Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: modern Christianity's lack of responses to Boswell Message-ID: <4858@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 22-Feb-85 10:10:49 EST Article-I.D.: cbscc.4858 Posted: Fri Feb 22 10:10:49 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 26-Feb-85 07:13:34 EST References: <4935@fortune.UUCP> <4720@cbscc.UUCP> <278@bbnccv.UUCP>, <343@teklds.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 83 >Well Steve, > >(and anyone else interested) > >It is almost pointless to respond to Boswell's book. Karen, A response to Boswell's book is not pointless. I think it's rather necessary. >If someone insists on justifying what they want to do, they will. The same could be said about those who think responding to Boswell is pointless. If, for the sake of argument, Boswell is right (and you haven't shown that he isn't) then you are in the position of justifying your own beliefs. What you are talking about here is people who will not listen to an opposing view and respond accordingly. It is possible for you and I to be guilty of that as well as Boswell. If it is ever going to be determined which, it is necessary to respond to one another's arguments; not simply accuse the other of trying to justify their position when they really know better. >Anyone really seeking God's heart knows right from wrong. Knowing right and wrong involves more than "seeking God's heart" (there is no precise definition for that term, so I think it needs to be qualified). People have different ideas about what seeking God's heart means. >Boswell has taken straightforward >scripture and come to his own conclusions. Leviticus and Romans and all >the rest are pretty plain (IN THE ENGLISH AND ORIGINAL LANGUAGE). I >guess people want to think whatever they do is right, even if it is >wrong. Why the push to get the Bible to approve? This is your conclusion, which is missing any supporting argument. You and those who champion Boswell's view are always going to talk past each other unless you deal with the content of each other's argument. I doubt that Steve, Ron, or even John Boswell are pushing to get the Bible to approve. I don't think they accept the Bible as the "Word of God" in the same way you and I would (that is the issue that lies under the one of whether or not Boswell is right about what the Bible teaches). I have the feeling that if Boswell's hermenutics were shown to be false, most gays wouldn't care. They are just trying to use this to chip at the foundation of your position, not necessarily support their own (there is a difference). But the point is that if we care whether or not our position on Scripture is really sound, then we need to check our Boswell's argument for ourselves. I know most of us do not have the time to persue every argument first hand, but there are others who have tried. In a previous posting I mentioned Keysor's edition of "What You Should Know About Homosexuality" which seems to have anticipated Boswell's book. At least do some reading and answer the arguments instead of just implying your opponent should know better. >Jesus doesn't condemn us, we have already condemned ourselves but >we have freedom by His blood if we accept HIS WAY and life. I agree. But the details of what HIS WAY is are not always clear and obvious. You are acting as if they are. >If God wanted homosexual relationships then why do people have to >change their body surgically. This is an obvious statement that >God didn't do it right. To men and two women physically are >not made for each other. This is going to get you a lot of flames, I know it. Homosexuals to not change their bodies surgically, some transexuals do. There's a difference. Karen, I am not trying to side against you here on the biblical basis of whether or not homosexuality is morally right. I am trying to illustrate some principles for discussion in this news group that will make it a beneficial forum for discussion. I don't want it to take on the character of net.religion. I care a lot more about this group than that one. This does not mean that we cannot strongly disagree with another's point of view. But we are only going to generate wasted heat if we do not focus on the *content* of what people are saying instead of the people themselves. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd