Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cvl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!david
From: david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Reply to Dave Trisell
Message-ID: <218@cvl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Mar-85 20:02:08 EST
Article-I.D.: cvl.218
Posted: Tue Mar 26 20:02:08 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 2-Apr-85 03:31:35 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Computer Vision Lab, U. of Maryland, College Park
Lines: 85

Reply to Dave Trisell, concerning Christianity and homosexuality:

	Our replies have crossed, the one about religious sincerity,
the other about homosexuality. I am replying very briefly to
the latter because I do not wish to offend you, but this will
have to be my last posting to the Net for awhile, so you and
others should not expect an answer again.
	As I said, I lived in or near a number of major cities all over
the country... New Haven, Dallas, New York, Austin, Boston-Cambridge,
San Jose, Washington DC, over a period of almost twenty years as an
adult (born 1948 in a small farming town in Illinois). Most of this
time I was either a manual laborer, or a student or researcher at
various universities. Otherwise, I am divorced, married for a few years
while I was a graduate student. I am Catholic, with Quaker connections.
	So much for background. 
	The homosexuals I have met during this time have almost 
without exception been pretty unhappy, with very poor physical 
and psychological health, this often according to their own account.
My impression is that many are obsessed with their own feelings.
Heterosexuality requires us to take time to understand and love
someone who is much different than us; when there is an alienation
of affection between sexes there is has also been denigration and
repression of women. I would not want to return to pre-Christian
Greece culture; even early Christian communities were less repressive 
of women than the surrounding cultures. (As far as that goes, for
similar reason, I believe that it is a mistake for Catholic priests 
to be required to be celibate; it makes for alienation and repression.)
	You say that some emporors were homosexual, and so were many
Romans and Greeks at the time of Jesus and Paul. Well, the emporers
were lots of other things too, which I wouldn't recommend. My point 
is that homosexuality was not accepted, or even common, among the Jews
of that time. It was scandalous. Absolutely condemned by religious
tradition.
	If you would like to find out what the orthodox Jewish
tradition is concerning homosexuality, a tradition which is derived
from that of the Pharisees of the time of Jesus, then you should ask any
of your Orthodox friends for a reference. I could check with mine,
but it would be better for you to talk with someone who can immediately
answer your questions.
	Then you ask why did not Jesus say something against it.
As Jeff Gillette has already observed, Paul did plainly say something 
against it, despite the far-fetched interpretations of Boswell. Recall
that Paul was addressing Romans and Greeks (Corinthians), not Jews.
Besides this, remember that Paul wrote before the Gospels -- his is the
first written account of Christian ethics. My point is that homosexuality
was a fairly common and accepted behavior among these Gentile communities,
and Paul is not misrepresenting the early Christian viewpoint of homo-
sexuality, which is derived from Jewish tradition.
	What about Jesus? First of all, as I've already observed, homo-
sexuality was not accepted or common among the Jews, no matter whether
it was accepted by the Emporer or other Gentiles of the time. It was
absolutely condemned (by stoning). Jesus preached to the Jews, not to
the Gentiles, and he criticized their hypocrisy, not that of the others-- 
they (Jews) were ones who should know better. To begin with, it is very
probable that Jesus never came across a persecuted homosexual Jew, there
were so few. What he is reported to have met is one adultress, but even
this account, although surely accepted, is not placed with certainty
in any Gospel; it is added. Finally, even if he had met such a one,
what would you expect him to say, except what he told the adultress,
"I have not condemned you; go and stop sinning." Jesus did not condemn
sinners, but hypocrites. Nevertheless, he recognized sin for what it was.
	As for his other attitudes about sexuality, they are very clear.
First, he says marriage may interfere with ministry, but does not insist
upon this for others (at least Peter was married among the first
disciples). This is a practical recommendation probably based on his
his own personal example. Secondly, he says divorce causes the man and
woman to become adulterous. Which may mean unfaithful, as well, in a
more general sense. It may also mean that, besides the breaking the faith
of marriage, divorce causes adultery afterwards. None of these things is
obviously false. And neither of these advices recommends homosexuality; in
fact they both presuppose acceptance of heterosexuality.
	The most revealing thing Jesus says, quoting scripture in Genesis,
is that man and woman were made by God for each other, therefore, no man
should break this bond (marriage). You may draw your own conclusion about
his tacit presuppositions, if you are sincere.
	There is no room for the persecution of anyone, especially of
those who suffer. This is what the Gospel teaches. But there is no
recommendation of homosexuality either; it is clear that Jesus accepted
the Jewish tradition that men and women were made for each other according
to the purpose of God. However, he rejected the merciless cruelty shown to 
sinners, who after all were suffering anyway, and who might come to
repentance if only we were more merciful, as God would have us be.