From: Sondra Brasile (sbrasile@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jul 08 2003 - 22:07:19 EDT
For the record; I don't "get" the part about the Christian's being displaced
as butchers, etc... But I "get" the rest of Rich's post. Although I think
his argument is a bit weaker than the obvious quotes in the Bible where it
explains homosexual behavior word for word and follows it with "is an
abomination to the Lord" and others that lump homosexuals with liars,
murderers, idolaters, etc, etc...that will not be permitted into heaven and
whatnot. I do think Rich has a point though if you want to get down to the
basics and show even without "religion" if possible. I think (sorry if I'm
wrong Rich) what he is talking about is that (homosexual) union is NOT
profitable, not prolific, not "blessed" with children therefore not even in
the simplest, most basic (nitty gritty) sense is it "ok". You seem to be
taking everything he's saying to the furthest possible extreme, on purpose,
just to be argumentative.
George; sorry, but talk about two wrongs not making a right, your reply
sounds more like a pot shot. How could a homosexual union be made "ok" by
adding on another sexual sin ("fornication")? I don't really see the
connection from what Rich said to that response. What you were supposed to
be talking about is "sin" right? So how could you possibly suggest a
"remedy" that includes more sin?
Sorry if I'm missing the point guys, but this is just the way it seems to
me.
Sondra
>From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
>To: RFaussette@aol.com
>CC: jbembe@hotmail.com, gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu, asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Sin?
>Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 08:08:53 -0400
>
>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/
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 22:07:41 EDT