasty. The false teachings of heterosexual sexual
repression such as regarding polyamory and singles sexuality is another area
having nothing to do with understanding the original texts, but based on a
conservative Christian agenda...not the Bible's original text.
The Truth About Bible Translations
By Aaron Budjen, a translator with good insights
Source: Internet public post on pnet.religion.talk
The worlds best seller for all time has also been one of the most
influential books in the history of the world. As the most influential
book, many people have been concerned about its accurate translation from
the languages it was written in. Visiting any bookstore here in America you
can easily find up to a dozen different translations into the English
language. The question virtually everyone asks is why? Christians and
non-Christians alike ask why there are different translations and which one
can they trust to be accurate. After all, if they are correct, why are they
not the same?
As a translator, I have found merits in all Bible translations. The
Amplified Bible does a beautiful job of expressing the definitions of
certain words. The NIV relates some passages well in today's common
English. I have found few good passages in the New World Translation but I
have managed to use it to show Jehovah's Witnesses the deity of Christ
Jesus. With their merits they all have their shortcomings. The KJV neglects
translating some words. The NKJV and NIV insert strong doctrinal biases in
some places. The descriptions I wind up giving is that some translations do
a fair job of translating one verse and others don't do a fair job with the
same verse. Regrettably, there are some verses that are totally in error in
all translations.
Every Bible translation I have read has translated one verse in Hebrew/Greek
in to one verse in English. This is a reasonable method if the languages
share a common level of expressiveness. The problem is that Greek and
Hebrew are much more expressive than English. Therefore an exact translation
is only possible if the translator is willing to break the mold of a one to
one, verse by verse translation. There are some verses which can be
translated this way, but most require a whole if not a composition in
English to express the full meaning. Because of this challenge - all
English translations I know of (presently in print and on the market) are
more accurately called paraphrases.
Translating the Bible in to English is not where this controversy began. It
began when the Jews were taken into captivity after the Babylonian invasion
in 586 BC After being in a foreign country for a couple of generations the
Jews adopted the language of the surrounding people and forgot the Hebrew
language. Only the Rabbis and the students in the Synagogue knew Hebrew.
The common people only knew Aramaic. The services and readings in the
Synagogue were done in Hebrew. Therefore, the common Jews would seek
someone to interpret for them during the services. The interpreter was
called the Methurgeman, and many synagogues began to employ them. The
Methurgemen was allowed to verbalize a, paraphrases of what was being said
or read, but he was strictly forbidden to write it down. The reason for that
was because the Rabbis were concerned that the translation, or paraphrase
would be recognized as having equal authority as the original Hebrew. Some
writings were still done in time and they became known as targums.
What the Rabbis and scribes were concerned about almost two and a half
millenniums ago has happened today. In America, the English texts for sale
in the bookstores are wrongly looked upon as having equal authority as the
original Hebrew as well as the Greek of the New Testament. I will admit
that the truth is revealed through them and the lives of people are changed
by the power of God. However, the study of the original languages is
neglected by virtually every Christian and Jew in America today because of
the deception that what they are reading is accurate and with authority. In
knowing the original languages you will know which verses that have been
translated into English are accurate and have authority.
wno...@my-dejanews.com
hundred per cent 'heterosexual' as the human condition is far too complex for
it to be confined to such a simple definition. So simply we are capable or
being a 'bit gay.' Most people at one time in their lives will have
Hah, hah, hah!!! What kind of garbage is this?? This writer is obviously
gay and trying to justify his chosen "lifestyle".
As for the term "homophobia", a "phobia" is a fear of something. Christians
do not "fear" homosexuals, so the term is a misnomer.
I'd also like to ask, what is the "Christian right"? There is only one kind
of Christian to my mind, and that is the "born again" believer, because
anyone else is not saved, and therfor a "pew sitter" only. When we ask Jesus
into our lives as Lord and Savior, we are "born again" by the power of the
Holy Spirit. As a believer, we had better believe that the bible is the
inerrent Word of God, and be doing our best to live a life worthy of the
name.
One of our responsibilities as Christians is to expose evil. We should ALL
be honored if we are catagorized as "Christian Right". There shouldn't be
any other kind. Christian is Christian.
But, Christians shouldn't be persecuting anybody, gay or not. We should be
showing the way. By the same token, we don't cast our pearls before swine.
If someone rejects the Gospel after hearing the truth and continues in their
ways, leave them alone. They will die in their sin, and be cast into Hell,
having rejected the way to salvation.
Ronald Chaplin
>>As for the lifestyle of Homosexuals nor hurting people, try telling that to
> a
>>woman I know and am counseling who has been married to her man for twenty
> two
>>years and has three children and he leaves to live with his "boyfriend".
>>I know that not all relationships are like this, but you make a statement
>>saying the lifestyle does not harm anyone, the truth is sometimes it does.
>>I agree that heterosexual relationship also hurt others sometimes. This
> does
>>not make either situation right in God's eyes.
This is an example of what has led to my conviction of why
the traditional teachings of the Church on homosexuality are wrong!!!
Most churches encourage gay men to get married. I believe this
to be fundamentally misguided, and evil. Too, too often, these
marriages break down, wrecking emotional turmoil on partners and
children because these men are not able to maintain a satisfactory
intimate relationship with their wives.
We who are gay are given two choices by the Church. The alternative
to marriage is life-long celibacy. That is just fine for some.
For most, however, the overwhelming human desire for intimacy
cannot be so constrained. And why should it? The challenge,
I think, is for us to express our sexuality in positive, beneficial
ways. And this goes for heterosexuals as much as for homosexuals.
Ron Chaplin
Ottawa
nyi...@math.sc.edu
In article <7166oa$kia$1...@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
casi...@cassini.gtri.gatech.edu (Giorgio Casinovi) wrote:
> In article <710pos$fpu$1...@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
> Marty Helgesen <MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> wrote:
> >A phobia is by definition an irrational or excessive fear. Claustro-
> >phobia is an irrational fear of enclosed places. Ailurophobia is an
> >irrational fear of cats. (And, as a friend of mine once observed
> >tooraloorailurophobia is an irrational fear of Irish cats.) There-
> >fore, homophobia would be an irrational fear of homosexuals or of
> >homosexuality.
>
> Methinks you need to revise your silly notion that the
> meaning of a word is necessarily tied to its etymology.
> According to your reasoning, xenophobia would be an
> irrational fear of foreigners. Yet, if you look it up
> in Webester's dictionary, you'll see that it means
> "fear or HATRED of strangers or foreigners."
Which "Webster's" dictionary is this? The Merriam-Webster
company does not have a copyright on the term and
some dictionaries labeled "Webster's" aren't worth
the paper they are printed on.
Similarly,
> if you look up "homophobia" in http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary,
I clicked on it and got the message "Document contains
no data". How about giving us a dictionary we can
find in a bookstore or library? And please identify
it more carefully than just with "Webster's".
> you will find the following definition: "irrational fear of,
> aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."
Is the word "irrational" supposed to modify the whole thing
or just the "fear" part? That dictionary definition
needs clarification. In particular, although nowadays
people seem to think "discrimination" is automatically
a bad thing, it is not--think of phrases like "a person
with a discriminating palate".
> >[...]
> >The following is an excerpt from a posting by Frank Beckwith (a
> >professor of philosophy) to a list on June 10, 1994:
> >
> > ------ BEGIN QUOTE -----
> >[...]
> >caller (Frank Beckwith): Dr. Klinger, I have a question. If it is wrong
> >for a psychiatrist to treat homosexuality as if it were a dysfunction,
> >would it not also be true that when gay activists use the term
> >"homophobia" as a term of derision that they are misusing psychiatry
> >as well?
> >
> >Dr. Klinger (guest): The term "homophobia" is a misnomer. It's not
> >really a phobia. It's an ism. The true term should be heterosexism. And
> >it's not a psychiatric diagnosis.
> >
> >There you have it from a homosexual psychiatrist who is on an APA
> >committee for gay and lesbians: there is no such thing as homophobia.
> >
> > ----- END QUOTE -----
>
> Dr. Beckwith may be a professor of philosophy, but he seems
> to have trouble understanding even elementary English.
> Dr. Klinger didn't say that that "there is no such thing
> as homophobia," he said that "it's not a psychiatric diagnosis."
Therefore, it would seem, it is not a phobia either.
Also, I am curious to know how the gay liberation movement
decided to coin the word, and why?
As to the how, why did they choose a word, "homo", which
was widely used as a term of derision for homosexuals?
Why not "homosexophobia", for example?
As to the why, could it have been part of a grand
strategy, the first part of which was to bully
the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 into
dropping homosexuality from the list of mental disorders,
to be followed at some future date by having it
generally believed that anyone who
does not acknowledge homosexuality as a "valid alternative
lifestyle" is mentally disordered?
> Bigotry isn't a a psychiatric diagnosis either, but that
> doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Of course it exists, and can also be found in "A Gay Manifesto"
in the form of bigotry against exclusively heterosexual
people. See my earlier followup to Hendrick.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
> --
> Giorgio Casinovi, Senior Research Engineer | Georgia Tech has
> Information Technology & Telecommunications Lab | no right to claim
> Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA 30332-0832| my opinions as its
> Giorgio....@gtri.gatech.edu | own.
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Ronald Chaplin
> If homophobic was used only in cases where someone actually hates
> homosexuals, you might have a point. However in fact it is commonly
> used of anyone who believes that homosexuality is wrong, whether that
> person hates homosexuals or not. There is a distinction. If you
> don't see it, it's probably don't going to be useful to talk with you
> on this subject.
>
> It's exactly like "pro life". You could claim that this is simply a
> term used to refer to people who oppose abortion. But it's quite
> clear that this the term is intended to imply that people who disagree
> are "anti-life". This is an example of self-serving language.
The comparison between "homophobia" and "pro-life" is entirely
appropriate at this point in time. Ten days after Matthew
Shepard was pistol-whipped to death in a homophobic attack,
an obstetrician was shot to death by a "pro-life" fanatic.
"Homophobes" are not those who engage in respectful, intelligent
debate about the nature of homosexuality. Homophobes are those
who are not open to discussion, who have their minds made up,
perhaps without ever having engaged in a discussion with a living
breathing homosexual. Homophobia is a type of bigotry which
is beyond reason.
A similar argument can be made on the issue of abortion.
There are many good reasons to oppose abortion. But
what do you say about religious leaders who encourage
persons to physically intimidate and assault physicians
and health care workers? It is a call to hatred.
Both are unacceptable.
So, whenever I hear the phrase "love the sinner, hate
the sin", I cringe, because for many who hear such
messages this is license to hate.
Similarly, whenever I hear religious leaders refer
to abortionists as "murderers", I cringe, for this
gives people license to commit violence.
It is, in both cases, abhorrent.
Ron Chaplin
Ottawa
----
[I'll reserve further comment on the abortion issue, since I don't
want to have a discussion of abortion here.
--clh]
BUSHBADEE
<rdg...@southwind.net> writes:
>
>Because incest is specifically prohibited in the Bible - see Lev. 18:6-18,
>not far from where homosexuality is specifically prohibited (Lev. 18:22)
>
I generally delete this thread with out even looking.
But if Christians claim that Jesus freed them from the law, what makes this
citation different from the one about not eating Pork.
If you are free of one law, why not this one.???
Now if you want other reasons that I beleive homosexuality is wrong, there I
can give you lots of reasons.
I just can not see how any christian can quote The OT as a source of being
against it and ignore so many OT injunctions.
I do not follow many of these channels.
To answere me address mail to
Bush...@aol.com
Peter Nyikos
>mdo...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Matthew Downey) wrote:
>>However, rather than focus on this, why not look at it this way. The
>>Bible condemns ALL fornication, no matter who's doing it, same sex or
>>opposite. See?
>No. This is a total lie.
Could you tone down the rhetoric a bit? You aren't accusing Matthew
of deliberately lying, are you?
>The scriptures were not written in English. None of the passages you quote
>say "fornication" Some English bibles say that, others say the more correct
>translation "sexual immorality". The koline Greek word that has been
>mistranslated as fornication is porneia. There is no biblical basis
>whatsoever to translate porneia into fornication (singles sex).
But there is plenty of Biblical basis for *including* fornication
therein, although the case for same-sex fornication rests mostly
on the epistles of St. Paul.
>Adultery in biblical times did not mean what it means to us today. Clearly
>there was never a word said about the fact Hebrew men could have as many
>wives, concubines (breeders) and "other women" as they could afford.
That "other women" part is covered pretty well in Deuteronomy
22:22-29 and Exodus 22:15-16. If the other woman is married it is adultery,
if she is betrothed it is still a capital crime, if she is not
betrothed and is a virgin, he is subject to an ancient precursor
of the shotgun marriage. He can only get out of it if the father of
the virgin refuses to let the marriage take place, in which case
he gets off with a fine.
The only base not covered is if the woman is not a virgin and
is neither married nor betrothed. Does
anyone reading this know of a Biblical verse which covers that case?
One covering widows and/or divorced women?
THIS
>IS NOT ADULTERY, in the Hebrew understanding of the Adultery Commandment of
>Moses. Adultery as understood by what Moses said was only wrong for married
>women, never a married man. And fornication (singles sex) was clearly never
>wrong and widely practiced.
You seem to have access to an impressive amount of Biblical scholarship,
"Dave in Phoenix". How is it that you missed out on the verses
I have just now cited? And how is it that you missed out on the
passages of Deuteronomy immediately preceding, in which a women
who is not a virgin when married can be accused by her husband
of non-virginity and stoned to death?
>Porneia meant sexual immorality which included:
>1) Sex during women's menstruation.
>2) Adultery which biblically was understood by the Hebrews to mean wrong for
>a married women to have sex with another man since violated her husbands
>property rights. It was never understood to be wrong for a married man
>since his wife had no such rights. The married man could have as many wives
>and concubines (breeders) as he wished as long as not married (another man's
>property. Nothing ever was wrong with singles sexuality.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Fornication" is
>a total mistranslation of Greek "porneia"
What are your sources of information for these things, "Dave in Phoenix"?
How is it that THEY missed out on those passages in Deuteronomy
and Exodus?
>3) Pagan sex goddess prostitution. Porneia as used in I Cor 6-9, falsely
>translated in some bibles as fornication was actually the practice of the
>prostitutes in the Temples of Corinth selling their services as a part of
>pagan fertility goddess worship which was what Paul was warning against.
>Not even specifically about prostitution (still legal and very popular in
>Israel today) but used as a pagan sexual goddess worship.
What is your authority for this very narrow interpretation of "porneia"
in this context?
>4) Pederasty - one of the worst of all sexual sins that took various forms:
>The practice of pederasty falls into three distinct styles. First is the
>relationship between an older man and a young boy.
How about a man and a young girl? And how young is "young" in
this context? 10? 12? I would not call anyone over 12 a "young boy",
although I might address him as "young man".
Second is the practice
>of slave prostitutes. Third is that of the effeminate "call boy" or
>prostitute. Other practices included a heterosexual male degrading another
>heterosexual male by anal intercourse after capturing them in battle.
Gratuitous insertions of "heterosexual" duly noted. Could your
source have been `heterophobic' like Carl Wittman was in
"A Gay Manifesto" [_Liberation_, February 1970; reprinted in
_Counterculture and Revolution_, Random House, 1972]?
>Another practice was heterosexual's using anal intercourse to drive out
>other hetero strangers they didn't like such as the case of the Sodom story.
Gratuitous and highly dubious identification of the aggressors
in the Sodom story as "heterosexual" duly noted.
>It had absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality as we know it today,
>which is simply being as God designed some people to be.
The orientation of homosexuality is simply being as genes and
environment "designed" some people to be. God permitted it just
as God permits orientation towards pedophelia, bestiality and
necrophilia.
>Christ taught in the Sermon on the Mount that the only law is the law of
>love. He demonstrated this by reversing four of the OT laws which
>conflicted with loving people. Therefore anything that was hurtful, not by
>mutual consent etc. would be immoral for a Christian, but obviously not
>loving sexuality regardless of marital status or natural sexual orientation.
"obviously not" says a lot more about your non-Biblical sources
than it does about the Bible.
By the way, what do your sources say about the Biblical "age of consent"
pertaining to "loving sexuality"?
>Dave, Liberated Christians, Phoenix AZ
>Christian Poly Resource Center at http://www.libchrist.com
Is your post mostly a copy of things to be found at this site?
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
Alexander R Pruss
: It's exactly like "pro life". You could claim that this is simply a
: term used to refer to people who oppose abortion.
Actually, that's not quite right. I wouldn't call someone who opposed
abortion but advocated euthanasia "pro-life". Being "pro-life" is, thus,
more general than being "anti-abortion".
: But it's quite
: clear that this the term is intended to imply that people who disagree
: are "anti-life". This is an example of self-serving language.
It's an example of _loaded_ language. It's the same kind of language as
in the terms "the Catholic Church" and "the Orthodox Church".
Alex
Dave in Phoenix
>In Matthew 5:17-19 (part of the Sermon on the Mount) Jesus says: "Do not
>think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to
>abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth
>pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law,
>until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these
>commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of
>heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the
>kingdom of heaven."
Jesus Clearly DID CHANGE the OT Laws:
Matthew regarded the Sermon on the Mount as an eptimome of Jesus' Teaching.
Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus says he comes not to abolish but to fulfill "the law
and the prophets". What laws and prophets was Jesus referring to? Jesus
defines "the law and the prophets" in Matthew 7:12: "Always treat others as
you would like them to treat you: THAT IS THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS".
It is clearly stated when a Pharisee asks Jesus about which commandment in
the law is the greatest (22:36):37 He said "You shall love the Lord your God
with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" 38 This
is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall
love your neighbor as yourself. 40 ON THESE TWO COMMANDMENTS HANG ALL THE
LAW AND THE PROPHETS."
Jesus respectfully supported the OT scripture but then clarified what he
meant by "the Law and the prophets". Jesus was speaking to a mixed audience
of Jews and Gentiles. He tried to walk a fine line, to respect the Jewish
beliefs in the Torah, but teach that He (Jesus) came and superseded Jewish
scriptures.
Jesus showed us how to interpret the Law properly without changing it or
making it obsolete as He ushers in the age of Christ as the fulfiller of the
law.
Jesus vividly illustrates his approach in the section often called "the six
antitheses" (5:21- 48). These are the "you have heard it said..but I say
unto you..." In six cases of important issues of Mosaic Law, Jesus dares to
contrast his word with God's words. Even more startling, in three cases, on
divorce, oaths and vows, and retaliation, Jesus revokes the letter of the
Law and replaces it with his own diametrically opposed commands. Immediately
after having said he has come to fulfill the scriptures, Jesus sets aside
some of them! Apparently the process of "fulfillment of scriptures"
includes alterations. In all six antithesis, Jesus applies the Golden Rule
to make his alterations of scripture. In the last one, Jesus turns the laws
of retaliation upside down and stresses loving even your enemy and doing
good.
Just one of the examples is his reversing Ex:21:23-25 where it clearly
teaches an eye for an eye, foot for a foot, hand-for-a-hand. But Math 38
says "You have learned...eye for eye..But what I tell you is this: Do not
set yourself against the man who wronged you. If someone slaps you on the
right cheek, turn and offer him your left.." etc.
I seems that Jesus carefully without trying to totally shock the jews, did
modify the OT laws. This is just one example of many such "changes" Jesus
made in the Sermon. Jesus than breaks the sabbath laws, gives a long
description why, and breaks other OT laws. This is confusing since what we
see as changing the law, Matthew claims is only interpreting the law
properly. He is playing word games out of respect for the Jews.
The last verse; Mt 28:20 is clear "Go forth....and teach them to observe all
that I have commanded you." Note that is not legalism but only the law of
love he just taught.
Dave, Liberated Christians, Phoenix AZ
Christian Poly Resource Center at http://www.libchrist.com
CWBarton
>Scripture does not contradict itself.
Really? How many sons did Abraham have?
Paul says Abraham had two sons, but the author of Hebrews (whoever that was)
says Abraham offered for human sacrifice his ONLY son.
According to Genesis, Abraham had Ishmael (Gen 16:15) and Isaac (Gen 21:2)
Notice that Ishmael was born first. When Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac he
had TWO sons at that time.
(Gal 4:22) "For it is written that Abraham had TWO sons, one by a slave
woman and the other by a free woman."
(Heb 11:17) "By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac. He
who had received the promises was ready to offer up his ONLY son"
(Gen 17:19, 20) "God said, "No, but your wife Sarah shall bear you a son,
and you shall name him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an
everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. As for Ishmael, I have
heard you; I will bless him and make him fruitful and exceedingly numerous;
he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great
nation." (Ishmael is apparently already born)
(Gen 22:12) "He said, "Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to
him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son,
your ONLY son, from me."
So which was it? Did Abraham have one son or two?
For you to claim, as you did, "scripture does not contradict itself" is
laughable. It only demonstrates that your cognitive dissonance is severe
enough to make any meaningful discussion, debate or argument with you
impossible.
Giorgio Casinovi
>In article <7166oa$kia$1...@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
> casi...@cassini.gtri.gatech.edu (Giorgio Casinovi) wrote:
>> Methinks you need to revise your silly notion that the
>> meaning of a word is necessarily tied to its etymology.
>> According to your reasoning, xenophobia would be an
>> irrational fear of foreigners. Yet, if you look it up
>> in Webester's dictionary, you'll see that it means
>> "fear or HATRED of strangers or foreigners."
>
>Which "Webster's" dictionary is this? The Merriam-Webster
>company does not have a copyright on the term and
>some dictionaries labeled "Webster's" aren't worth
>the paper they are printed on.
"Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the
English Language, Unabridged." Editor in Chief,
Philip Babcock Gove, Ph.D., and the Merriam-Webster
Editorial Staff. Merriam-Webster Inc., Publishers.
Springfield, Massachusetts, USA. (c) 1993.
>
> Similarly,
>> if you look up "homophobia" in http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary,
>
>I clicked on it and got the message "Document contains
>no data".
>How about giving us a dictionary we can
>find in a bookstore or library?
Well, why don't you walk down to the nearest library
and look up "xenophobia" for yourself?
brot...@my-dejanews.com
> "Robert D. Grob"
> <rdg...@southwind.net> writes:
>
> >
> >Because incest is specifically prohibited in the Bible - see Lev. 18:6-18,
> >not far from where homosexuality is specifically prohibited (Lev. 18:22)
> >
>
> I generally delete this thread with out even looking.
> But if Christians claim that Jesus freed them from the law, what makes this
> citation different from the one about not eating Pork.
> If you are free of one law, why not this one.???
This is indeed a bit of a touchy issue, but here's my read on it: The stuff
in Leviticus 18 lays out principles behind the laws given. The "incest laws"
indicate that in lying with a near member of the family, one is defiling
oneself and one's family. Homosexuality is stated as wrong because it is an
abomination -- God *inherently* despises it. Further, certain things
codified meticulously in the law actually predated it, and are simply God's
absolute laws. These would be idolatry, blood and things strangled, and
*sexual immorality*. The laws about pork, sacrifices, ceremonial
uncleanness, were part of the law of Moses, which was fulfilled through
Jesus. This ceremonial laws and symbols of the Jews were replaced by the
spiritual laws and symbols of Jesus.
> I just can not see how any christian can quote The OT as a source of being
> against it and ignore so many OT injunctions.
I hope this helps clarify such positions. It is not an (inherently)
inconsistent philosophy. One can pick and choose what the apostles picked and
chose...
K-Bye,
STEVE!
Joel
>Jesus Clearly DID CHANGE the OT Laws:
>Matthew regarded the Sermon on the Mount as an eptimome of Jesus' Teaching.
>Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus says he comes not to abolish but to fulfill "the law
>and the prophets". What laws and prophets was Jesus referring to? Jesus
>defines "the law and the prophets" in Matthew 7:12: "Always treat others as
>you would like them to treat you: THAT IS THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS".
>Jesus respectfully supported the OT scripture but then clarified what he
>meant by "the Law and the prophets". Jesus was speaking to a mixed audience
>of Jews and Gentiles. He tried to walk a fine line, to respect the Jewish
>beliefs in the Torah, but teach that He (Jesus) came and superseded Jewish
>scriptures.
What garbage! Dave, Jesus wasn't speaking to a mixed audience -- they,
like himself, were Jews. Jesus referred to the Bible as being bipartite:
On the one hand, you have the five books of Moses (called 'the law'), on
the other you have all the other writings (called 'the prophets'). Either
believe what Jesus said, and follow all those burdensome 600-odd
commandments in the law, or admit that your quotation is inconsistent with
your practise. Where do you self-professed bible-believers come up with
these wierd interpretations of straightforward language? You put the
Pharisees to shame. Remember what Jesus said about them?
Joel Shimberg
Alexander R Pruss
: Most churches encourage gay men to get married.
The largest Church in the world, the Roman Catholic Church, does NOT
encourage gay men to get married. (In fact, the Roman Catholic Church
does not _encourage_ anyone to get married, teaching that although marriage
is a great good, and a beautiful vocation for those called to it, celibacy
for the sake of the kingdom is even better.)
: We who are gay are given two choices by the Church. The alternative
: to marriage is life-long celibacy. That is just fine for some.
: For most, however, the overwhelming human desire for intimacy
: cannot be so constrained.
Intimacy can be expressed in non-genital ways, too.
In fact, genital intimacy is, strictly speaking, impossible for homosexuals,
in the sense that it is impossible for them to join as "one body"--though
it might possibly _feel_ to them like they're doing it. (Being "one body"
is more than just _feeling_ "one body".) See my long paper on sexual ethics
on my web page for reasons: http://www.pitt.edu/~pruss/unity.html
Alex
--
Alexander R. Pruss || e-mail: pru...@pitt.edu
Graduate Student || home page: http://www.pitt.edu/~pruss
Department of Philosophy || alternate e-mail address: pr...@member.ams.org
University of Pittsburgh || Erdos number: 4
Pittsburgh, PA 15260 ||
U.S.A. ||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Philosophiam discimus non ut tantum sciamus, sed ut boni efficiamur."
- Paul of Worczyn (1424)
Ronald Chaplin
>>Adultery in biblical times did not mean what it means to us today. Clearly
>>there was never a word said about the fact Hebrew men could have as many
>>wives, concubines (breeders) and "other women" as they could afford.
>
> That "other women" part is covered pretty well in Deuteronomy
> 22:22-29 and Exodus 22:15-16. If the other woman is married it is adultery,
> if she is betrothed it is still a capital crime, if she is not
> betrothed and is a virgin, he is subject to an ancient precursor
> of the shotgun marriage. He can only get out of it if the father of
> the virgin refuses to let the marriage take place, in which case
> he gets off with a fine.
Peter, believe it or not, you are agreeing with Dave.
The various types of "adultery" refered to in the Law all deal
with women's property value, to either their husbands or their
fathers. To have sexual relations with another man's wife
would damage her value to her husband. In exactly the same
manner, to have sexual relations with a virgin would damage
her value to her father.
You will also note that the Law establishes different penalties
for assaults on women, depending on whether or not the victim
would or would not be able to bear children following the assault.
Once again, the Law protects not the woman's dignity or purity,
but her economic value to the men in her clan.
This is not, I think, what we mean by the "sin of adultery" in
today's society.
> Second is the practice
>>of slave prostitutes. Third is that of the effeminate "call boy" or
>>prostitute. Other practices included a heterosexual male degrading another
>>heterosexual male by anal intercourse after capturing them in battle.
>
> Gratuitous insertions of "heterosexual" duly noted. Could your
> source have been `heterophobic' like Carl Wittman was in
> "A Gay Manifesto" [_Liberation_, February 1970; reprinted in
> _Counterculture and Revolution_, Random House, 1972]?
Why is the insertion of "heterosexual" gratuitous? What do you
mean?
There have been several references over the last couple of days
to the 1970 publication "A Gay Manifesto". For the record, I
consider myself a gay activist, and have never heard of this
publication nor of Carl Wittman. I suspect I would probably
have to go to a "Christian" website to find a reference to it.
>>Another practice was heterosexual's using anal intercourse to drive out
>>other hetero strangers they didn't like such as the case of the Sodom story.
>
> Gratuitous and highly dubious identification of the aggressors
> in the Sodom story as "heterosexual" duly noted.
You have asked for references, Peter. Why is the identification
of "heterosexuals" in Sodom "highly dubious"?
>>It had absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality as we know it today,
>>which is simply being as God designed some people to be.
>
> The orientation of homosexuality is simply being as genes and
> environment "designed" some people to be. God permitted it just
> as God permits orientation towards pedophelia, bestiality and
> necrophilia.
I hear this so often I could scream! What's your point? How
is homosexuality like pedophilia? I can tell you how it is
unlike pedophilia.
Ron Chaplin
Ottawa
Oleft2lose
Pork.
>If you are free of one law, why not this one.???
>
Exactly. Once man is picking and chosing which laws he thinks he's been freed
from, why not determine that he's freed from christianity in its whole, and
that now, for example, mormonism or a new age religion is appropriate. I think
people underestimate the slipperiness of the slope here.
{Freedom's just another word for it}
Joel
Siemon) wrote:
>In article <713dln$i28$1...@geneva.rutgers.edu>, hed...@geneva.rutgers.edu
wrote:
>+ The problem with these terms is that they tend to misdirect attention.
>
>The point of the term is to _direct_ attention. The problem is YOURS.
>Not ours. YOU are the people who are obsessed with sex and sin. To
>the point that you CANNOT hear the Gospel that is preached to us. You
>are so blinded by petty (and pointless) legalisms, that you cannot see
>the PEOPLE you condemn. Instead, you make excuses for oppressing us.
>
>+ There actually is a problem with people hating and attacking
>+ homosexuals. However calling everyone who thinks homosexuality is
>+ sinful a homophobe tends to divert attention from dealing with this
>+ serious problem.
You're so right! The problem is that it's sinful -- just as sinful as
eating shrimp, wearing clothing of mixed fibres (God help those who wear
wool/polyester fabrics), and so on. If you're going to be more interedted
in the letter of the OT law, then be consistent. If you're going to pick
and choose, then be prepared to defend your choices and their
consequences.
Joel Shimberg
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> "Psychologists agree that is not possible for anyone to be one
> hundred per cent 'heterosexual' as the human condition is far too complex for
> it to be confined to such a simple definition. So simply we are capable or
> being a 'bit gay.' Most people at one time in their lives will have
> experienced some homosexual feelings..."
>
> Hah, hah, hah!!! What kind of garbage is this?? This writer is obviously
> gay and trying to justify his chosen "lifestyle".
[]
I did not write the quote that you deride above, but I could have
written something very much like it as it expresses my beliefs. I have
said as much in other discussions. There is no grounds for dismissing
this as gay justification. In my case, I lead an extremely
"heterosexual lifestyle". I am married and have six children.
I prefer to avoid comments on the motivations of posters, but if I
were to speculate I would need to consider just why you seem so
defensive about this subject. There does appear to be a fear of even
considering the possibility that "normal" people may fell attractions
to members of the same sex. I recognize that the term "homophobia" is
problematic, but it does not seem farfetched to use it to describe
your attitude.
Jayne
--
Oh the folly of any mind that would explain God before it would obey
Him.
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> In article <716beq$kla$1...@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
> hed...@geneva.rutgers.edu wrote:
>> m...@panix.com (Michael L. Siemon)p
>>
>> >The word "homophobia" _means_ bigotry directed at homosexuals.
>
> This was a response to a person who claimed that it literally
> means "fear of the same", opting for a Greek etymology,
> as in "agoraphobia". One arguing in the same vein might
> opt instead for Latin etymology, as in "claustrophobia",
> in which case it would mean "fear of human beings".
Or, if we want to be even sillier we can say that it means people who
only drink skim milk because they think the fat content of homogenized
is dangerously high. However, words convey meaning based on how they
are used, not on their etymologies. English is full of words for
which the current usage has drifted from the original roots, for
example, "hysterical" means "pertaining to the uterus".
> Of course, since the gay liberation movement coined the
> word "homophobia", they have the right to tell us what
> it means; but I wonder whether Michael is giving us an
> officially established meaning or his own private view
> on what it means to most gays.
I have seen dictionary definitions which are compatable with
Michael's. I have no doubts that this is what the word means to most
gays, and probably to most hets, too. It is what the word means to
me. Even people who protest the use of the word, seem to realize that
this is what is meant by it.
[irrelevant "guilt by association" passage snipped]
>>[...]there is irrational hatred and bias against
>> >homosexual persons inculcated systematically in our culture. This
>> >bias is _fostered_ by the oh-so-smarmy blather of "condemn the
>> >sin but love the sinner"
>
> Homosexual acts have always been considered to be sinful
> by the traditional Christian churches, just like pedophilic
> acts are considered to be sinful. But just as a pedophile can
> fail to act on his impulses and live a celibate life
> (or bring him/herself to "make it with adults" in the
> argot of Wittman) so the traditional Christian churches
> call upon the homosexual and bisexual people to do behave
> analogously.
Artifical contraception has always been considered sinful by the
traditional Christian churches, too. (Although some have lately changed
their view on this.) However, most Christians seem to treat
homosexuals more like pedophiles than like contraceptors. Homosexual
relationships between adults are far more analogous to contraception
(both involve sexual intimacy without procreation) than to taking
advantage of a child. Our culture treats most heterosexual sin as
understandable human fraility, not as disgusting perversion. There is
clearly a bias and this is what most who speak of "homophobia" are
trying to talk about.
I admit that the word "homophobia" is emotionally loaded. I avoid
using it for that reason. But I firmly believe that the idea it
attempts to convey is real and pervasive. School children use the word
"gay" as a taunt, often without even understanding what it means. Any
discussion of homosexuality usally elicits ignorant stereotypes and
generalizations. Look at the jokes and insults people make.
Something is very, very wrong here. Even worse, Christianity comes
across as supporting the prejudice against homosexuals. This is a
barrier to the Gospel. We cannot speak convincingly of God's love for
people while we are perceived as promoting prejudice.
[]
>> However I do not believe it is possible to base living in peace on
>> reaching agreement. There will always be people who disagree over
>> what it is proper to do. Given that we're required to love even
>> enemies, we should certainly be able to manage love for friends who do
>> things we think are wrong. We should also be able to manage it for
>> friends who think we're doing something wrong.
>
> I see too little of that kind of love in Michael Siemon.
This last gratuitous "ad hominem" cancels any merit your post may
otherwise have had. I have had the opportunity to see many posts by
Michael over the years and have formed a great admiration for him.
I react with pleased anticipation when I see his name appear as author
on my newsreader. I look forward to his erudite and courteous posts.
Michael has been remarkably restrained and charitable in his comments
if one considers how distressing this situation is. I have seen angry
and pain-filled posts by gays and lesbians who have suffered under the
prejudices of our society. As God's wounded creatures do, they lash
out. I would guess that it is love that has prevented Michael from
acting the same way.
(News propogation to my site has been unreliable lately. Please email
me a copy of any posts that you want me to see.)
Jayne
--
Oh the folly of any mind that would explain God before it would obey
Him.
---
[I agree with Jane's assessment of Michael. However this particular
posting was a bit strong. Those who don't know him could easily have
seen it as an attack. Net communications can lead to the impression
of animosity there isn't any. --clh]
Matthew W. Damick
[snip]
: "Homophobes" are not those who engage in respectful, intelligent
: debate about the nature of homosexuality. Homophobes are those
: who are not open to discussion, who have their minds made up,
: perhaps without ever having engaged in a discussion with a living
: breathing homosexual. Homophobia is a type of bigotry which
: is beyond reason.
Would you go so far as to lump any who met any single one of your
qualifiers as a 'homophobe'? When God's Word speaks quite clearly about
a thing (like homosexual acts), discussion with a practitioner thereof
doesn't change what God said about it. How is agreeing and believing
what God said about a thing (e.g. making up your mind) indicative of an
intense and or irrational fear of that thing? When I discuss something
over USENET, I come firstly, to exchange information, points of view,
etc., not to adopt another's POV or force another to adopt my POV.
Failure to change one's mind following a discussion doesn't make one
close-minded, bigoted, or irrational. It just indicates the person is
very likely certain of their convictions.
I am forced to concur w/ several postings I've read in this thread that
conclude or report that the manner in which they've seen words like
"homophobe" used amounts to an epithet attempting to label someone as a
sexual racist whether or not the so-called homophobe hates and actively
seeks to stamp out homosexuals or merely carries a belief-born conviction
that homosexual activity is a sin. IOW: I don't see those calling
others "homophobes" bothering to make a disctinction between those who
would be violent towards homosexuals versus those who believe homosexual
acts are wrong. Lumping everyone from the violent reactor to the quietly
convinced peaceful man into the "homophobe" category is being dishonest
at best and, at worst, childishly lashing out at any who refuse to embrace
your chioces as right, good, and or acceptable.
: A similar argument can be made on the issue of abortion.
: There are many good reasons to oppose abortion. But
: what do you say about religious leaders who encourage
: persons to physically intimidate and assault physicians
: and health care workers? It is a call to hatred.
I say those leaders who would encourage their followers to commit the sin
(i.e. kill those who erpform and assist in abortion) of murder and then
attempt to justify it by calling it a Christian duty are wholly and
dangerously misguided. God will hold them that much more accountable for
their actions b/c they lead people into to doing patently un-Christian
deeds by invoking Christ's name.
: Both are unacceptable.
Given that homophobia is an irrational fear or hatred (not including the
peaceful non-violent, non-inciting man) I would agree. I'm just bothered
by the convenient broad-brushing I and other thread-participants have
seen plenty of.
: So, whenever I hear the phrase "love the sinner, hate
: the sin", I cringe, because for many who hear such
: messages this is license to hate.
That, then, is -their- mistake and -their- sin. I think most people lose
sight of what this phrase means in a truly Christ-centered context. It
means love the sinner--the wrongdoer--keep pointing that person towards
Christ (that is love). It means hate the sin---don't do it, don't
encourage it, don't condone it, don't compromise your witness with
ambiguities about it, don't fail to recognize for yourself that the sin
is indeed sin. What it doens't mean: seek to injur the person
(physically or emotionally), seek to verbally condemn him/her, take very
opportunity to point out that the sinner is in sin
: Similarly, whenever I hear religious leaders refer
: to abortionists as "murderers", I cringe, for this
: gives people license to commit violence.
Again, if people take religious leader's declaration of abortionists as
murderers a call to violent action against them---that is -their- mistake
and -their- sin. A leader with a Christ-like sensitivity will not
condemn these people publicly, for it does nothing to bring them to God.
--
/_\ /_\ HH HH AAA ZZZZZ M M AAA TTTTTT TTTTTT /_\ /_\
O HHHHH AA AA Z == MM MM AA AA TT TT O
/_\ HHHHH AAAAA ZZ == MMMMM AAAAA TT TT /_\
mwdamick@ HH HH AA AA ZZZZZ M M M AA AA TT TT eos.ncsu.edu
Dave in Phoenix
>But there is plenty of Biblical basis for *including* fornication
>therein, although the case for same-sex fornication rests mostly
>on the epistles of St. Paul.
Where?
What are concubines?
Where are concubines ever wrong?
Dave, Liberated Christians, Phoenix AZ
Christian Poly Resource Center at http://www.libchrist.com
Dave in Phoenix
> This writer is obviously
>gay and trying to justify his chosen "lifestyle".
Just like you and I are trying to justify our heterosexual lifestyle?
Sexual orientation is not a lifestyle. IT is who we are, innate, given by
God by birth. It is silly to try and change the sexual orientation given by
God it simply can't be done unless one is bisexual to start so can go either
way.
Dave in Phoenix
>That "other women" part is covered pretty well in Deuteronomy
>22:22-29 and Exodus 22:15-16. If the other woman is married it is adultery,
Agreed because it is a property crime against her husband
>if she is betrothed it is still a capital crime, if she is not
>betrothed and is a virgin, he is subject to an ancient precursor
>of the shotgun marriage. He can only get out of it if the father of
>the virgin refuses to let the marriage take place, in which case
>he gets off with a fine.
Property right of father.
BTW, many men had many wives was never wrong....marriage established the
property right that is all. Today we love people instead of owning them.
Today a women has the same sexual freedom men had then.
Dave, Liberated Christians, Phoenix AZ
Christian Poly Resource Center at http://www.libchrist.com
Mkemling
>As far as I can tell, homophobia is an attempt to manipulate language,
>like many other self-serving political terms. (Another one that
>recently came up here is "cultural genocide".)
I agree. Language is always political. It always reflects our political
position, yours no less than those who use terms like "homophobia,"
heterosexism," "racism," or "cultural genocide." (BTW, I was the one who
contributed that one to the discussion.)
>
>The problem with these terms is that they tend to misdirect attention.
>There actually is a problem with people hating and attacking
>homosexuals. However calling everyone who thinks homosexuality is
>sinful a homophobe tends to divert attention from dealing with this
>serious problem.
>
I don't think they "misdirect attention" at all. Heterosexism or homophobia
(whichever term you might choose to use) is more than just people hating and
attacking homosexuals. Heterosexism is structural and institutional as much as
it is individual prejudice. E.g., the fact that committed, stable gay
relationships are not recognized legally in our country. That affects gay
couples by denying them access to information when their partners are in the
hospital because they are not "next of kin," or "familiy." They do not have the
legal right to make decisions for their partners in life and death situations,
like married heterosexual couples do. They are denied spousal social security
benefits and employment benefits such as family health care plans.
Heterosexism is also expressed in the fact that organizations like American
Family Association, The Christian Coalition, and Focus on the Family advocate
boycotts against companies that provide these benefits to same-sex partners.
Heterosexism is also experienced by gays when they lose employment or are
forced to move because of their sexual orientation. For years gays were banned
from employment in the federal government, and they still are discriminated
against in the military.
My main point here is to say that the discrimination and persecution that gay
men and lesbians experience is real. The use of the words heterosexism or
homophobia is meant to call attention to these realities.
>Of course some people will say that the only way to stop hatred of
>homosexuals is to convince everyone that homosexuality is a good
>thing. I don't believe it. There are always going to be disagreements
>on what is and is not appropriate behavior. And more to the point,
>there will always be people who are visibly different. We have to be
>able to deal with people we don't understand or approve of without
>killing them. Otherwise a society permitting genuine differences
>(which I take it is a basic principle behind the US) would not be
>possible.
It's more than just not killing them. The killing of blacks in the South as a
form of terror to "keep them in their place," was only the tip of the iceberg
in terms of the discrimination and persecution they experienced. Racism, like
heterosexism, was and is much more pervasive than that.
>
>The churches should have a role here. However I'm not sure what the
>right approach is. The Christians I know, liberal and conservative,
>care even about people they disapprove of. I find the attitudes that
>lead to Matthew Sheppard's murder completely foreign. This means that
>I don't have much I can suggest about changing them.
I would like to suggest a biblical passage that might offer a strategy for the
church that derives from the very nature of God. It comes from the passage
about Moses at the burning bush (Exodus 3), and I think it is one of the most
important self-revelations of God in the scriptures. In Exodust 3:7-8a, God
says, ""I have observed the misery of my people who are in Egypt; I have heard
their cry on account of their taskmasters. Indeed, I know their sufferings, 8
and I have come down to deliver them from the Egyptians." This is a God who
observes the misery of oppressed people, who hears their cry, knows their
sufferings, and comes down to deliver. As the People of God, I think we also
need to be involved in listening long and carefully to people who experience
injustice, so that we, too, observe their misery, hear their cry, know their
sufferning, and become involved in God's movement to deliver them.
Mark Kemling
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
[]
> In fact, genital intimacy is, strictly speaking, impossible for homosexuals,
> in the sense that it is impossible for them to join as "one body"--though
> it might possibly _feel_ to them like they're doing it. (Being "one body"
> is more than just _feeling_ "one body".) See my long paper on sexual ethics
> on my web page for reasons: http://www.pitt.edu/~pruss/unity.html
I find the assumptions here somewhat disturbing. You seem to be saying
that the experience of intimacy does not truly indicate intimacy;
rather we must meet philosophical standards of intimacy. This seems to
imply a presumptuous judgement on homosexual people, that they do not
really love each other. (Although I doubt you mean this, since your
past posts have shown you to be a non-judgemntal person.)
Of course, it is quite easy to use philosophy to show that homosexual
love is not real love or intimacy. One need simply start with the
right definitions and assumptions and one can logically come to any
conclusion one wishes. I am not rejecting philosophy. I accept that it
is good to measure our subjective experience against objective
standards. However, we must also test these standards against our
experience. The human capacity for self-deception infects our
philosophy just as much as it infects our emotions.
Many people seem to have formed their opinions on homosexuality
without any input from the experience of homosexual people. This also
appears to be true of RC teaching. It is possible that we have been
misapplying the principles of Scripture and Tradition because we have
not understood how homosexuality works. (I believe that the basic
principles taught by the Church are true but it is possible for the
Church to make errrors in application. The Crusades would be an
example of such an error.)
Neither philosophy nor exegesis exists in a vaccuum. Our past thinking
appears to have been affected by heterosexual bias. I think it would
be worthwhile to explore our previous conclusions.
Marty Helgesen
>In article <710pos$fpu$1...@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
>Marty Helgesen <MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> wrote:
>>A phobia is by definition an irrational or excessive fear. Claustro-
>>phobia is an irrational fear of enclosed places. Ailurophobia is an
>>irrational fear of cats. (And, as a friend of mine once observed
>>tooraloorailurophobia is an irrational fear of Irish cats.) There-
>>homosexuality.
>
>Methinks you need to revise your silly notion that the
>meaning of a word is necessarily tied to its etymology.
>According to your reasoning, xenophobia would be an
>irrational fear of foreigners. Yet, if you look it up
>in Webester's dictionary, you'll see that it means
>aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."
>
ing. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3d.
ed., defines the suffix "-phobia" as "An intense, abnormal, or illog-
ical fear of a specific thing: xenophobia." The dictionary doesn't
have an entry for "xenophobia" but the definition of "xenophobe" says
"A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign,
especially of strangers or foreign people."
That seems to be an exception. Here are some other definitions from
the same dictionary: "acrophobia. An abnormal fear of high places."
"agoraphobia. An abnormal fear of open or public places." "claustro-
phobia. An abnormal fear of being in narrow or enclosed places."
"triskaidekaphobia. An abnormal fear of the number 13." Do you see
a pattern? The suffix "phobia" implies an abnormal, irrational fear
of something. If the average native speaker of English heard someone
described as "plergbophobic", then, even though he had no idea what
the word "plergb" meant, he would know that the person was being
described as having an abnormal, irrational fear of plergb or
plergbs. Even if we include hatred or contempt along with fear, the
main emphasis is on the abnormal, irrational nature of the reaction.
Therefore, someone who is described as "homophobic" is being accused
of having an abnormal, irrational reaction to homosexuals or homosex-
uality. As I said in my original posting, no doubt there are some
people with an irrational fear like that, and the term "homophobia"
would properly apply to them, but that is not how it is used. If
someone says a homosexual orientation is a psychosexual disorder and
not an "alternate but equally valid sexual orientation," he is ac-
cused of homophobia. If someone says that both the Old Testament and
the New Testament condemn homosexual intercourse as sinful, he is
accused of homophobia. If someone opposes the political agenda of
militant homosexuals, he is accused of homophobia.
Those accusations are a smear. They attempt to dismiss and discredit
those positions as based on an irrational fear, since that is what a
phobia is. If those positions are the result of an irrational fear
there is no need to examine them or any arguments the proponents may
advance to support them. The arguments are just the rationalizations
of an irrational fear.
This is an example of the practice of arguing against someone by
attacking his motives rather than addressing his arguments. C. S.
Lewis discussed this practice in his essay "Bulverism", which was
published in the collection of his essays, _God In The Dock_ (printed
in Britain with the title _Undeceptions_). I recommend the essay and
the rest of the book.
It is not surprising that dictionaries define "homophobia" the way
you say one does because dictionaries nowadays are descriptive, not
prescriptive. They record how people use a word. They do not usual-
ly analyze the connotations.
>>[...]
>>The following is an excerpt from a posting by Frank Beckwith (a
>>professor of philosophy) to a list on June 10, 1994:
>>
>> ------ BEGIN QUOTE -----
>>[...]
>>caller (Frank Beckwith): Dr. Klinger, I have a question. If it is wrong
>>for a psychiatrist to treat homosexuality as if it were a dysfunction,
>>would it not also be true that when gay activists use the term
>>"homophobia" as a term of derision that they are misusing psychiatry
>>as well?
>>
>>Dr. Klinger (guest): The term "homophobia" is a misnomer. It's not
>>really a phobia. It's an ism. The true term should be heterosexism. And
>>it's not a psychiatric diagnosis.
>>
>>There you have it from a homosexual psychiatrist who is on an APA
>>committee for gay and lesbians: there is no such thing as homophobia.
>>
>> ----- END QUOTE -----
>
>Dr. Beckwith may be a professor of philosophy, but he seems
>to have trouble understanding even elementary English.
>Dr. Klinger didn't say that that "there is no such thing
>as homophobia," he said that "it's not a psychiatric diagnosis."
>doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Dr. Klinger, a psychiatrist and a member of the American Psychiatric
Association's Gay & Lesbian Committee, admitted that homophobia, as
the term is commonly used, does not exist as a true phobia. People
who use the term "homophobia" to refer to what Dr. Klinger termed
"heterosexism" are misusing the term "phobia". That is my point.
That is Dr. Beckwith's point. That, I think, is the moderator's point
in his postings in this thread.
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
"A sneer is a distortion of the face that reflects a worse
distortion of the soul." -- F. J. Sheed
Support H.R. 1748 Anti-Spam bill. For further information see
http://www.cauce.org/
Ronald Chaplin
> I am forced to concur w/ several postings I've read in this thread that
> conclude or report that the manner in which they've seen words like
> "homophobe" used amounts to an epithet attempting to label someone as a
> sexual racist whether or not the so-called homophobe hates and actively
> seeks to stamp out homosexuals or merely carries a belief-born conviction
> that homosexual activity is a sin. IOW: I don't see those calling
> others "homophobes" bothering to make a disctinction between those who
> would be violent towards homosexuals versus those who believe homosexual
> acts are wrong. Lumping everyone from the violent reactor to the quietly
> convinced peaceful man into the "homophobe" category is being dishonest
> at best and, at worst, childishly lashing out at any who refuse to embrace
> your chioces as right, good, and or acceptable.
I would agree that "homophobe" is an epithet too readily
cast around by many in the gay and lesbian community -- just
as "racist" is used to readily by many.
For the record, I do not label everyone who disagrees with
me a "homophobe". I am a gay activist; and I am very active
in the Christian Church. I am regularly dealing with
politicians and theologians who disagree with me on many
of these issues. Only a minority would I describe as
"homophobic".
This being said, there is a great deal of homophobia within
the Christian Church, in the same manner as there is sexism,
racism, elitism and a number of other evils. Those who
I would describe as homophobic fall under two categories.
First are those who condone violence against homosexuals.
In this category I would include people like Pat Robertson
who has publicly recommended that homosexuals be put to
death. The second category are those whose views are
not reasonable -- those people with closed minds. In this
category are those who say that homosexuality is evil
because "the Bible/God says so", without engaging in
any valid discussion of Scripture.
Those who willingly engage in such discussions are not
homophobic, whether they agree with me or not. And
believe me, there are many good people in the church
and in politics who disagree with me.
Ron Chaplin
Ottawa
Mkemling
writes:
>As for the lifestyle of Homosexuals nor hurting people, try telling that to a
>woman I know and am counseling who has been married to her man for twenty two
>years and has three children and he leaves to live with his "boyfriend".
I would say, that if society hadn't condemned homosexuality, this man might
have been able to come to terms with his sexual orientation long before he
chose to marry this woman. Many of these kinds of marriages happen because
people are not willing to accept their sexual orientation because we pronounce
it sin.
a_jabb...@hotmail.com
dav...@primenet.com wrote:
> Sexual orientation is not a lifestyle. IT is who we are,
I would hate to choose to be defined soley by a sexual preference.
The theory that homosexuality is purely genetic is far from being a proven
fact. There are many who say it is enviromental and some who say it is purely
choosen. In reality, it hardly matters. If you are homosexual, and want to
change, chances are good that you can. First admit that you don't really want
to change, then admit that it is not a proven fact that you are born
homosexual, then you might get more credibility.
This is not unlike the theory that the Bible does not really mean
homosexuality is a sin. It, like so many things in the Bible, is open to some
interpretation. While the meaning of the specific words can be bandied about
in Clinton-like fashion, I would think that their true meaning would, like
Clinton, be truly defined by the actions.
So, how were homosexuals treated by the Hebrews thru history, from Genesis on?
If they were tolerated, it would speak volumes for the homosexuality is not a
sin crowd. Is there any historical data?
Oleft2lose
>does not _encourage_ anyone to get married, teaching that although marriage
>is a great good, and a beautiful vocation for those called to it, celibacy
>for the sake of the kingdom is even better.
I still do not understand what would happen if everyone chose the "better"
choice and remainded celebate. Catholicism would be wiped out in a generation.
Unlikely as that is, it also seems strange to me that god should want his
priests, presumably some of the most educated, caring, and fine examples of
humanity, to forgo families "for the sake of the kingdom." Would it not be
better (for mankind, the religion, and god) if these people [priests and nuns]
had families of their own, raised children in their image to carry on the good
deeds they would almost certainly teach them by first hand example, and
otherwise participated in the family community in a first hand way? Imagine if
all the best educated, most capable, finest, kindhearted people in this country
went celebate for the good of the country, devoting everything they have to our
nation. Would our nation really be a better place now? How about in 100 years
when they all were dead? Of course one can also ask the revers: how many good
people would we be able to get in government, in our schools, etc., if celebacy
was a requirement? Some, for certain, but enough? Why would god want this
situation? The shortage of priests is appalling, and I don't think it's man's
fault.
Momkoff
There are many new age churchs and splits in denominations of churchs that
accept or do not accept homosexuals....that is a human choice not a choice from
the Bible....the Bible is clear on the subject...chosing to break covenant with
the written word is wrong...
<--->
just my thoughts
~*~*~*~*~
Linda Koff
Oleft2lose
>in the sense that it is impossible for them to join as "one body"--though
>it might possibly _feel_ to them like they're doing it.
If that's the case, what's the problem with their actions?
wno...@my-dejanews.com
> > This writer is obviously
> >gay and trying to justify his chosen "lifestyle".
> Just like you and I are trying to justify our heterosexual lifestyle?
> Sexual orientation is not a lifestyle. IT is who we are, innate, given by
> God by birth. It is silly to try and change the sexual orientation given by
> God it simply can't be done unless one is bisexual to start so can go either
> way.
Sorry, but I won't buy it. God made male and female. Homosexuality is a
CHOSEN lifestyle. You weren't born gay, and there is no scientific evidnece
to say otherwise.
wno...@my-dejanews.com
(Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt) wrote:
> wno...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
> > Hah, hah, hah!!! What kind of garbage is this?? This writer is obviously
> > gay and trying to justify his chosen "lifestyle".
> []
>
> I did not write the quote that you deride above, but I could have
> written something very much like it as it expresses my beliefs. I have
> said as much in other discussions. There is no grounds for dismissing
> this as gay justification. In my case, I lead an extremely
> "heterosexual lifestyle". I am married and have six children.
>
> I prefer to avoid comments on the motivations of posters, but if I
> were to speculate I would need to consider just why you seem so
> defensive about this subject. There does appear to be a fear of even
> considering the possibility that "normal" people may fell attractions
> to members of the same sex. I recognize that the term "homophobia" is
> problematic, but it does not seem farfetched to use it to describe
> your attitude.
Well, Jayne, my attitude about gays is simply that they need to repent of
their sin and be saved, the same as the rest of us. We all sin.
Homosexuality is just another sin. It is a chosen behavior. Yes, sometimes
there are some very deep rooted causes of this behavior, but just the same, a
person is not "born" this way. Does God make mistakes? I think not.
God hates sin, but he loves the sinner, and wants all to be saved. BUT, we
must turn from our sin, not go on living in sin. We can't claim to be
Christian, while still living in disobedience. This is why I say someone who
is "gay", and actively living the "gay lifestyle" is not truely a Christian.
None of us are pure, of course. But, we make the effort to not make sin the
habit of our lives. One who continues in this lifestyle, has not experienced
conversion, and is not saved. Sorry. Read the Bible.
wno...@my-dejanews.com
"Artifical contraception has always been considered sinful by the
traditional Christian churches, too."
Only in the Catholic church, to my knowledge. There is no Biblical basis for
this that I am aware of. The Bible simply does not mention contraception
Anton
3:23-25); that the Old Law is brought to completion in Christ (Romans 10:4); and
its fulfillment is in love (Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 5:14). Jesus did deal with
human sexuality in an open and unthreatened manner. He affirmed on one hand the
goods of marriage, but also declared marriage is not for everyone (Matthew
19:3-12). Furthermore, the Bible does not record one word spoken by Jesus
condemning homosexuality.
Peter Nyikos
>Peter Nyikos (nyi...@math.sc.edu) writes:
>> dav...@primenet.com (Dave in Phoenix) writes:
>>>Adultery in biblical times did not mean what it means to us today. Clearly
>>>there was never a word said about the fact Hebrew men could have as many
>>>wives, concubines (breeders) and "other women" as they could afford.
>>
>> That "other women" part is covered pretty well in Deuteronomy
>> 22:22-29 and Exodus 22:15-16. If the other woman is married it is adultery,
>> if she is betrothed it is still a capital crime, if she is not
>> betrothed and is a virgin, he is subject to an ancient precursor
>> of the shotgun marriage. He can only get out of it if the father of
>> the virgin refuses to let the marriage take place, in which case
>> he gets off with a fine.
>Peter, believe it or not, you are agreeing with Dave.
Not quite, not even if what you are saying (source?) is correct.
>The various types of "adultery" refered to in the Law all deal
>with women's property value, to either their husbands or their
>fathers. To have sexual relations with another man's wife
>would damage her value to her husband. In exactly the same
>manner, to have sexual relations with a virgin would damage
>her value to her father.
I'd like to know what exegesis you are basing this on. Why
would there be a shotgun marriage if that was the only
issue? The man ought to get off with a fine if that were
the only issue.
>You will also note that the Law establishes different penalties
>for assaults on women, depending on whether or not the victim
>would or would not be able to bear children following the assault.
>Once again, the Law protects not the woman's dignity or purity,
>but her economic value to the men in her clan.
Non sequitur. The emotional reaction to the rape of Tamar
by Absalom bespeaks a totally different system of values
than this naked cash value analysis.
>
>> Second is the practice
>>>of slave prostitutes. Third is that of the effeminate "call boy" or
>>>prostitute. Other practices included a heterosexual male degrading another
>>>heterosexual male by anal intercourse after capturing them in battle.
>>
>> Gratuitous insertions of "heterosexual" duly noted. Could your
>> source have been `heterophobic' like Carl Wittman was in
>> "A Gay Manifesto" [_Liberation_, February 1970; reprinted in
>> _Counterculture and Revolution_, Random House, 1972]?
>Why is the insertion of "heterosexual" gratuitous? What do you
>mean?
Why is it assumed that ALL the people doing the anal intercourse
were heterosexual? It flies in the face of common sense, and also
in the face of y'all's slogan, "We are everywhere."
>There have been several references over the last couple of days
>to the 1970 publication "A Gay Manifesto".
Anyone else but me making them? I've never seen anyone else
being aware of this article but me before I called it to
the person's attention. Certain aspects of
it may be an embarrassment to the gay liberation movement,
but I've never seen anyone in the movement specifically
repudiate anything it says.
For the record, I
>consider myself a gay activist, and have never heard of this
>publication nor of Carl Wittman.
It was in the February 1970 issue of _Liberation_ and reprinted
in _Counterculture and Revolution_ in 1972.
I suspect I would probably
>have to go to a "Christian" website to find a reference to it.
I've never contributed anything to any website (except Deja News,
by posting to Usenet) and have never seen Wittman's paper in
any website. I have my own personal copy of _Counterculture
and Revolution_.
Your suspicions do make ME suspicious, though--I wonder whether
everything "Dave in Phoenix" has been throwing at us has
been mindlessly copied from gay activist and pro-choice
websites.
>>>Another practice was heterosexual's using anal intercourse to drive out
>>>other hetero strangers they didn't like such as the case of the Sodom story.
>>
>> Gratuitous and highly dubious identification of the aggressors
>> in the Sodom story as "heterosexual" duly noted.
>You have asked for references, Peter. Why is the identification
>of "heterosexuals" in Sodom "highly dubious"?
It is dubious on the face of it--the men wanted to have intimacies
with Lot's guests and refused the offer of Lot's daughters; Lot,
who seemed to have no antipathy towards his daughters, was apparently
bluffing, knowing the men would not call his bluff.
>>>It had absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality as we know it today,
>>>which is simply being as God designed some people to be.
>>
>> The orientation of homosexuality is simply being as genes and
>> environment "designed" some people to be. God permitted it just
>> as God permits orientation towards pedophelia, bestiality and
>> necrophilia.
>I hear this so often I could scream! What's your point?
Well, for one thing, I think "Dave in Phoenix" has no faith in
a transcendent God and is merely using "as God designed some
people to be" as a code for what I am saying in my first sentence.
In my second sentence, though, I give the other side of the
matter--I tell him what I hope is where God really fits into
all this. [Yeah, I was explaining the traditional
Judeo-Christian-Islamic POV which I am committed to--I hope
the JCI world-view is right about there being a transcendent
God. From time to time in my long life I've come close to saying
in my mind that there is no God, but never in my heart.]
How
>is homosexuality like pedophilia? I can tell you how it is
>unlike pedophilia.
I've heard lots of legalistic talk by people about "children
cannot legally give consent" as though laws were written
in granite. Got anything more to offer? {I mean, besides
the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, which I adhere to and you
evidently don't.}
Homosexuality is a sexual attraction for members of one's own
sex. Pedophilia is a sexual attraction for "underage" minors.
There are plenty of people hoping to legalize people being able
to act on the latter attraction. Maybe even the person who
posted on how the Christian churches are not being very realistic
in offering the homosexual only the options of heterosexual
(adult) marriage and celibacy. Aren't pedophiles also suffering
frustration in the same way as the homosexuals whom this person
wants relieved of their frustration?
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
Vunch
>gay feelings is proportional to the amount of such impulses being covered up.
I think the intensity of the anti-gay feelings are proportional to their
unwilingness to acknowledge or even discuss Jesus' sexuality.
Psyching Up Against the Psych-Out: http://members.aol.com/Vunch/index.html
Peter Nyikos
>wno...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>> "Psychologists agree that is not possible for anyone to be one
>> hundred per cent 'heterosexual'
I'd love to see what the source of the foregoing factoid is.
as the human condition is far too complex for
>> it to be confined to such a simple definition. So simply we are capable or
>> being a 'bit gay.' Most people
Note the disharmony. First it is "not possible" not to be a 'bit gay'
and now we are merely supposed to be capable of it. Neither statement
is backed up by documentation.
>> at one time in their lives will have
>> experienced some homosexual feelings..."
As well as impulses to murder, commit suicide, throw temper
tantrums...
Once upon a time, these as well as temptations to sexual
sin were often belived to be temptations of the devil.
But sin does not consist in being tempted--even Jesus was tempted--
but in succumbing to temptation to sin.
>> Hah, hah, hah!!! What kind of garbage is this?? This writer is obviously
>> gay and trying to justify his chosen "lifestyle".
>[]
>I did not write the quote that you deride above, but I could have
>written something very much like it as it expresses my beliefs. I have
>said as much in other discussions. There is no grounds for dismissing
>this as gay justification. In my case, I lead an extremely
>"heterosexual lifestyle". I am married and have six children.
>I prefer to avoid comments on the motivations of posters,
If so, you could easily have avoided the following highly
stereotyped comment, and let any number of other gays or
apologists for gays make it, as they often do at the drop
of a hat:
but if I
>were to speculate I would need to consider just why you seem so
>defensive about this subject. There does appear to be a fear of even
>considering the possibility that "normal" people may fell attractions
>to members of the same sex.
I saw no real sign of such fear, perhaps because I am aware of
how worthless amateur psychologizing usually is in such contexts.
BUSHBADEE
>
>This is indeed a bit of a touchy issue, but here's my read on it: The stuff
>in Leviticus 18 lays out principles behind the laws given. The "incest laws"
>indicate that in lying with a near member of the family, one is defiling
>oneself and one's family. Homosexuality is stated as wrong because it is an
>abomination -- God *inherently* despises it.
Is this your reading of it or does it specifically say
Gd inherrently despises it some where in either the new or old books.
It may be an abomination , but that does not mean Gd dispises it.
Why are you so full of pride that you would speak for Gd.
Further, certain things
>codified meticulously in the law actually predated it, and are simply God's
>absolute laws. These would be idolatry, blood and things strangled,
and
>*sexual immorality*.
Where is this codified ??
Which of these prebibical books do you claim as the work as GD.???
The laws about pork, sacrifices, ceremonial
>uncleanness, were part of the law of Moses,
No the bible is the word of Gd,
It was merely Moses who wrote it down,.
If you disobey Dueteroneme then you disobey Gd.
The rest is a cop out.
which was fulfilled through
>Jesus.
Where does Jesus say this.?????
Or does some other MAN, like Paul, whose word you apparently put above Gd's
word say this.????
This ceremonial laws and symbols of the Jews were replaced by the
>spiritual laws and symbols of Jesus.
Where does Jesus say this.???
What you say is just a plain cop out.
Either accept what Jesus said and did, for he did as he said, or why not just
find another Gd.
>
>
>I hope this helps clarify such positions. It is not an (inherently)
>inconsistent philosophy. One can pick and choose what the apostles picked
>and
>chose..
Can you also choose to respect your parents, but commit adultry, murder and
lie.
Do you get to pick which commandment you get to follow also.??
.
>
I do not follow many of these channels.
To answere me address mail to
Bush...@aol.com
hed...@geneva.rutgers.edu
Ronald Chaplin says:
>I would agree that "homophobe" is an epithet too readily
>cast around by many in the gay and lesbian community -- just
>as "racist" is used to readily by many.
>For the record, I do not label everyone who disagrees with
>me a "homophobe". I am a gay activist; and I am very active
>in the Christian Church. I am regularly dealing with
>politicians and theologians who disagree with me on many
>of these issues. Only a minority would I describe as
>"homophobic".
>This being said, there is a great deal of homophobia within
>the Christian Church, in the same manner as there is sexism,
>racism, elitism and a number of other evils. Those who
My discussion with Michael Siemon may have left the wrong impression
of my views. I'm willing to accept homosexual Christians on the same
basis as any other Christians. I read both Genesis and Rom 1 as
saying that homosexuality is not the normal pattern for humans, but I
see it as primarily a misfortune, not a sin.
I'm a member of the PC(USA). I would prefer to see us not have a
policy on homosexuality at all, but to leave congregations the freedom
to evaluate homosexual candidates on the same basis as any others. (I
am aware that not all congregations would use this freedom. I would
rather deal with this using persuasion. A more aggressive approach
was used to force congregations to accept the ordination of women. I
think this was a mistake.)
However I also recognize that many (probably most) Christians in good
conscience believe that the Bible calls homosexuality sin. Many of
these people are still able to regard homosexuals as fellow human
beings, who should be treated with respect.
Hatred of homosexuals appears to be widespread, both in the church and
out. However I think it is neither honest nor wise to charge people
with this hatred unless they actually are guilty of it. There is a
tendency to feel that unless someone is 100% in favor of homosexuality
as fully equal to heterosexuality, they're the enemy. But people who
think homosexuality is sinful, or simply distasteful, may still
understand that it is unjust to persecute or discriminate against
homosexuals. I would rather see efforts concentrated on real bigotry,
of which there is all too much.
Dave in Phoenix
Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>Why is it assumed that ALL the people doing the anal intercourse
>were heterosexual? It flies in the face of common sense, and also
>in the face of y'all's slogan, "We are everywhere."
You have to realize that heterosexuals having anal intercourse with other
heterosexuals was a common act of pederastry. For example they would do it
to defeated armies after capturing them. The acts of pederasty are totally
different than todays natural gay relationships based on love and their god
given natural sexual orientation.
Regardig Sodom, "all the men and women" came out and the children.
obviously not all gay. And in fact the wanting to sodomize the stranger by
anal sex was a common practive of pederastry. It was done by heterosexuals
and had nothing to do with the homosexual issue.
Dave in Phoenix
>Your suspicions do make ME suspicious, though--I wonder whether
>everything "Dave in Phoenix" has been throwing at us has
>been mindlessly copied from gay activist and pro-choice
>websites.
Since I'm not gay I have done very little reading of gay activist sites.
My research on the gay issues were the result of many questions I was being
asked when I had reserached extensively the heterosexual biblical issues.
Coming from a very conservative Christian background (Bible Study
Fellowship, Christian Business Mens Committee many years etc) I wanted to
prove the liberals wrong on sexual issues. But over time I got convinced I
had been wrong and lied to by the traditions of the Church which had no real
biblical basis.
For a long time I said that while there was no basis for the traditions
aganst singles sexualtiy or loving polyamory, I said it would be much harder
to support Christian homosexuality. But then I reserached that topic also
and found traditions were based on lies not the Bible. To me it the
Christian lies regarding homosexuality are far worse than other sexual
issues since it hurts so many wonderful folks whose only "sin" is to be just
as God created them to be.
I happen to be very heterosexual. I didn't choose it, can't help it, just
how I was born. Just like gays don't choose to be gay and have so many
people so hate them for what they are as God created them.
Dave in Phoenix
>The theory that homosexuality is purely genetic is far from being a proven
>fact.
No the exact genetic cause hasn't been found YET.
But the clear failure of the Change ministries and the fact so many gays so
desperately want to change but can't (unless bi to start) is very good
evidence. Plus it seems to run in families just like any other recessive
genetic trait, and seems to be just as natural occuring in animals.
See extensive material on the absurdity of "curing" gays at
http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/cure.html
And many other articles on the biblical aspects at
http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual
Dave in Phoenix
> You weren't born gay, and there is no scientific evidnece
>to say otherwise.
Actually there is quite a bit. The only arguemnt on your side is emotions
and false lies of Christian tradition that has no biblical basis.
Dave in Phoenix
>Furthermore, the Bible does not record one word spoken by Jesus
>condemning homosexuality.
Good point but Jesus said a lot about loving others. And there is also
evidence of Jesus's acceptance of the homosexual just as God created him:
Jesus' Praise For The Centurion Soldiers Slave Boy
In Matthew and Luke Jesus is portrayed as tolerant of a pederastic
relationship between the centurion and his "boy." A centurion had a slave
(doulos) whom he valued highly (or who was very precious); this slave was
ill and near death. Hearing about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders with to
request Jesus to save his slave's life. The centurion had faith He could
cure him. Jesus said "I tell you, nowhere, even in Israel, have I found
faith like this." and healed the slave boy. (Luke 7:2-10).
The slightly different version in Matthew (8:5) refers in each instance to
the boy as "boy" (pais), not slave (doulos). Boy in Greek connotes a
catamite or youth in a homosexual/pederastic relationship in the Greco-Roman
world. These relationships were socially acceptable and not uncommon in
that culture. The boy would not be trained to become a lifelong or adult
homosexual if he was naturally heterosexual but often would remain bisexual.
This public acceptance of pederasty, an institution which the Romans
inherited from the Greeks, was accompanied, however, by a measure of public
anxiety. Effeminacy and submissiveness, for example, were viewed with
contempt. Roman aristocratic families increasingly protected their young
men by law from such assignments. Hence the pederastic relationship was
increasingly assigned to slaves, who had no social reputation to lose.
The practice was very common in Jesus' day. Plutarch, the Greek biographer,
who traveled widely and taught in Rome, was born about a decade after Jesus
died. He discusses in his "Dialogue on Love" the question whether the love
of boys is superior to the love of women, a critical question of the day.
The tradition of the Greeks held the love of boys to be superior to a women.
Readers or hearers of the story in the first century would unquestionably
conclude, given the language that is used that the centurion was a pederast
and his boy a catamite. Luke reinforces that impression by characterizing
the boy as "very precious" to him.
This supports a picture of Jesus as one who was tolerant of such
relationships, a picture that is congruent with the rest of the New
Testament. However, it is not enough to say that Jesus was merely tolerant
of this apparent pederastic relationship. More then that, he was deeply
impressed with the centurions faith as to make it a prime example in his
teachings recalled by both Matthew and Luke.
Internet Reply to My Centurion Discussion: From Cliff Hammond (with
permission)
Internet Subject "Where does which Bible condemn Homosexuality":
"Dave, your discussion of the centurions servant is very interesting. It
raises some interesting questions. First, if the ministry of Jesus was to
the Jews, as we are told in the Gospels, it is not surprising that the
subject of homoeroticism did not present, given that the Jews universally
considered homoeroticism (among males) to be a purity issue (toevan, but not
zemia) and a practice of the "unclean Gentiles" with whom the Jews refused
to mix socially. Therefore, when the opportunity DID present - in a setting
in which the writers of the Gospels were not only recalling the incident of
faith and healing to Jewish Christians but also to "Gentile" Christians -
one would think that the writers of the Gospels would have desired to
clarify the issue IF IT WERE AN ISSUE. Because, in their choice of words to
label the functional relationship of the young male servant with his master,
they did not rule out the possibility of homoeroticism (The Greek word,
pais, connotes inclusion of homoeroticism within the scope of the
master-slave relationship), they have - perhaps unintentionally - proffered
a very strong argument from silence that such a homoerotic relationship
simply was not an issue for them and their Hellenic culture.
A discussion of the synoptic process might hold a key. If it is true that Q
Source and the original Aramaic Gospel of Matthew was used as an outline for
the Gospel of Mark, which was then used together with the original Aramaic
Matthew as outlines for the Greek version of Matthew, it is interesting that
the story of the Centurian's pais does not appear in Mark. That the story
*does* appear in Luke using the Greek word duablos (sp?) argues for the
possibility that Luke also used Aramaic Matthew (or Q) in addition to Mark
as its outline. The Question then becomes why did Luke use diablos and not
pais?
If Luke used the gospel of Mark as an outline, where did he get the story of
the healing of the Centurian's servant? From Aramaic Matthew? Luke's use of
the Greek duablos for "servant" could be circumstantially explained as
translation bias due to Luke's close association with Paul, a Pharisee who
did address homoeroticism in his Letter to the Romans as a consequence of
the Gentiles' idolatry.
Why did Peter's secretary, Mark, choose not to use the story in his own
gospel if he were truly using as his outline the Aramaic Matthew and the
stories of Jesus' messianic ministry related by the Apostle Peter?
Why did the author of the Greek version of Matthew choose the word pais
translating from the original Aramaic Matthew and using the Gospel of Mark
as its outline?"
Nowhere in the NT did Jesus say a word, even mistranslated about this
pederastic practice, much less anything about today's far different loving
equal homosexual relationships. That such an understanding of this text
would surprise the modern reader simply demonstrates the gulf that separates
the world of the biblical times and modern days in the area of sexual
values.
F.J. Beckwith
Marty Helgesen wrote:
>A phobia is by definition an irrational or excessive fear.
Claustro-
>phobia is an irrational fear of enclosed places. Ailurophobia is an
>irrational fear of cats. (And, as a friend of mine once observed
>tooraloorailurophobia is an irrational fear of Irish cats.) There-
>fore, homophobia would be an irrational fear of homosexuals or of
>homosexuality.
Methinks you need to revise your silly notion that the
meaning of a word is necessarily tied to its etymology.
According to your reasoning, xenophobia would be an
irrational fear of foreigners. Yet, if you look it up
in Webester's dictionary, you'll see that it means
"fear or HATRED of strangers or foreigners." Similarly,
if you look up "homophobia" in http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary,
you will find the following definition: "irrational fear of,
aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."
>[...]
It seems that you are missing the point. When a psychiatrist uses a
term that has a clinical connotation, it seems reasonable to assume
that she is in fact making a clinical assessment, especially when she
is discussing on national television the moral status of treating
homosexual patients in a clinical setting. Of course, we all know why
she uses the word. It is an attempt to silence those with whom she
disagrees by framing the disagreement in a way that makes it looks as
if there can never be in principle thoughtful opposition to her
perspective. It is what I call the "passive aggressive tyranny
trick." It is a way to sound open to diversity and passively
accepting differences while at the same time putting forth an
agressively partisan agenda, for the position implies with those who
do not embrace that viewpoint are not only mistaken but sick and evil.
It is the moral equivalent of red-baiting or calling a defender of
civil rights "nigger lover." It is a version of the ad hominem
fallacy. After all, there is no connection between the plausibility
of a position and the mental state of its proponent. For example, if
I had been an anti-war protestor in the the 1960s but it was later
discovered that I had a fear of bloodsheed (shall we say, hemophobia),
it would clearly be intellectually disreputible to dismiss my position
on the grounds that I am "hemphobic." Either the Vietnam was was
morally justified or it was not. My fears or lack thereof are totally
irrelevant.
Perhaps an illustration will help. In her acceptance speech for a
writing Emmy she was awarded on September 14, 1997 for the show
"Ellen," Ellen DeGeneres said, "I accept this on behalf of all people,
and the teen-agers out there especially, who think there is something
wrong with them because they are gay. There's nothing wrong with you.
Don't ever let anybody make you feel ashamed of who you are."
There are many who, after hearing or reading Ellen's speech,
will conclude that the actress is an open and tolerant person who is
merely interested in helping young people to better understand their
own sexuality. If you think this way, you are mistaken. Ellen's
speech is an example of the "passive-aggressive tyranny." As noted
above, the trick is to sound "passive" and accepting of "diversity"
even though you are putting forth an aggressively partisan agenda,
implying that those who disagree with you are not only stupid but
harmful. In order to understand this, imagine if a conservative
Christian Emmy award winner had said this: "I accept this on behalf of
all people, and the teen-agers out there especially, who think there
is something wrong with them because they believe that human beings
are made for a purpose and that purpose includes the building of
community with its foundation being heterosexual monogamy. There's
nothing wrong with you. Don't ever let anybody, especially television
script writers, make you feel ashamed because of what you believe is
true about reality." Clearly this would imply that those who affirm
sexual libertinism are wrong. An award-winner who made this speech
would be denounced as narrow, bigoted, and intolerant. She would
never work again in Hollywood.
Ironically, Ellen's Emmy speech does as much to those with whom
she disagrees. By encouraging people to believe there is nothing
wrong with their homosexuality she is saying that there is something
wrong with those who don't agree with this prescription. This
condemnation is evident in the script of the show for which Ellen won
an Emmy. In that famous "coming out" episode, the writers presumed
that one is either bigoted or ignorant if one thinks that Ellen's
homosexuality is not normative, that one is incapable of having a
thoughtful, carefully wrought case, against homsexuality. Such hubris
is astounding, since it not only presumes that Ellen's detractors are
wrong but that they are stupid, irrational, and evil and should not
even be allowed to make their case. They are, in a word, diseased,
suffering from that made-up ailment, "homophobia."
Ms. DeGeneres has every legal right to voice her political and
anthropological opinions. That is not in dispute. In fact, she has
every right to think those who don't agree with her judgments on human
sexuality are wrong. The problem, however, is that she presents her
judgments as if they were not judgments. Like most sexual libertines,
Ms. DeGeneres believes her views are "neutral." From her perspective
she is merely letting people live any way they choose. But this is
not neutral at all. It presupposes a particular view of human nature,
human community , and human happiness. It assumes that only three
elements, if present, make a sexual practice normative: adult consent,
one's desire, and it doesn't interfere with another's lifestyle
orientation (i.e., "it doesn't hurt anybody"). This, of course, is
not so obvious. For example, an adult male who acheives orgasm as a
result of pedophile fantasies while secretly viewing his neighbor's
young children, though he never acts on his fantasies and nobody ever
finds out, acts consistently with these three elements, yet it seems
counterintuitive to say that what he is doing is on par with
hetereosexual monogamy and ought to be treated as such. On what
principled ground could the Ellen-ites exclude this gentleman from the
egalitarianism they accord more chic sexual orientations?
Ellen's viewpoint affirms what her and her allies believe is good,
true, and beautiful, implying that those who dispute this viewpoint
are incorrect. At the end of the day, Ellen is as intolerant and
narrow as her detractors.
Take care,
Frank Beckwith
--
=======
Francis J. Beckwith
associate professor of philosophy, culture, and law
Trinity International University (Deerfield, IL), California campus
2200 N. Grand Avenue Santa Ana CA 92705
email: beck...@tiu.edu phone: 714-796-7161
=======
Alexander R Pruss
: >In fact, genital intimacy is, strictly speaking, impossible for homosexuals,
: >in the sense that it is impossible for them to join as "one body"--though
: >it might possibly _feel_ to them like they're doing it.
: If that's the case, what's the problem with their actions?
The actions take something very holy, namely the reproductive organs,
and misuse them to gain an _illusion_ of union (sexual pleasure gives
one a _feeling_ of union) without an actual physical union as "one body"
being present. But love, being an ultimate reality, and illusion are
opposed.
The beautiful thing about the Catholic view of sexuality is the focus on
the importance of reality. Of a _real_ physical union as "one flesh",
"one body". As Tobit prayed prior to consummating his marriage:
"Lord, I take this kinswoman of mine not out of lust, but in truth."
The "in truth" hints at the focus on reality...
Alex
--
Alexander R. Pruss || e-mail: pru...@pitt.edu
Graduate Student || home page: http://www.pitt.edu/~pruss
Department of Philosophy || alternate e-mail address: pr...@member.ams.org
University of Pittsburgh || Erdos number: 4
Pittsburgh, PA 15260 ||
U.S.A. ||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Philosophiam discimus non ut tantum sciamus, sed ut boni efficiamur."
- Paul of Worczyn (1424)
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
[]
> Well, Jayne, my attitude about gays is simply that they need to repent of
> their sin and be saved, the same as the rest of us.
I know people who are attracted to members of the same sex (i.e. they
are gay) and are celibate. In your eyes, what sin are they committing?
> We all sin.
> Homosexuality is just another sin. It is a chosen behavior.
It is good that you are telling us what you mean by the word
"homosexuality", but this is not the common meaning of the word. You
would improve your ability to communicate effectively if you used the
word with its conventional meaning of a sexual orientation.
Orientations are not behaviours. Orientations are not chosen.
All this is orthogonal to the question of whether homosexual behaviour
is sinful. I suspect this what you really want to say.
> Yes, sometimes
> there are some very deep rooted causes of this behavior, but just the same, a
> person is not "born" this way. Does God make mistakes? I think not.
Homosexual orientation is not something that people choose. There is
insufficient evidence to claim that homosexual people are born that
way, but it does seem usually to be established quite young.
> God hates sin, but he loves the sinner, and wants all to be saved. BUT, we
> must turn from our sin, not go on living in sin. We can't claim to be
> Christian, while still living in disobedience. This is why I say someone who
> is "gay", and actively living the "gay lifestyle" is not truely a Christian.
In this last sentence you do seem to be acknowledging a distinction
between orientation and behaviour. I suggest you think through the
implications of this. I also sugest you avoid the term "gay
lifestyle" as it is extremely unclear. Gays have the same range of
lifestyles as hets. Some are promiscuous, some are in committed
relationships, some are celibate.
> None of us are pure, of course. But, we make the effort to not make sin the
> habit of our lives. One who continues in this lifestyle, has not experienced
> conversion, and is not saved. Sorry. Read the Bible.
I do read the Bible. It appears that I use different assumptions in
understanding it than you do.
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> [posted and e-mailed]
> jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt)
writes:
[Peter has kindly e-emailed me a copy of his response to me because I
explained that I have had difficulty receiving s.r.c. lately.
(Thank you, Peter.) I did not see this post in the batch that I
received today. I don't know if this means it was rejected by the
moderator or there is merely a propogation problem. I am both
posting and emailing my response.]
[re: alleged similarity between homosexuality and pedophilia]
> So it appears that once certain reservations about the age
> difference are overcome, and due regard is paid to the
> adult not being in a position of control over the child,
> social opposition will crumble just as it is rapidly crumbling
> towards any and all sex between consenting adults.
Yes, these issues have lately come into question, along with
prostitution, contraception, masturbation, and premarital sex. I am
troubled by many of the trends in modern sexual ethics. However, I
believe it is a good thing that we are re-examining our beliefs.
Popular culture has long given lip service to Christian sexual
morality, while, in practice, diverging from Christian teaching. The
popular double standard for male and female sexual behaviour is a good
example. (A promiscuous man is considered a stud, a promiscuous woman
a slut.) This double standard is not part of Christian teaching.
I see a careful scrutiny of sexual ethics as having the potential to
clarify what is truly Christian. For me, such scrutiny means letting
go of our assumptions and asking many questions about the basic nature
of sex and sexuality. I see value in looking at the pros and cons of
these issues, even of sex for children. I am now better able to
articulate why I believe it is wrong. However, when I thought, studied
and prayed about homosexuality I came to a conclusion that differed
from the traditional Christian position. As a rather traditional
Catholic, I have struggled with how to deal with this with integrity.
> > Our culture treats most heterosexual sin as
> > understandable human fraility, not as disgusting perversion.
>
> Which culture would that be?
How right you are to question my use of the word culture. Western
society is remarkably pluralistic right now and any generalization
about culture will have many exceptions. Thank you for drawing
attention to this.
> Not the traditional Christian
> culture, which treats heterosexual sin as something that
> cuts the sinner away from relationship to God, unless repented.
That is certainly traditional Christian teaching (which I believe,
btw) but I question to what degree it has entered popular
consciousness. For example, prostitution has usually thrived in
nominally Christian societies.
> >I admit that the word "homophobia" is emotionally loaded. I avoid
> >using it for that reason. But I firmly believe that the idea it
> >attempts to convey is real and pervasive. School children use the word
> >"gay" as a taunt, often without even understanding what it means. Any
> >discussion of homosexuality usally elicits ignorant stereotypes and
> >generalizations. Look at the jokes and insults people make.
>
> Yeah, I was taunted innumerable times in locker rooms as though
> I were gay, because of my avoidance of heterosexual sin. But
> I never dreamed until a few years ago that the taunters actually
> may have thought I WAS gay. I just took the taunts as mindless put-downs.
I think it's great that you have striven for chastity and am not
surprised that it was misunderstood. I have no experience of boys'
locker rooms so perhaps you could answer a question for me. Was anyone
ever taunted there for premarital sex, contraception or masturbation?
Since you have experienced this taunting, I wonder if you can imagine
what it would have felt like if you actually had been gay. What if you
had been having some feelings of attraction towards other boys when
they said those things to you? You would not be able to dismiss the
words as mindless put-downs then. How would you have felt if people
told you that you were a filthy, disgusting pervert because of your
feelings of attraction?
[]
> >This last gratuitous "ad hominem" cancels any merit your post may
> >otherwise have had. I have had the opportunity to see many posts by
> >Michael over the years and have formed a great admiration for him.
>
> Too bad. I have encountered him in talk.origins over the years
> and have found
> him to be a highly dishonest and gratuitously angry person.
[example from other ng deleted]
> >I react with pleased anticipation when I see his name appear as author
> >on my newsreader. I look forward to his erudite and courteous posts.
>
> If you think his first post to this thread was courteous, I
> wonder where you are coming from.
It was more forceful than I usually associate with courtesy. However,
as person who already likes and admires Michael, I found it easy to
make allowances for the anger he expressed. For one thing, that is how
I like to be treated when I express myself heatedly and so how I ought
to treat others. For another, I felt his anger was justified.
OTOH, it would not have been so easy for you. You appear to have
previously formed a bad impression of Michael so it is understandable
that you interpretted his post in a more negative way. (One of my
earliest memories of Michael is seeing his posts in defence of
Christianity on alt.atheism, which left me with a very good
impression.)
How we feel about people can drastically affect how we respond to
their comments. I know that there are some people whom I dislike so
much that I want to disagree with them. I feel disappointed when I
agree with the points they are making. All their flaws are magnified
in my mind. I am usually able to avoid being blatantly uncivil to them
but I am still troubled and ashamed of my un-Christlike attitude.
Perhaps you could pray for me. I would appreciate it.
Jayne
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
writes:
>I still do not understand what would happen if everyone chose the "better"
>choice and remainded celebate. Catholicism would be wiped out in a generation.
Well, the Shakers tried it ;) . A hundred years later they are nearly extinct,
but not quite. For some time, losses by death were offset by gains from
conversion.
>... it also seems strange to me that god should want his
>priests, presumably some of the most educated, caring, and fine examples of
>humanity, to forgo families "for the sake of the kingdom." Would it not be
>better (for mankind, the religion, and god) if these people [priests and nuns]
>had families of their own, raised children in their image to carry on the good
>deeds they would almost certainly teach them by first hand example, ...
Maybe the fact that they don't have children or spouses to aggravate them helps
account for their fine example :) .
Remember, the celibate clergy is a policy matter, not a doctrinal one. For
many centuries there were married priests in the West (as there are still in
the East). But among the arguments in favor of a celibate clergy are that they
are not distracted by family matters--some Protestant clergymen may neglect
their flocks for the sake of their families, although one hears more often
about them neglecting their families for the sake of their congregations--and,
I believe, there was at one time a concern that cures and bishoprics might
become hereditary possessions.
But your real issue is with the notion of celibacy as a "higher" calling, which
suggests to you that ideally all Christians would be so. But consider
football. The quarterback is probably the team member most critical to his
team's success; to be quarterback is, thus, in a sense the highest calling in
football. One who has the requisite gifts to be a QB would be hurting his team
if he insisted on playing tight end. But not everyone has the skills of a QB;
so even if being a quarterback is the "highest" calling on a football team,
there will always be linebackers and offensive tackles as well--and they would
hurt their teams if they tried to enter the quarterbackship.
Thus, even if celibacy is a "higher" calling, it remains a gift which not
everyone possesses. Thus, there will always be children born within the
church; and godly men and women without genetic children may nevertheless
parent spiritual children to carry on their examples.
Gary Williams
Alexander R Pruss
: Jayne wrote:
: "Artifical contraception has always been considered sinful by the
: traditional Christian churches, too."
: Only in the Catholic church, to my knowledge. There is no Biblical basis for
: this that I am aware of. The Bible simply does not mention contraception
Until the year 1930, all Protestant denominations condemned the sin.
Luther condemned it. Wesley called it "sodomy". Etc., etc. It was
simply assumed by all Protestant denominations prior to 1930 (when the
Anglican Church broke ranks at Lambeth) that contraception was a part
of the "sexual immorality" that Paul condemned.
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
>
>[]
>> In fact, genital intimacy is, strictly speaking, impossible for homosexuals,
>I find the assumptions here somewhat disturbing. You seem to be saying
>that the experience of intimacy does not truly indicate intimacy;
Jayne, remember that the term Alex uses is _genital_ intimacy; he does not
speak of intimacy in general, so might not deny that homosexual partners can
experience intimacy in a variety of _other_ forms. Remember, too, that his
definition of genital intimacy is a fairly restrictive one; he considers that
the use of a condom defeats the "one-flesh" aspect of genital intimacy, and,
thus, is not truly an intimate event.
Gary Williams
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> Well, Jayne, my attitude about gays is simply that they need to
> repent of their sin and be saved, the same as the rest of us. We
> all sin.
Gay Christians of course agree.
What we don't want is you confessing our sins for us. It is not your
job to try and find specks in my eye.
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> Jayne wrote:
> "Artifical contraception has always been considered sinful by the
> traditional Christian churches, too."
>
> Only in the Catholic church, to my knowledge. There is no Biblical basis for
> this that I am aware of. The Bible simply does not mention contraception
Your knowledge is lacking. Almost all Christians taught this until
well into this century. In the Anglican communion, for example, the
change was introduced at the Lambeth conference in 1930. The Bible
was understood to condemn contraception in the story of Onan, much in
the way the story of Sodom and Gomorrah has been understood to condemn
homosexuality. In both the cases, a re-examination of the Bible can
lead to other than the traditional understanding.
You say that the Bible simply does not mention contraception. Other
Christians say that the Bible simply does not mention committed homosexual
relationships. Can you claim that you are following the Bible better
than they are?
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt)
> writes:
>
>>wno...@my-dejanews.com writes:
[deletions]
>>> Hah, hah, hah!!! What kind of garbage is this?? This writer is obviously
>>> gay and trying to justify his chosen "lifestyle".
[more deletions]
> but if I
>>were to speculate I would need to consider just why you seem so
>>defensive about this subject. There does appear to be a fear of even
>>considering the possibility that "normal" people may fell attractions
>>to members of the same sex.
>
> I saw no real sign of such fear, perhaps because I am aware of
> how worthless amateur psychologizing usually is in such contexts.
I'm surprised that you see nothing unusual in wnotis' comment. His/her
choice of words seems quite heated and emotional. Notice the derisive
laughter and the use of the loaded word "garbage". Notice how the
content of the original claim is dismissed rather than dealt with in a
logical fashion.
This is especially clear in contrast with your own response to the
claim that all people have some homosexual feelings. You reasonably
and dispassionately asked for evidence and looked for internal
contradictions. Now if I were to comment on your motivation, you would
be right to accuse me of "worthless amateur psychologizing". However,
to comment on wnotis' post is merely showing reasonable awareness of
its unusually high level of emotionality.
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
<MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:
>This is an example of the practice of arguing against someone by
>attacking his motives rather than addressing his arguments. C. S.
>Lewis discussed this practice in his essay "Bulverism", which was
>published in the collection of his essays, _God In The Dock_ (printed
>in Britain with the title _Undeceptions_). I recommend the essay and
>the rest of the book.
Marty, I agree with you in a narrow, technical sense...but...what single word
(not phrase) can you come up with to replace it?
And if "heterosexist" is the more accurate term, and is universally adopted,
what will it change? The word "negrophobe" was never in general circulation;
"racist" was always the term--yet the same type of problem existed in that
people on a given side of an issue could be labelled "racist" whatever their
motives, while people who were clearly racist could say that they were merely
fighting for a principle.
The real problem, whatever term is chosen, is, as our moderator has suggested,
not to allow that term to foreclose debate by implying that anyone or any
position to whom the term is applied is, by application of the term, thereby
proven wrong.
We also should not allow ourselves to be distracted from checking out our own
motives (which are almost always to a degree mixed) by an argument over
terminology.
Gary Williams
F.J. Beckwith
<snip>
The sorts of arguments Dave presents are found in a book I critically
reviewed for CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL earlier this year, THE GOOD
BOOK by Peter Gomes (Free Press, 1996).
As I point out in my review, there is a common thread to these
arguments that when pulled out unravels the entire mosaic.
Take care,
Frank
===
(2586 words, excluding book citation and reviewer's byline and
affiliation)
The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart
Peter J. Gomes.
New York: William Morrow, 1996.
ISBN 0-688-13447-5, 382 pp., cloth $25.00
Reviewed by Francis J. Beckwith
This book can best be described as a theologically liberal
defense of
the Bible. This may sound strange to conservative evangelicals, but it
should
not. For many theological liberals have great respect for the Bible and
believe that one can derive divine truth from it. Many are orthodox
in their
creed but heterodox in their bibliology. Peter J. Gomes seems to be
this
sort of theological liberal. Although I believe he is mistaken on
some
points, there is no doubt that he is a serious man who has given much
thought
to the role of Scripture in the Christian life.
Gomes, the minister in The Memorial Church as well as the
Plummer
Professor of Christian Morals at Harvard College, is an engaging writer
with a
gift for persuasion. This should not be surprising, since Time
magazine named
him one of the seven best preachers in America. A registered Republican
with
an evangelical background, Gomes gave the benediction at Ronald Reagan's
inauguration as well as the inaugural sermon for George Bush. But he
is also
an African-American homosexual. Consequently, The Good Book is not
your
typical liberal diatribe, it is an atypical liberal diatribe: different
road,
same destination
The Good Book's first three chapters deal with the place of
Scripture in
American churches, the problem of biblical interpretation, and the Bible
in
America. These chapters set the tone for the rest of the book. Gomes
suggests, among other things, that Christians ought to be careful when
interpreting Scripture, for there are three dangerous temptations one
can give
into: (1) bibliolatry, (2) literalism, and (3) culturalism. Although
this
book discusses a number of topics--some of which are quite informative
and
helpful--I will focus in this review on some of the areas in which Gomes
differs from conservative evangelicals. I will do this by covering the
three
dangerous temptations and some of the examples Gomes employs.
The first he defines as "the worship of the Bible, making of it an
object of
veneration and ascribing to it the glory due to God" (36). It is
unclear
what Gomes means by this since he does not cite any actual instance that
seems
to fit his definition. He does, however, give us an insight on what he
may
mean by "bibliolatry": "It was Martin Luther... whose reformation
slogan, sola
scriptura, `by scripture alone,' that gave rise to the greatest
temptation yet,
which was to make of the Bible a domesticated substitute for the
authority of
God" (39). But if the Bible is the Word of God, as all Christian
churches
have taught until this century, then how can one say that Luther's
slogan gave
rise to the Bible replacing God's authority, since God's Word by
definition
would carry His authority? Since it is God who is the appropriate
object of
worship, how does Gomes gain information about this God in order to
distinguish
Him from inappropriate objects of worship, such as the Bible? Is Gomes'
source
the Bible? If it is, which parts of it? If only some parts, on what
basis
and on what authority does he distinguish the divine parts from the less
than
the divine parts? If it's the whole Bible on which he relies, on what
authority does Gomes trust it? God's authority? It's not clear from
reading
The Good Book how Gomes answers these questions.
Certainly Gomes is correct in saying that we should not worship
the
Bible, but that's not a real issue. The real issue is whether the Bible
is
God's Word. And given that, the real question is: How can we as
Christians
best understand and respond to what God has communicated to us?
Literalism is "the worship of the text, in which the letter is
given an
inappropriate superiority over the spirit" (36). If all Gomes were
saying is
that the Bible includes numerous literary styles written for assorted
reasons
to a diversity of persons in different historical contexts, and that a
careful
reader of the Bible should take all these into consideration, Gomes
would be
saying nothing that evangelicals could not embrace. But this is not
what he
is saying. A key to what he means is found in his comparison between
those he
calls biblical "literalists" and those who believe that we ought to
interpret
the U.S. Constitution by the intent of its Framers:
"The issue, framed in American consitutional discourse, is not what you
and I
might think the Consitution means; nor is it what the Supreme Court, at
any
given point, thinks it means. The only valid line of inquiry, according
to the
doctrine of original intent, is that the authors, the framers, had in
their
minds when they wrote what they wrote. It is the business of the courts
to
interpret the Constitution on that basis, and the business of the
legislature
to legislate with that intent in mind. It is no small point of cultural
coincidence in contemporary America that those who find security in the
authority of the text and its authors' intent in scripture, will be
equally
anxious to submit themselves and others to the same authority in
constitutional
discourse." (43)
Assuming that Gomes is the author of this passage and that he
intends to
convey to his readers that he believes biblical conservatives and
constitutional conservatives usually occupy the same pews in churches
and
synagogues throughout America, who am I, as a believer in original
intent, to
dispute such an accurate sociological observation. Even though he
expects
the reader of his book to espouse original intent when reading The Good
Book,
Gomes does not encourage the same courtesy to be extended to the
authors of
the Bible and the U.S. Constitution. Although he provides no
philosophical
argument against the positions espoused by either group of "original
intenters," he does provide one telling reason for his viewpoint: "Most
of us
would not want to reconform our country's civilization to these original
intents, even though we know what they are" (44). So, the Bible, like
the
U.S. Constitution, is to be understood not by the intent of its authors
(or
Author), but by the wants of its reader. But if its reader happens
to be
the church, or in the case of the Constitution, the Supreme Court, on
what
basis can the church claim to be Christ's church, or in the case of the
Court,
the Constitution's authoritative interpreter? If Gomes answers by
appealing
to the authority of "the Bible" and "the Consitution," he is either
affirming
the authority of those documents or he is affirming the authority of the
reader. If the former, he should be applauded. But if the latter, he
becomes
trapped in an appaling loop in which "Constitution" and "Bible" simply
mean
"whatever the people who read it want it to mean."
But it is not clear what Gomes believes. For instance, when it
comes to
conclusions that agree with social and theological conservativism (e.g.,
marriage should be between only one man and one woman, abortion is
unjustified
homicide), Gomes shows great respect for the author's "original intent"
and
tries to demonstrate that the Bible, when properly interpreted, does not
agree
with these conclusions, but in fact supports more liberal views. On the
other
hand, he refers to those outside his ethnic community who are concerned
with
the historical truth of biblical miracles as "fact-obsessed white
Protestant
Christians" (341).
Gomes provides an example of misguided literalism that tells us
less
about the perils of literalism than about Gomes' understanding of those
with
whom he disagrees. He writes:
"The Bible is silent about abortion, but the religious zeal of the
protestors
at abortion clinics is based upon what they believe to be the plain and
clear
meaning of Exodus 20:13, where in many English translations the familiar
commandment says, "Thou shalt not not kill." The moral energy of the
anti-abortion movement is fueled in large part by this clear and
unambiguous
commandment, which it claims is violated with impunity every time an
abortion
is performed. One has only to listen to the chilling justification of
his
action by Paul Hill, the minister convicted of first-degree murder at a
Pensacola abortion clinic, to send the depth of the conviction based
upon the
moral force of this commandment." (44)
Gomes correctly points out that Exodus 20:13 should really be
translated
"Thou shalt not murder," because there is a distinction between murder
and
killing. However, Gomes does not understand the prolife movement and
Paul
Hill's defense of his action. First, many prolifers who are against
abortion
for preborn human beings support capital punishment for postnatal
murderers,
since they understand the difference between killing and murder and that
Exodus
20:13 prohibits the latter but not the former. The literature by
prolife
scholars on this is enormous,1 but Gomes does not appear familiar with
it at
all. Second, the basis for the prolife position has never been based
on one
passage of Scripture (Exodus 20:13). In fact, I can't think of one
well-known
activist in the history of the movement who has grounded the prolife
position
exclusively on the basis of that passage, even though Gomes claims,
without one
citation, that "the religious zeal of the protestors at abortion clinics
is
based upon what they believe to be the plain and clear meaning of Exodus
20:13"
(44). Third, Gomes makes it appear as if Hill is representative of
the
prolife movement and that Hill's position has widespread appeal among
prolifers. This is false,as a recent symposium of leading prolife
activists
and intellectuals in the journal First Things makes abundantly clear.2
Fourth, although what Hill did was morally wrong, those who defend his
actions
do so by making the very distinction that Gomes suggests that prolifers
make,
namely, there is a difference between murder and killing.3 These
extremists
argue that killing an innocent unborn human being is murder while trying
to
prevent that murder by killing or impairing the murderer is justified,
because
not all killing or maiming is condemned in Scripture. They ridicule
Christians
who appeal to "Thou shalt not kill" as an argument against killing
abortion
doctors, making the exact same point as Gomes does in order to justify
what
Gomes thinks is morally reprehensible.
Culturalism is "the worship of the culture, in which the Bible is
forced
to conform to the norms of the prevailing culture" (36). If
understood as
merely a condemnation of cultural prejudice and imperialism,
evangelicals can
embrace Gomes' warnings. In fact, Gomes accurately points out the
injustices,
such as anti-Semitism, slavery, and racism, that have been defended by
appealing to Scripture.
But it seems that Gomes is saying something much more, for,
according
to Gomes, it is the result of "culuralism," and not the teaching of
Scripture,
which has led to the belief that homosexuality is immoral and contrary
to the
Bible. Gomes defends his position by relying primarily on the work of
John
Boswell, whose writings on the history of homosexuality and the
Christian
church have been, in my judgment, refuted convincingly by numerous
scholars
including Thomas Schmidt in his book Straight & Narrow?: Compassion &
Clarity
in the Homosexuality Debate (Downers Grove, IL : InterVarsity Press,
1995).
Gomes, to his credit, acknowledges that Boswell's position has come
under
severe criticism (368-72), though he thinks that the questions Boswell
has
raised are sufficient for the church not to rely on the traditional
Christian
opposition to homosexuality.
Although Gomes' case is multifaceted, I have room to address only
one
aspect of it. According to Gomes, apparent scriptural condemnations of
homosexuality are concerned with the debauchery of homosexual
prostitution and
heterosexuals who are practicing homosexuality. In other words, the
Bible is
not condemning those who are homosexual by nature and who are in loving
relationships There are several problems with this argument, but I
will bring
up only one: the same principle can be used to excuse nearly every
behavior
condemned in Scripture. For example, based on Gomes' method of
interpretation, one could argue that biblical prohibitions against
stealing,
child sacrifice, bestiality, and adultery are only speaking of those who
are
not theives, child killers, zoophiles, and adulterers by nature and who
are
engaging in these behaviors out of love. But this is absurd, since
there is
nothing in the text to warrant this interpretation. Gomes'
interpretation of
Scripture, though politically correct, is no more warranted. It seems
that
Gomes is engaging in the "culturalism" he rightly condemns when employed
by
racists and anti-Semites, for it is the culture of the intellectual
class to
which he is forcing the text of Scripture to conform.
This posture is evident in a speech he gave in Harvard Yard in
which he
"warned of the dangers of Christian absolutism....," and "dismissed the
easy
references to scripture and the rather glib social analysis as unworthy
of
thinking or charitable Christian debate" (165). Fair enough, but when
a group
of conservative Harvard students published a periodical dedicated to
giving a
theologically informed and intellectually respectful critique of
homosexuality, Gomes said that the existence of the periodical on
campus
challenged the virtues of tolerance and diversity, and "what may have
been a
genuine desire on the part of the young authors to present their
strongly
argued positions as a way of opening a vigorous debate on an issue of
enormous
moral significance had the effect of most polemics. Fears and anxieties
were
raised where few had been before, discourse was inhibited rather than
stimulated, and the moral climate of the community was poisoned. What
was
meant to be robust debate was perceived as theological thuggery, and the
situation could not continue unaddressed" (164).
So, instead of challenging the hysterical, unjustified,
uncharitable,
glib, and unthinking reactions of the diverse and tolerant community
over which
he pastors, Gomes blamed the young authors, implying that they should
have kept
their mouths shut. Gomes' assessment is an example of what I call
"passive-aggressive tyranny." The trick is to sound "passive" and
accepting of
"diversity" even though you are putting forth an aggressively partisan
agenda,
implying that those who disagree with you are not only stupid but
harmful. In
fact, throughout his book Gomes presumes that one is either bigoted or
ignorant
if one thinks that homosexuality is immoral, that one is incapable of
having a
thoughtful, carefully wrought case, against homsexuality. Such hubris
is
astounding, since it not only presumes that traditional Christians are
wrong
but that they are stupid, irrational, and evil and should not even be
allowed
to make their case. They are, in a word, diseased, suffering from that
made-up
ailment, "homophobia" (166). At the end of the day, Gomes is as
"narrow" and
"intolerant" as the courageous young students who dared to challenge
orthodox
liberalism and who would not keep their mouths shut for the sake of
"diversity".
Although The Good Book raises many questions about Scripture
and its
interpretation to which evangelicals must be prepared to respond, Gomes'
case
for a liberal interpretation of Scripture fails to convince.
Notes
1. See, for example, Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death:
Answering
the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1993);
Harold O.J. Brown, Death Before Birth (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1975);
John
Jefferson Davis, Abortion & the Christian (Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian &
Reformed, 1984); and Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop, Whatever
Happened
to the Human Race (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revel, 1979).
2. "Killing Abortionists: A Symposium," First Things: A Monthly
Journal of
Religion and Public Life 48 (December 1994): 24-31.
3. See Michael Bray, A Time to Kill (Bowie, MD: Reformation Press,
1994 )
====
Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D., is associate professor of philosophy,
culture, and
law, and W. Howard Hoffman Scholar, Trinity Graduate School, Trinity
International University (Deerfield, Illinois), California campus
(Anaheim).
email: beck...@tiu.edu
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
>Jayne wrote:
>"Artifical contraception has always been considered sinful by the
>traditional Christian churches, too."
>
>Only in the Catholic church, to my knowledge. There is no Biblical basis for
>this that I am aware of. The Bible simply does not mention contraception
I happen not to agree with the Roman Catholic teaching on contraception; and
yet, with regard to Jayne's statement, one observes that well into the 20th
century the dissemination of information on contraception was illegal,
presumably as contrary to morality, in both the United States and in England.
Roman Catholic dominance of the legislatures of these two countries cannot be
the explanation.
There is, really, no _direct_ Biblical basis for abstaining from alcohol, or for
condemning abortion, or for not owning slaves; yet, reasoning from what _is_ in
the Bible, various Christians have determined one or more of these to be sinful
behaviors. The debate would be about the validity of the reasoning from
general Scriptural directives to specific cases; it's not sufficient to say
that if the Bible doesn't specifically prohibit it, it must be OK.
Gary Williams
Alexander R Pruss
: I find the assumptions here somewhat disturbing. You seem to be saying
: that the experience of intimacy does not truly indicate intimacy;
That's right. Imagine two people, both asleep, and both simultaneously
having a dream about sex with each other. They may have an _experience_
of intimacy, but this experience is an _illusion_, literally a _dream_.
Sexual intimacy is union as "one flesh". "One flesh" is something
concrete, down-to-earth. It is an objective _physical_ reality, in which
homosexuals simply cannot share since they do not have the physical
equipment for it.
: This seems to
: imply a presumptuous judgement on homosexual people, that they do not
: really love each other.
I made no claims about whether they love each other or not. The only claim
I am making is that there is no union as "one flesh", and hence any sexual
acts that they engage in cannot _objectively_ be an expression of union.
Yes, some physical acts _objectively_ express some realities. (For instance,
the Sacraments.) And homosexual acts, as an objective biological fact, do
not constitute the couple as a single organism, as "one body" or "one flesh",
because there isn't the proper co-operation between the bodies on a biological
level, a co-operation striving in the direction of procreation (even if it
cannot reach procreation). I haven't time to argue this in detail here,
though in my online paper I have done so. (Again, the URL for that is
http://www.pitt.edu/~pruss/unity.html)
Giorgio Casinovi
Marty Helgesen <MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> wrote:
>It's not a question of etymology, but of common usage and understand-
>ing.
Right.
>[...] The dictionary doesn't
>have an entry for "xenophobia" but the definition of "xenophobe" says
>"A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign,
>especially of strangers or foreign people."
>That seems to be an exception.
Here's another one: Anglophobia, an "intense dislike or distrust
of England, the English, or English ways."
>[...] If the average native speaker of English heard someone
>described as "plergbophobic", then, even though he had no idea what
>the word "plergb" meant, he would know that the person was being
>described as having an abnormal, irrational fear of plergb or
>plergbs.
The average native speaker of English should know that in
English, like in many other languages, the etymology of a
word is a totally unreliable indicator of its meaning.
Therefore, the appropriate way to determine a word's
meaning isn't to embark on an etymological wild goose chase.
Instead, one should either try to surmise the meaning from
the word's usage, or simply look it up in a dictionary.
To complain that, in practical usage, homophobia doesn't
always denote an irrational fear of homosexuality makes
as much sense as to complain that a person who is
galvanized isn't necessarily somebody who has received
an electric shock.
>[...]
>If someone says a homosexual orientation is a psychosexual disorder and
>not an "alternate but equally valid sexual orientation," he is ac-
>cused of homophobia.
And quite appropriately so, because a homosexual orientation
is not a "psychosexual disorder." To insist on the contrary
in the absence of factual corroborating evidence is clear
evidence of prejudice against homosexuality and homosexuals,
i.e. homophobia.
>[...]
>It is not surprising that dictionaries define "homophobia" the way
>you say one does because dictionaries nowadays are descriptive, not
>prescriptive. They record how people use a word.
Right; because it's usage that determines a word's meaning.
>[...]
>Dr. Beckwith's comment must be read in context. His point was that
>Dr. Klinger, a psychiatrist and a member of the American Psychiatric
>Association's Gay & Lesbian Committee, admitted that homophobia, as
>the term is commonly used, does not exist as a true phobia.
And who exactly has claimed that homophobia is a phobia in
the clinical sense of that word?
--
Giorgio Casinovi, Senior Research Engineer | Georgia Tech has
Information Technology & Telecommunications Lab | no right to claim
Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA 30332-0832| my opinions as its
Giorgio....@gtri.gatech.edu | own.
Momkoff
>Catholicism
Would it not be
better (for mankind, the religion, and god) if these people [priests and nuns]
had families of their own, raised children in their image to carry on the good
deeds they would almost certainly teach them by first hand example, and
otherwise participated in the family community in a first hand way?>>>
If one is raised in the tradition of the Catholic church, and one receives the
calling to become a Priest or Nun then that is the sacrament they chose and in
fulfilling that they become married to Christ. When they become fully trained
and schooled and ordained, they are sent to a church and begin their lifes
work...It is the choice made to be one only with Christ. Does that make them
bad counselors? Well somewhere in their training marriage and the family was
probably discussed in detail. And so were several other problems facing the
Catholics of today. One doesn't need to have gone through a divorce to counsel
those getting a divorce actually and if one is highly trained in counseling
then it should not matter if they are married or not. Catholics accept this.
And find not only marriage counseling if needed but a warm and empathic Priest
who can counsel thru God's teachings on the subject and through a bit of
psychology.
<--->
just my thoughts
~*~*~*~*~
Linda Koff
Momkoff
>Jesus did deal with
>human sexuality in an open and unthreatened manner. He affirmed on one hand
>the
>goods of marriage, but also declared marriage is not for everyone (Matthew
>19:3-12). Furthermore, the Bible does not record one word spoken by Jesus
>condemning homosexuality.>>>
He dealt with marriage and in doing so condemed homosexuality.
Mark 10:1-12 discusses the issue. and in there is states that God made them
male and female and for this reason a man shall be joined with his wife. And
he discussed divorce there too. I am not talking about whether humans should
judge or not judge I am talking about what Jesus explicity stated.
BUSHBADEE
personally consider it unnatural but here is a little thought.
]
Some people thing Gd made eve from adam's rib but that is not so.
He took her from Adams side.
Now some interpet this to mean, that origonally there were two sides to adam, a
mail and a femail side.
What he took from adam was his female side and made it into a being.
That is why Gd says they are of one flesh.
And perhaps there was a part of adam that both sides were male.
Thus he took another man from Adam and we have homosexuality or a man desiring
the other part of him which was also male.
Except for one chapter and a few words of wisdom ( HOw good must we be ) I
didn't care much for the book any way.
But thought I would toss in another view point.
.
And
Peter Nyikos
>Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>>But there is plenty of Biblical basis for *including* fornication
>>therein, although the case for same-sex fornication rests mostly
>>on the epistles of St. Paul.
>Where?
Romans 1, for one thing. And by the way, did you actually WRITE
the long and extremely strained exegesis you posted on Romans 1, or were
you just copying from a website? How is it that you are almost
speechless, both here and in e-mail, when it comes to responding
directly to what others are writing?
>What are concubines?
They are part of an institution which seems to be totally extinct
as far as the early Christian community is concerned. Jesus
reiterated, in the sermon on the mount and elsewhere, the
teaching of Genesis 2 that a man leaves his family and
cleaves to his wife and the two become one flesh, and that
what God has joined, no human should put asunder. Genesis 2
says nothing about concubines and although Abraham had one or
more, the Lord does not seem to have blessed that particular
arrangement. Yes, he was merciful to Hagar and Ishmael, but
Abraham himself does not seem to come off very well in the
account concerning these two.
>Where are concubines ever wrong?
I think the logic behind Jesus's condemnation of divorce is
sufficient for condeming it too, just as Biblical characterization
of homosexuality as unnatural would seem to extend to
bestiality and necrophilia
also, even though I can find no Biblical verses condemning either
bestiality or necrophilia. Can you? Can any of the people who
actually wrote the essays you post find any?
>Dave, Liberated Christians, Phoenix AZ
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
Peter Nyikos
>wno...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> This writer is obviously
>>gay and trying to justify his chosen "lifestyle".
>Just like you and I are trying to justify our heterosexual lifestyle?
You aren't trying to justify your heterosexual lifestyle to
these threads, as
far as I can see--you are trying to justify the homosexual
lifestyle.
>Sexual orientation is not a lifestyle.
Of course not, and it is the homosexual lifestyle that the
person you are responding to is talking about.
being discussed here, not the orientation. And you too
are being very supportive of homosexual acts, even more
so than the orientation, on these threads.
>IT is who we are, innate, given by
>God by birth.
What does the word "God" mean to you in this context? Is it
a purely rhetorical device? Do you actually believe in a transcendant
God who punishes, e.g., those who bear false witness and remain unrepentant
even unto death?
It is silly to try and change the sexual orientation given by
>God
Is this just your fancy way of saying it is silly to try to
change a sexual orientation that is genetic/congenital?
it simply can't be done unless one is bisexual to start so can go either
>way.
It is the official party line of the gay liberation movement
that one's sexual orientation is fixed at birth and cannot be
changed, but prior to 1970 their party line said just the
opposite--that it is due to factors in upbringing, like overly
domineering mother for males, etc.
Neither party line is overwhelmingly supported by scientific research,
and there have been many cases of homosexuals who have changed their
orientation. "Courage" and other Christian support groups are
living witness to that.
Peter Nyikos
>Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>>That "other women" part is covered pretty well in Deuteronomy
>>22:22-29 and Exodus 22:15-16. If the other woman is married it is adultery,
>Agreed because it is a property crime against her husband
This economic view of Biblical history does not work very well where
Jesus's teachings on divorce and adultery are concerned, I'm
afraid. By the way, where did you get your "education" on
the subject of Biblical exegesis? You sound all thru your
postings and e-mail like you were
impressed by a few people whose word you took as gospel truth
on all kinds of topics. Your bizarre reading of Exodus 21:22
is a good example of that:
======================== response to excerpts from another post of yours
>Many serious biblical scholars are revealing false traditional biblical
>teachings, especially regarding sexual issues which are based on Church
>dogma, not original scriptural texts.
>One clear example of this is the NIV s false translation of Ex 21:22 where
>it tries to make a dead fetus a live birth {...}
>by changing what scripture really said.
I see you going to the opposite extreme. The Hebrew uses a word that
is never used for a dead fetus.
Here is a word-for-word translation where it is clear that the Hebrew
word for "child" rather than one of the words for fetus (golem, etc.)
is being used, and there is no strong hint of the child dying
as a result:
v-khi yinnatzoo anashim v-nagfoo ishah harar
and if they-strive men and-they-strike woman pregnant
v-yatz'oo y'ladeyah v-lo yihyeh ason
and-they-expel her-child and-not there-is ????
`anosh ye`anesh ca'asher yashis `alayv
he-must-be-fined as he-sets upon-him
ba`al ha-ishah v'nasan biphliliym.
husband the-woman and-he-gave in-judges (??).
[I am indebted to Matt Wiener for the word-for-word transcription
and translation above.]
The word "ason" is also transliterated 'swn and apparently is
unknown from outside the Bible. And even in the Bible it is
only used in two or three places.
People have guessed in various ways as to what it means. "yihyeh ason"
has variously been translated as "and she dies", "there is further
harm," "there is [serious] harm" and, most amazing of all,
"the identity of the perpetrator is known." [see below]
The NIV authors were caught in
>their deception and in most texts there is a footnote correcting the live
>birth mistake .
AFAIK the footnote is there because there was a minority opinion
among the translators, and you are reading all kinds of sinister
things into the situation that just aren't there.
Ex 21:22 clearly shows the non-soul status
>of a fetus in the original texts
It does nothing of the sort, as will be seen from a close study.
And by the way, what are your sources for this claim about
the non-soul status, anyway? Why don't you quote from any
of them, like I do below?
The Hebrew word for child (*yeled*) is always used of someone
already born (with the exception of Esau and Jacob in Genesis
25:22), and is usually translated "child" or "boy." [16]
--Paul Fowler, _Abortion: Towards an Evangelical
Consensus_, Multnomah Press, Portland, Oregon
1987, p. 148.
Note on *ibid* p. 156:
[16] Meredith G. Kline, "*Lex Talionis* and the Human Fetus,"
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20
(September 1977):194.
Also, of the expulsion, Fowler said:
The word normally used for miscarriage in Hebrew is *shakol* and
is used in a passage as nearby as Exodus 23:26. The verb here
is *yatza*, meaning "to go or come forth." [*ibid*]
This ties in with one possible solution to the controversy over the meaning
of "ason" or "'swn", which is apparently found nowhere else in the
world except in Genesis, where it has to do with what has happened to Jacob's
son Joseph. One remarkable and respectable guess at its
meaning is "the identity of the perpetrator is known"!
This theory was advanced by Prof. R. Westbrook of Johns Hopkins
University, in an article, "Lex talionis and Exodus 21:22-25"
that appeared in the journal _Revue Biblique_ in 1986.
My source for this information said, in response to my question of how well
Westbrook's theory is holding up:
Well, it's been around since 1985 and all the ancient legal scholars I
know have been talking with Ray regularly since then. I don't know of
anyone who has found fault with it. He was teaching in Israel at the
time, on the Faculty of Law at Hebrew University, where the finest
minds in biblical and talmudic ethical and legal studies are to be
found. They read the manuscript before it was published.
He also said, in reference to "yatz'oo":
The verb is in the third person plural, and since it is unlikely that they
all pushed her at the same time, it must signify an indeterminate subject
--one of them pushed her.
From these circumstances we may conclude that the legal problem
involved was the question of responsibility for damage when the
identity of the actual perpertrator cannot be ascertained.
He also noted that a close legal
parallel is to be found in the Code of Hammurabi 22-24:
"If a man commits robbery and is caught, that man shall be put
to death. If the robber is not caught, the person robbed shall
declare his lost property before the god, and the city and mayor in
whose territory or district the robbery was committed shall replace his
lost property. If it is a case of life [murder], the city and mayor
shall pay his family one mina of silver."
Similar passages are found in other ancient Near East codes of law.
The idea is that the community has some responsibility for cases
where the perpetrator of a crime cannot be known for sure.
In Deuteronomy 21:1-9 there is an interesting passage of what
is to be done by way of discharging community responsibility
for a case of murder where the perpetrator is unknown.
Summing up: we may never know what the true import of Exodus 21:22-23
is, but it is at best premature to claim that it punishes the
death of the woman's child any less severely than it would
the death of the woman as a result of the same incident.
>The deception of the English translations, in some areas, is far more of an
>abomination and sin,
As you judge "deception of the English translation", so shall you
be judged.
================= end of response to another post by you
>>if she is betrothed it is still a capital crime, if she is not
>>betrothed and is a virgin, he is subject to an ancient precursor
>>of the shotgun marriage. He can only get out of it if the father of
>>the virgin refuses to let the marriage take place, in which case
>>he gets off with a fine.
>Property right of father.
I see that you deleted what I wrote about her having to be stoned,
(See Deuteronomy just before the verses in question) if they are
not caught and her non-virginity only becomes apparent on marriage.
Seems like a rather drastic punishment if all that was involved
was her father's or husband's property rights being violated.
if she is thought to be a virgin upon marriage
>BTW, many men had many wives was never wrong....marriage established the
>property right that is all. Today we love people instead of owning them.
>Today a women has the same sexual freedom men had then.
Women are not forced into shotgun marriages if they seduce
virginal men. Do you even READ
the things you are responding to?
Marty Helgesen
>
>Jayne wrote:
>"Artifical contraception has always been considered sinful by the
>traditional Christian churches, too."
>
>Only in the Catholic church, to my knowledge. There is no Biblical basis for
Until around 1930, when the Church of England at its Lambeth Confer-
ence voted to accept the legitimacy of contraception, almost all
Christians agreed that contraception is against the will of God.
Since then most non-Catholic Christian churches have changed their
teaching. I have a book _The Bible and Birth Control_ by Charles D.
Provan (1989). Mr. Provan is a Protestant and argues against contra-
ception from a Protestant point of view. In his introduction to
Chapter 3, which is a compilation of writings by Protestant theolo-
gians on the Onan incident, he wrote:
Many times we have heard discussions of Birth Control reduced to
"Catholics" versus "Protestants". The "Defenders of Protestant
Theology", as they style themselves, will state something along
the lines that "Oh, well, Roman Catholic tradition is in opposi-
tion to contraception, but we Protestants follow the Bible, not
tradition. That is why Protestants allow Birth Control." We
have even seen books which state that Luther and Calvin laid the
groundwork for Birth Control by de-emphasizing the connection
between sexual intercourse and children. This assertion, which
would not see the light of day were it not for the fact of gross
ignorance of the Bible and Church history, is absolutely false.
As we have seen in Chapter One, Calvin taught that Birth Control
is murder, and Luther viewed it as sodomy.
Since we have heard the above view of "Bible Believers" vs.
"Traditionalist Catholics" quite often, we thought that it would
be profitable to research the Reformed view of contraception. The
results which we encountered were, in our view, greatly hearten-
ing, for the views of the Reformers and their heirs were strongly
opposed to Birth Control: we found that the historic Protestant
opinion of Birth Control was to view it as unnatural, murderous
and sodomitical, as well as a gross sin against God, the Church
and Mankind.
We agree with the opponents of Dispensationalism, who often point
to the fact that no one at all taught the pre-tribulation rapture
view before about 1830, thus demonstrating its great weakness.
We will go one better, and state that we have found not one
orthodox theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900's.
NOT ONE! On the other hand, we have found that many highly
regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to
it, all the way back to the very beginning of the Reformation. We
are pleased to associate ourselves with so respected a group of
theologians. We are also pleased that those in favor of Birth
Control will find no one in the orthodox Protestant camp for the
first four centuries to ally themselves with."
In Chapter One Provan wrote:
Several years ago I purchased Calvin's Commentary on Genesis, to
find out what Calvin thought of the Onan incident. Much to my
surprise, when I opened to Genesis 38:8-10, I discovered that
Calvin's comments one this pivotal birth control passage were
omitted by the editor, for what reason he did not state. I was
subsequently able to locate a Latin copy of Calvin's Commentary
on Genesis, and the omitted section was graciously translated into
English by the late Dr. Ford Battles, the translator of Calvin's
Institutes.
The passage Provan quoted from Calvin includes the statement, "The
voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and
woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in
order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous." Calvin
went on to equate contraception with abortion, a statement with which
I disagree, but he clearly opposed contraception.
Provan quoted Luther as saying:
Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This
is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest
and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For
Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and
when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen lest
the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature
established by God in procreation should be followed.
Elsewhere in the book Provan prints criticisms of his view from other
20th century Protestants and his replies. Responding to the ques-
tion, "How can anyone say that spilling the seed is worse than adul-
tery or even incest?" he wrote:
Let me point out that Martin Luther said this, not me, but I
think that his reasoning on the subject went something like this:
"Adultery and incest, although great evils, at least perform the
sexual act in a natural manner, allowing nature to take its
course. Onan, on the other hand, took steps to frustrate God's
creative activity, perverting nature. Onan's deed is an assault
on the natural order of things, and is therefore worse than
adultery or incest." Luther may also have been influenced by the
fact that although Tamar (Onan's wife) later committed incest
with her father-in-law Judah (as Genesis 38 says), yet God did
not kill her -- but he did kill Onan. ... So we will leave this
particular statement on which sins are the worst (adultery and
incest, or destroying one's semen) for later consideration. We
emphatically do affirm, however, Luther's view on birth control:
namely that it is a great sin.
I have a more recent Protestant analysis of the question, but to keep
postings to a reasonable size I'll put it in a second posting.
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
"A sneer is a distortion of the face that reflects a worse
distortion of the soul." -- F. J. Sheed
Support H.R. 1748 Anti-Spam bill. For further information see
http://www.cauce.org/
Marty Helgesen
>
>Jayne wrote:
>"Artifical contraception has always been considered sinful by the
>traditional Christian churches, too."
>
>Only in the Catholic church, to my knowledge. There is no Biblical basis for
>this that I am aware of. The Bible simply does not mention contraception
Control_ by Charles D. Provan (1989) in which the author, a Protes-
tant, argued against contraception from a Protestant point of view.
I know of, but have not read, several books by Protestant couples who
used to use contraception and decided to stop in which they explain
why they stopped. Here is an excerpt from a book I have read that
gives what was originally a Protestant argument against contraception
that was developed by someone for whom it was, and is, a practical
concern. Scott and Kimberly Hahn were Presbyterians. She was the
daughter of a Presbyterian pastor. They met while attending an
Evangelical college and married shortly after they graduated. He
entered a seminary to become a minister, and she enrolled to earn a
master's degree herself. Eventually, after he had been a minister
for several years they very slowly and reluctantly became Catholics.
(He became a Catholic several years before she did, which presented
its own problems.) In their book _Rome Sweet Home_ she wrote of the
time when they were both in the seminary. They were using contracep-
tives as a matter of course and didn't know anyone who wasn't using
them. Then for a course on Christian ethics she did a study of
contraception. She wrote: "First I looked at the nature of God and
how we as marriage partners are called to image him. God--Father,
Son and Holy Spirit--made man and woman in his image and blessed them
in the covenant of marriage, with the command to be fruitful and
multiply, filling the earth and having dominion over all of creation,
to the glory of God (Gen 1:26-28). The very image in which man and
woman were created was the unity of the three Persons of the Godhead,
pouring themselves out in total self-donating love to each other.
God restated this creation mandate in his covenant with Noah and his
family with the same command to be fruitful and multiply. (Gen
9:1ff.). So the existence of sin did not change the call of married
couples to image God through procreation.
"Saint Paul clarified that, in the New Covenant, marriage was elevat-
ed to the status of imaging the relationship between Christ and the
Church. (At this point I had no idea that marriage was actually a
sacrament.) And by the very life-giving power of love, God enabled a
couple to reflect the image of God as the unity of the two became
three. The question I asked myself was, Does our use of birth con-
trol--intentionally blocking the life-giving power of love while
enjoying the unity and pleasure that the act of marriage gives
us--enable my spouse and me to reflect the image of God in total
self-donating love?
"Second, I examined what Scripture had to say about children. The
witness of the Word was overwhelming! Every verse that spoke about
children spoke of them as only and always a blessing (Ps 127; 128).
There was no proverb that cautioned about the expenses of a child
outweighing his worth. ...
"Fertility in Scripture was presented as something to be prized and
celebrated rather than as a disease to be avoided at all costs. ...
"Third was the issue of the lordship of Jesus Christ. As evangelical
Protestants, Scott and I took Christ's lordship over our lives very
seriously. In terms of money we tithed regularly no matter how tight
funds were because we wanted to be good stewards of the money he had
put in our care. ...
"But our bodies? Our fertility? Did Christ's lordship extend that
far? Then I read I Corinthians 6:19-20: 'You are not your own. You
were bought with a price. So glorify God in your bodies.' ..."
Her entire analysis is too long to quote in a posting, which I why I
omitted a lot of it, indicated by "..." Anyone who wants to read the
whole argument will have to read the book.
She and her husband discussed her findings and prayed about them, and
then, although they were both graduate students, they decided that
they would stop using birth control.
Henry Troup
...
> bad counselors? Well somewhere in their training marriage and the family was
> probably discussed in detail. ...
> Linda Koff
I'm going to assume from Linda's use of the handle "Momkoff" that she
has children. And I'm going to ask how well reading and discussing
prepared her for the reality of childbirth.
--
Henry Troup h...@nortel.ca Nortel Public Carrier Networks
My personal position or opinion should not be taken for
the official position or opinion of Nortel
James A. Sledd
F.J. Beckwith (beck...@tiu.edu) wrote:
: It assumes that only three
: elements, if present, make a sexual practice normative: adult consent,
: one's desire, and it doesn't interfere with another's lifestyle
: orientation (i.e., "it doesn't hurt anybody").
: For example, an adult male who acheives orgasm as a
: result of pedophile fantasies while secretly viewing his neighbor's
: young children, though he never acts on his fantasies and nobody ever
: finds out, acts consistently with these three elements,
NOT, viewing someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy without
their kowledge, especially a child who is unable to give consent in
matters of sex with adults, does *NOT* fit the definition of CONSENT.
Close but no cigar. Don't you think you could come up with a better
example?
--
James Sledd
email: jsl...@ssc.upenn.edu http://www.ssc.upenn.edu/~jsledd
phone: (215) 898 6744 fax: (215) 898 7769
Giorgio Casinovi
F.J. Beckwith <beck...@tiu.edu> wrote:
>It seems that you are missing the point. When a psychiatrist uses a
>term that has a clinical connotation,
The term "homophobia" does not have a clinical connotation,
except for someone who is either ignorant of its meaning,
or has an axe to grind.
>[...]
>Perhaps an illustration will help. In her acceptance speech for a
>writing Emmy she was awarded on September 14, 1997 for the show
>"Ellen," Ellen DeGeneres said, "I accept this on behalf of all people,
>and the teen-agers out there especially, who think there is something
>wrong with them because they are gay. There's nothing wrong with you.
>Don't ever let anybody make you feel ashamed of who you are."
>
> There are many who, after hearing or reading Ellen's speech,
>will conclude that the actress is an open and tolerant person who is
>merely interested in helping young people to better understand their
>own sexuality. If you think this way, you are mistaken. Ellen's
>speech is an example of the "passive-aggressive tyranny."
So now merely stating that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality
becomes an example of "passive-aggressive tyranny"?
Get real.
Momkoff
Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt) writes:
>Popular culture has long given lip service to Christian sexual
>morality, while, in practice, diverging from Christian teaching. The
>popular double standard for male and female sexual behaviour is a good
>example. (A promiscuous man is considered a stud, a promiscuous woman
>a slut.) This double standard is not part of Christian teaching.
>
The double standard is not part of the Bible...there are commandments, stories,
Jesus's teachings all leading to purity...one man shall be joined with one
woman...simple...now the mixed messages are from all aspects of society...kids
growing up today have a tough road in the sexual arena...just on of the many
problems ...how can we stop this...well it starts with good christian values in
the home not just being taught but being shown to the kids...some choices are
tough...but once you learn to say turn off the TV or not allow a radio station
to be aired...the children get a clear message...and if the Church you are
going to holds the precepts of the Bible as the standard...then when children
are confronted with peer pressure..and worldly views...they have the strongest
background to confront sin.
Momkoff
Williams, Business Services Accounting) writes:
>
>Thus, even if celibacy is a "higher" calling, it remains a gift which not
>everyone possesses. Thus, there will always be children born within the
>church; and godly men and women without genetic children may nevertheless
>parent spiritual children to carry on their examples.
>
Celebacy is not a higher calling...the choice is marriage or celebacy.
Whether one is called to Preach/minister is the highest calling. Anyone who
follows in the teaching of the Bible, God, and Jesus can diseminate the word,
but when you cross the line and accept the Calling of the ministery then you
accept responsibility to God first.
Momkoff
writes:
>
>That is why Gd says they are of one flesh.
>
>And perhaps there was a part of adam that both sides were male.
>Thus he took another man from Adam and we have homosexuality or a man
>desiring
>the other part of him which was also male.
>
Perhaps...but God destroyed Adam's world....Noah and his family were folks who
were married to one man and one women....when they landed after the storm, each
husband/wife team took part of the animals and repropageted the earth......was
there possible DNA structure that made a person homosexual...could be...but
whether or not this is so, the teachings are clear...One man marries one Women
and they have a family....homosexuality a sin...God destroyed cities in the OT
for this act...no he gives us a choice...as with any sin you can choose to be
in a sinful relationship with God or not.
Alexander R Pruss
: a_jabb...@hotmail.com wrote:
: >The theory that homosexuality is purely genetic is far from being a proven
: >fact.
: But the clear failure of the Change ministries and the fact so many gays so
: desperately want to change but can't (unless bi to start) is very good
: evidence.
Not at all. The alleged failure of Change ministries would be just
as compatible with the idea that homosexuality is acquired not through
nature, but through nurture. The things we get through nurture,
through our environment, are sometimes very hard to change.
It's quite possible for something to be acquired by nurture and yet
once it's there, it's impossible to change it. And there might even
be _choices_ which it is very hard to undo once one makes them.
Momkoff
evidence of Jesus's acceptance of the homosexual just as God created him:>>>
You take one example out of context and misconstrue it for your own arguement:
Jesus was tolerant. He healed anyone who came to him in faith, and when a
faithful person asked mercy and healing for an unfaithful person, he healed
them too.. the unfaithful gained faith.
Throughout the four gospels, Jesus loved children, men, women
When his disciples lost hope or worried he taught them time and time again to
believe in Him and then in his spirit. When anyone came to him in childlike
faith, and believed, he healed.
a_jabb...@hotmail.com
dav...@primenet.com wrote:
> a_jabb...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >The theory that homosexuality is purely genetic is far from being a proven
> >fact.
>
And may never be found, as it is a theoretical cause. If, indeed, a genetic
tag that is found in a majority of homosexuals, and not in hetrosexuals(or
vica versa) it would be powerful evidence, but such a genetic cause has not,
to date, been found. That means the genetic excuse for homosexuality remains
a theory, like the enviromental theory and the choice theory.
> But the clear failure of the Change ministries
Not so clear, it depends on who you believe. Some claim great success, but the
difficulty some homosexuals have in changing does not mean the source of their
desires is not enviromental or a choice.
> and the fact so many gays so
> desperately want to change but can't (unless bi to start)
This is far from a fact, and does not prove the root causes. Many drug addicts
want to change, but can't. Their problems may be genetic, and may not, but the
difficulties some have in giving up drugs hardly proves a genetic flaw.
> is very good
> evidence. Plus it seems to run in families just like any other recessive
> genetic trait,
Poverty runs in families, and is an enviromental trait, even a particular
religion runs in families, and is an enviromental trait. So even if there was
real proof that homosexuality runs in families (I have never seen such proof,
but don't do a lot of research into homosexuality) it would not prove a
genetic cause.
> and seems to be just as natural occuring in animals.
Again, that proves nothing. Murder, incest, pediastry, abuse. All animal
traits, that proves nothing about the causes in humans.
> See extensive material on the absurdity of "curing" gays at
> http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/cure.html
This seems to largely refrence an individual who was not cured, and so seems
biased. I see no overwhelming proof here, only opinion.
> And many other articles on the biblical aspects at
> http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual
Again, this seems mostly opinion based.
> Dave, Liberated Christians, Phoenix AZ
If you want to believe that homosexuality is genetic, fine with me. It is as
good a theory as any, but it is not a proven fact, or even overwhelmingly
evident. If it is the real cause, then no doubt someone will find the gene,
as they have for many genetic illnesess, and maybe even a cure (if, as you
say, so many are desperate to change). Until then, it's all theory.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Peter Nyikos
jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt) writes:
>Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> writes:
>> jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt)
>writes:
>[Peter has kindly e-emailed me a copy of his response to me because I
>explained that I have had difficulty receiving s.r.c. lately.
>(Thank you, Peter.) I did not see this post in the batch that I
>received today. I don't know if this means it was rejected by the
>moderator
It was, because of the included documentation involving another
newsgroup.
>[re: alleged similarity between homosexuality and pedophilia]
Which nobody seems to have argued *against* so far, except for
you, and you and I seem to have come to a good if temporary
understanding about that:
>> So it appears that once certain reservations about the age
>> difference are overcome, and due regard is paid to the
>> adult not being in a position of control over the child,
>> social opposition will crumble just as it is rapidly crumbling
>> towards any and all sex between consenting adults.
>Yes, these issues have lately come into question, along with
>prostitution, contraception, masturbation, and premarital sex. I am
>troubled by many of the trends in modern sexual ethics. However, I
>believe it is a good thing that we are re-examining our beliefs.
>Popular culture has long given lip service to Christian sexual
>morality, while, in practice, diverging from Christian teaching. The
>popular double standard for male and female sexual behaviour is a good
>example. (A promiscuous man is considered a stud, a promiscuous woman
>a slut.)
Is this still the norm? I haven't seen much indication of
this in the last two decades.
> This double standard is not part of Christian teaching.
Absolutely not. A number of people posting to this thread have
implied it is part of OT teaching, but I believe Moses was trying
to counteract an incredibly pervasive pagan influence and
had to accommodate to it to some degree "by reason of the
hardness of your hearts," as Jesus put it. That pagan influence
is apparent even today. One such influence that I am quite aware of
is when the victims of rape see themselves
as "degraded" and "used goods" even though the Christian viewpoint
is that they are innocent of any wrongdoing.
>I see a careful scrutiny of sexual ethics as having the potential to
>clarify what is truly Christian. For me, such scrutiny means letting
>go of our assumptions and asking many questions about the basic nature
>of sex and sexuality. I see value in looking at the pros and cons of
>these issues, even of sex for children. I am now better able to
>articulate why I believe it is wrong.
I would like to see you articulate it. Without many people
coming forth with such articulations
it could well be the wave of the future, as I suggested above.
[...]
[about which culture belittles heterosexual sin:]
>> Not the traditional Christian
>> culture, which treats heterosexual sin as something that
>> cuts the sinner away from relationship to God, unless repented.
>That is certainly traditional Christian teaching (which I believe,
>btw) but I question to what degree it has entered popular
>consciousness. For example, prostitution has usually thrived in
>nominally Christian societies.
Yes, "nominally" is a good word here. It has not thrived in
the USA, except in Nevada, although indirect forms of it have
thrived in the form of "massage parlors" and "escort services".
[...]
>I think it's great that you have striven for chastity and am not
>surprised that it was misunderstood. I have no experience of boys'
>locker rooms so perhaps you could answer a question for me. Was anyone
>ever taunted there for premarital sex, contraception or masturbation?
I can't recall any boys being taunted for premarital sex; on the
other hand, some were taunted if they were attracted to girls who
were "out" [this was in the 1960's when "in" and "out" were widely
used as antonyms denoting social approval and disapproval]. I remember
one girl in particular who was looked down upon by the boys in my
class, and a popular put-down was to ask someone if he was
taking that girl out to the prom.
>Since you have experienced this taunting, I wonder if you can imagine
>what it would have felt like if you actually had been gay. What if you
>had been having some feelings of attraction towards other boys when
>they said those things to you?
I would have resolutely hidden my feelings of attraction for them
just as I was hiding my feelings of attraction for the opposite sex;
I figured it would be easier to stick to chastity if I didn't even
date (which I only started doing in college) and hid and denied all my
sexual attraction to girls. It was cowardly and foolish and
even morally wrong at times, I now see after all these years,
but that is the way I was.
On the other hand, I still see nothing wrong with not letting on
to women other than my wife if I find them sexually attractive.
I've found that the attraction eventually goes away if not
acted on, not even in one's fantasies. I do compliment other women
on their choice of clothes and very occasionally let them
know if I think they are pretty, but that is all.
You would not be able to dismiss the
>words as mindless put-downs then. How would you have felt if people
>told you that you were a filthy, disgusting pervert because of your
>feelings of attraction?
They wouldn't have known about them, any more than they knew of
the many girls and women I was sexually attracted to.
[...]
>How we feel about people can drastically affect how we respond to
>their comments. I know that there are some people whom I dislike so
>much that I want to disagree with them. I feel disappointed when I
>agree with the points they are making. All their flaws are magnified
>in my mind. I am usually able to avoid being blatantly uncivil to them
>but I am still troubled and ashamed of my un-Christlike attitude.
>Perhaps you could pray for me. I would appreciate it.
I certainly will. Your heart seems to be in the right place.