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 Richard Brower Message-ID: <256@cvl.UUCP> Date: Thu, 4-Apr-85 16:45:51 EST Article-I.D.: cvl.256 Posted: Thu Apr 4 16:45:51 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 7-Apr-85 07:47:33 EST Distribution: net Organization: Computer Vision Lab, U. of Maryland, College Park Lines: 231 In reply to a reply ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >From: brower@fortune.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Reply to Dave Trisell Message-ID: <5166@fortune.UUCP> > Then you ask why did not Jesus say something against it. >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. > 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. Stoning was only done for a very few and specific acts. As far as I have been able to determine homosexuality was not one of these. If you have other information please define its source (chapter and verse of the Bible will be sufficient). By all of the studies, 6% to 15% of all men are homosexual *irreguardless of race, religion, or time in history*. Thus your above arguement is bogus horseshit. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (I definitely do not agree with punishment of homosexuals; I am rebutting your contention about Jewish law; I have consulted an Orthodox friend who is a rabbinical student.) Translation from NEB. Lev.18.22. You shall not lie with a man as with a woman: that is an abomination (an expression for a most grave sin). Lev.18.29,30. for anyone who does any of these abominable things shall be cut off from his people. Observe the charge, therefore, and follow none of the abominable institutions customary before your time. Lev.20.13. If a man has intercourse with a man as with a woman, they both commit an abomination. They shall be put to death; their blood shall be on their own hands. There are four punishments by death, according to the offense: stoning to death is considered to be the least severe. You should consult an Orthodox authority concerning the interpretation of Jewish Law, if you want to understand their tradition. I did not say what you would have, but said "it is very probable that Jesus never came across a persecuted homosexual Jew, there were so few." I said nothing about estimates of proportions of homosexuals in various cultures; besides, this is very speculative. What I said is that it was considered to be an 'abomination' among the Jews, punishable by death. Jesus was very probably a public figure for one year (and no more than three years); as I said, in this repressive society, Jesus very well might not have met a public example of 'a persecuted homosexual Jew' during his ministry. Recall that disciples who knew about his ministry wrote the Gospels; he did not write anything himself. They do report the account of the adulterous woman, which gives his attitude toward both sexual sins and toward the Law: he reminds us that we have all sinned; he does not condemn her; he tells her to stop sinning. That is, he rejects the mercilessness of the old law, and the hypocrisy of those who would condemn others with punishment. (I have never met 'a persecuted homosexual', as such, even in this fairly open society. I've seen them on television, but I've never met one. I have demonstrated in Austin, Texas against proposals of housing laws which discriminate against homosexuals. There was no TV in Jesus day, his society was repressive, and he seems to be very busy with those who sought him out or whom he encountered.) As for your contentions about modern foreign cultures, you seem to be very uninformed by their members. I work in a research institute in which we have literally dozens of visitors every year from all over the world: China, Taiwan, India, Australia, Italy, Israel, East Germany, Finland, Japan, France, Iran, from all over the world. I have been informed that homosexuality is very uncommon and unaccepted among the very largest cultures. You may say that is because they are repressive, so that homosexuals do not disclose themselves publicly, but that is not my point: it is not publicly common or even privately accepted in these cultures. It is here and in some more tolerant countries. But their 'repressiveness' has nothing to do with Christianity, and you are denigrating their cultural values if you insist upon this. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > As for his other attitudes about sexuality, they are very clear. >First, he says marriage may interfere with ministry, but does not insist You seem to be confusing Jesus and Paul (Saul) here. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Of course not. Paul does make some recommendations. But read Matthew where Jesus says some are celibate for the sake of the kingdom of God, but he does not insist upon this. (see a commentary) By the way, apparently the contemporary Essene monks were celibate, while the Pharisaic rabbis were married of course. But this, as well as his own unmarried state, may have prompted this exchange. (The Essenes were extremely ascetic and pious; however this may be, they were not merciful to sinners, and their ethical teachings were not like those of Jesus.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 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. I've never been married to a woman. Does this mean that I shouldn't break up with my lover of five years. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Of course not; do you reason like this all the time? He presupposes the divine provision of heterosexual mating, period. There is no provision for homosexuality at all; this would undermine the sanctity of the other. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 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. -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On this, I suppose we are agreed. From umcp-cs!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!fortune!brower Article 6126 of net.religion: Relay-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cvl.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site fortune.UUCP Path: cvl!umcp-cs!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!fortune!brower >From: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: reply to Richard Brower Message-ID: <5168@fortune.UUCP> Date: 3 Apr 85 02:07:13 GMT Date-Received: 4 Apr 85 13:05:54 GMT References: <237@cvl.UUCP> Reply-To: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard brower) Distribution: net Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA Lines: 87 In article <237@cvl.UUCP> david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) writes: > Do I have to prove this to you? Do you yourself want to live >as a large proportion of homosexuals do? > I am simply giving my opinion based on discussion with homosexual >individuals, 20 or so, over 20 years, also based on listening to televised >discussions by physicians who are said to be expert. My impression is >that the rates of suicide, drug abuse, promiscuity, transience, infection, >and death are considerably higher among this population than among non- >homosexual groups, especially married persons. Certainly, the health and >happiness of those with whom I talked was not good, even according to them. >The thing I always wondered was -- how can you live this way? And why? As I stated in my previous article, much of the unhappiness of gay people, evident in the above symptoms, is due to the oppression we suffer rather than being intimately connected to homosexuality. As for how I can live "this way", I cannot live any other way than gay. "Why?" you ask, so that the gay people who come after me don't have to suffer such shit. Finally, a sample size of "20 or so" is a very small sample to base such a judgement on out of the 30,000,000 or so homosexuals in the United States... obviously most of the homosexuals that you have met didn't trust you enough to mention it. > You should understand that nearly everyone who is not homosexual, >not matter how liberal or religious, recommends against this life. Further- >more, as I have been informed by Indian and Chinese friends, who are from >ancient countries representing 1/3 of world population, homosexuality is >not accepted, and rare among these comparatively restrictive cultures. >Neither do Muslim nations, who represent another very large proportion, >accept this. All these tradtionally reject it. One has to go back to >pagan Greek and Roman days to find such widespread acceptance. You are >very mistaken. You forget that 15% of *all* men are gay or bisexual, actually I doubt you forget, but wish to conviently brush the facts aside. You are right about the fact that many non-gays recommend against a gay lifestyle, *mostly due to Christian spread intolerence* however. I don't even recommend it, if one can be straight, one may save ones life, job, home and health by not being gay and thereby incurring the wrath of bigots. > If you and your friends are not 'promiscuous', then are you really >representative of most homosexuals? Yes. > We all want to have secure relationships with others; the question >is -- what sort of relationship are we securing? Is it to be recommended >to young people? Whether or not it is 'voluntary', is it to be recommended? 15% of all male children will grow up to be gay/bisexual. Is it healthy to teach children that the life they will lead is somehow sick, evil, etc? No. Isn't this a method of making sure that they will have problems for the rest of their lives? Yes. Will it change their orientation to tell them such things? No. Will some of the larger percentage of children that aren't gay take these concepts about gays and use them to justify going out and "bashing queers" and otherwise denying gays human rights. Yes. Do you wish to continue the cycle? > Being homosexual as you are, also does not make you very >'enlightened' I'm afraid. Besides this, it almost certainly does not >mean the same thing to you as it does to me. To begin with, it is >said that the life of Christ is the light of mankind. How many are >living as he did? Also, as you may not know, the Greek word for >'enlightenment' was, in very early Christian writings, used to >refer to baptism, in the sense of the experience at conversion, >or initiation. (It was also similarly used by the pre-Christian >Essene Jews at Qumran.) What is your initiation? What has set you >on your way? But my point is that the expression 'enlightenment' >has a specific religious meaning, which you do not appreciate, and >is generally confused with a quality of opinion. enlighten: 1. to free from ignorence, prejedice, etc. 2. to inform, instruct. enlightenment n. _Webster's_NewWorld_Dictionary_ Perhaps the Christians who used it that way were enlightened. Some Christians today are enlightened, but certainly you are not one of those. Quit trying to use some obscure definition of the word enlighten as *the* definition. What enlightened me, by the way, was having to live with prejedice every day of my life. Since one of the major teachings of JC that I still believe and use in my own religious/moral code, is that you should love your neighbor as yourself. Since I do not like prejedice against myself, I assume that my neighbor doesn't either. Therefore, I try to enlighten others, like you, who are in need of enlightenment. -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower