From: RFaussette@aol.com
Date: Tue Jul 08 2003 - 07:40:14 EDT
In a message dated 7/7/03 10:31:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, gmurphy@raex.com
writes:
> RFaussette@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 7/7/03 8:05:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> gmurphy@raex.com
> > writes:
> >
> > > If failure to be fruitful & increase is the problem with homosexual
> > > activity
> > > then presumably then it is not sinful for a bisexual person to engage in
> > > heterosexual
> > > intercourse for reproductive purposes and in homosexual behavior for
> other
> > > reasons.
> > >
> > > Shalom,
> > > George
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I didn't say it was a problem - I said it wasn't religion - you can dice
> it
> > any way you want - it's simply not religion and to make established
> religions
> > conform to prohibited sexual practices is simply not religious. And you are
> > missing a significant portion of the argument. I didn't choose that quote
> > carelessly.
> >
> > "You must be fruitful and increase, swarm throughout the earth and rule
> over
> > it"
> > Genesis 9:7.
>
> I don't think I'm missing any part of the argument but that, on the
> contrary,
> you're deflecting it by playing with the terminology. The question is, as
> the subject
> line says, whether or not homosexual activity is - from a Christian
> standpoint - always
> sinful, not whether it's "religious." I am enough of a Barthian to think
> that religion
> + $1 will get you a cup of coffee.
>
> & as you will see from my other posts on this topic, including my recent
> ones to
> Burgy, I am quite wary of argumnets that homosexual activity is _not_
> sinful. But
> attempts to base such a position on failure to reproduce fail, & I have just
> pointed out
> an obvious reductio ad absurdum of them.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
>
You are missing the entire argument. I didn't play with the terminology. I
simply reproduced the entire quote from scripture as it stands. maybe if I
showed you that the Jews took scripture seriously you would have a glimmer of
understanding.
"By the end of the 18th century (in Poland) , there were Jewish guilds for
butchers, furriers and hatmakers, and Christians had been almost completely
displaced as butchers, bakers, tailors, furriers, and goldsmiths. Corresponding
with these developments, Christians increasingly abandoned artisanry in order to
work in agriculture." APTSDA p. 122
"The descriptions of the patriarchs return over and over agin to accounts of
theophanies associated with blessings and promises of territorial possessions
and descendants" (Fohrer, 1968, 123). For example, god says to Abraham Look
now toward heaven and count the stars, if thou be able to count them, and He
said unto him, "so shall thy seed be." ...
A portion of the extended curse directed at deserters in deuteronomy
states," and ye shall be left few in number, wheras ye were as the stars of heaven
for multitude; because thou didst not hearken unto the voice of the Lord, thy
god. and it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you
good, and to multipy you; so the Lord will rejoice over you to cause you to
perish, and to destroy you." deut. 28:62-63.
This concern with reproductive success became a central aspect of historical
Judaism.
Baron writing of later antiquity, notes the "rabbis" vigorous insistence upon
procreation as the first commandment mentioned in the Bible..."Neuman
(1969,II:53) makes a similar comment regarding Jews of preexpulsion spain. Zborowski
and herzog note the absolute obligation to marry and have children among the
ashkenazim in traditional eastern european society. " also APTSDA, Kevin
MacDonald Praeger, 1994
Even eusebius thought the Jews erroneously interpreted their sacred writings
as mandating reproductive success.
The problem you're having George is that you read from inside a Christian
"box,"' with little apparent understanding of Jewish history, Jewish
understanding of their own religious writings or the development of religious thought in
general tending to see everything from the relatively recent "liberal"
mindset. There is no religious defense of homosexuality unless you're a partisan and
have a vested interest in promoting one.
The concept of religion without the concept of sin would make the entire P
stratum of the Tanakh superfluous, wouldn't it? Who's playing with terminology?
religio religare is to be bound to (the Law) - to be unbound to the Law is to
"sin." Verbal gymnastics aside, can it be plainer?
rich faussette
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 07:40:38 EDT