From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Tue Jul 08 2003 - 08:08:53 EDT
RFaussette@aol.com wrote:
>
> 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
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 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?
You continue to avoid the point I made: If the sinful character of
homosexuality is due to lack of reporduction then it _isn't_ sinful if homosexuals _do_
reproduce. You can canter around the track on your hobby horse all you wish but it
doesn't answer that challenge.
Again I repeat - though you probably will again ignore - that I am not engaged
in a "religious defence of homosexuality." But I know a faulty argument when I see one.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 08:10:25 EDT