PRIMER4CRITICS - PART ONE

/ Re: Primer on Homo-Hermeneutics-4 / 14 March 1999 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.christnet.bible /
.
>> textman wrote:    A PRIMER ON HOMO-HERMENEUTICS 4.  The Problem With Jude <snip the whole thang!>
.
> "*** Joe ***" replies: There is No problem with Jude, however some people have a problem understanding
> Jude. Jude 1:1 Jude, a bondservant of Jesus Christ ... <snip epistle>
.
 Dear Joe, about your translation: VERY FRAGGIN GROSS!!!!

/ Subject > Re: Primer on Homo-Hermeneutics-4 / Date > 14 March 1999 /
.
> JohnJ wrote: Joe, this is not as simple a text as it seems and there are differing views on it. <snip>
.
 That's right, John. There are views that have the ring of truth to them, and there are views that are false and deceitful. It's not very hard to figure out which category yours falls under ...
.
> "In the same manner as they" seems to be referring back to the angels of v6.
> Some of these passages have perplexed scholars for centuries,
.
 So what? Even a milligram of spiritual truth is more than enough to perplex the scholars ...
.
> since v9 is not recorded anywhere in the O.T. record. Verse 14 hints that some of these remarks are based
> on Enoch. There is a legend recorded about angels wishing to take daughters of men, 1Enoch 6-8 which
> is apparently based on Gen. 6:1-4. It appears that Jude is speaking here using Jewish legend which his
> readers would know. Therefore, it seems far fetched to see "strange flesh" as same gender, when the
> legend of the angels desiring daughters of men has been brought into it. It seems that the Sodomites
> desiring to rape male angels may have been an element of this sin. It is not a very solid Scripture to use in
> order to condemn homosexual orientation or a caring expression of it.  -- JohnJ: A Christian friend.
.
 It is not "far-fetched" in any way. What Jude is describing is two separate and distinct sexual crimes. However, I will allow that the bare term "strange-flesh" in and of itself is insufficient to condemn all homosexual activities. BUT when verse seven is taken in conjunction with the rest of the epistle, THEN it is a powerful and irrefutable expression of the divine mind on the matter of homo-expression!

/ Subject > Re: Primer on Homo-Hermeneutics-3 / Date > 14 March 1999 /
.
>>> JohnJ answers: I've clipped the rest of this silly post. If Paul did not mean males where you
>>> rendered it "sexual perverts", why did he write in Greek, "male-bed".
.
>> Dear JohnJ, 'arsenokoitai' does not mean 'male-bed'. According to my lexicon, 'arsenokoites' means
>> 'one guilty of unnatural offenses'. Now I have seen definitions that make reference to this obscure
>> 'male-bed' thingy of yours, but this obviously harkens back to the original root meanings of the root
>> words. Which is to say that centuries later, when the Koine Greek was being used everywhere, the
>> word had developed new meanings and uses. Thus when Paul uses 'arsenokoitai' he is obviously
>> NOT referring to 'male-beds', but rather to sexual perverts in general. If Paul had wanted to be
>> more particular by focusing specifically on gays, he would have said pederasts (or 'paiderasste') or
>> sodomites, or something to that effect. So there is a very good reason why Paul chose the term
>> 'arsenokoitai', and it certainly wasn't to make reference to something as absurd as male-beds!
.
> JohnJ replies: Strong's Greek Dictionary of the New Testament, 1890 Ed. "733 ... arsenokoites, ...
> from 730 and 2845; a sodomite" "730..arrhen ...or ..arsen.. from 142; male (as stronger for lifting)"
> "2845..koite...from 2749; a couch; by extens. cohabitation; by impl. the male sperm"
.
 The "male sperm" you say? ... hehehe ... So let me get this straight: 'sodomite' comes from 'male sperm' which comes from 'couch males'? ... Is that right? ... hehehe ... Okay then! ... btw: They had strange ideas in 1890, I guess?
.
> Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon: "[arsen], a male; [koite] a bed, one who lies with
> a male as with a female, a sodomite"
.
> The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, an enlargement and revision of
> the German 'Theologisches Begriffslexikon Zum Neuen Testament'...1986 "(arsenokoites), male
> homosexual, pederast, sodomite"
.
 I think all this is a good example of the persistence of stubborn and erroneous interpretations. This word clearly arises from this idea 'a man who beds other men'. No one is disputing this. The essential questions are: How does Paul use the word? And what does he mean by it, eh? Does he use it the way these modern authorities do, to indicate gays? And only gays? Or is he using it in a more general manner? Thus we have basically two viable options available here: (1)'arsenokoites' means "one guilty of unnatural offenses" (Liddell & Scott). (2) "(arsenokoites), male homosexual, pederast, sodomite" (NIDofNTT). Or is it just a matter of taste which definition we accept as true? No, it is not! The only reliable authority to decide the matter is the Spirit of Truth speaking through the Believer and the inspired Word of God acting in his/her heart. And does it matter if whether or not "gays" is a better translation of 'arsenokoites' than "sexual perverts"? I think so. At least it does if you care about the Lord at all ...
.
> "On this term BAGD 109 s.v. ajrsenokoivth" states, "a male who practices homosexuality, pederast,
> sodomite 1Cor 6:9; 1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cf. Ro 1:27. DSBailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian
> Tradition, ’55." LN 88.280 states, "a male partner in homosexual intercourse"‘homosexual.’...."  Taken
> from notes on: http://www.bible.org/netbible/welcome.htm
.
> The BAGD is A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, edited
> by Bauer, Ardnt, Gingrich, and Danker. Notice, a bisexual can practice homosexuality, a heterosexual can
> practice homosexuality. Also, the "homosexual intercourse" phrase as 'homosexual' being used as an
> adjective.  Again, if one is to restrict themselves to just one word to translate 'arsenokoites', it is
> accurately a "pederast" or "sodomite", NOT homosexuals as the NASB and NKJV make it.
.
 But John, 'paiderastes' is the *accurate* translation of "pederast"; *much* better than 'arsenokoites'. Or are you seriously suggesting that Paul could not have known that word, and was thus left to resort to the more ancient 'arsenokoites'?!
.
> Now, Textman, as to you making 'arsenokoites' mean "sexual perverts", you're off base.
.
 But John! Didn't you earlier say that I am a good translator, and that "sexual perverts" is indeed a good match for 'arsenokoites'? Wut? Are you now taking it all back? Will you now say that you were just kidding?
.
> I know of two translations which have "sexual perverts" in 1Cor. 6:9 and they each one combine
> "malakos" with "arsenokoites" to make a broad term, "sexual perverts":  the 1973 RSV, and the
> 1989 REB. They do not translate 'arsenokoites' as "sexual perverts".
.
 Here again it is your logic that is skewed, not mine. It is the inclusive sense of the passage as a whole, and Paul's thinking in general, that justifies the logic of combining Paul's terms (ie. the meanings of these neighborly peoples are likewise, if you get my drift). But actually, REB&RSV "slip 'malakos' underneath" (as it were) because (a) they had no idea what to do with the damn thing. (b) it is a long and established tradition in Christian translations to hide, suppress, ignore, misdirect, etc, any and all sexual connotations of any and all words, whenever possible, wherever possible, because hey why shouldn't the Word of God be as embarrassed about the divine awareness of human sexuality as all us good and faithful Christian type translator guys ... The SWINOZ!
.
> Now, I'm going to paste in a quote from your other post, and it exposes you for just what you are:
.
>> On 14Mar99 textman wrote: Well, well, well! I art so overcome, that I art at a loss as to how to
>> begin. What can we say about such a huge and smelly pile of bullshit?! Dare we suggest that
>> religious-tolerance.org has not the faintest glimmer of understanding as regards the unfortunate
>> epistle of Jude? <snip remainder>
.
> You are nothing more than a fake cult leader of some type.  -- JohnJ
.
 That's the spirit! 

/ Subject > Re: Primer on Homo-Hermeneutics-4 / Date > 15 March 1999 /
.
>>> JohnJ wrote: Joe, this is not as simple a text as it seems and there are differing views on it. <snip>
.
>> On 14Mar99 textman answered: That's right, John. There are views that have the ring of truth
>> to them, and there are views that are false and deceitful. It's not very hard to figure out which
>> category yours falls under ...
.
> JohnJ replies: The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament, UBS 4th edition, Nestle-Aland
> 26th edition (1990) the literal translation of Jude7: "As Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities
> around them in the like manner to these [angels] having indulged in fornication and having
> gone after different flesh are set forth ..."
.
 Say there John, that's a darn fine translation U gots dere. Can we have some more please? "... are set forth [as] an example undergoing [the] penalty eternal fire. 1.8 Likewise indeed also these dreaming ones on the one hand defile [the] flesh, on the other reject lordship, and blaspheme glorious beings." ... Geez, I wonder who that could be?
.
> The Revised English Bible(1989) on v7: "Remember Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring
> towns; like the angels, they committed fornication and indulged in unnatural lusts"
.
 A semi-good translation here, to be sure; but in this case the clearly intended pointed-ness of "strange-flesh" is completely lost to view in the all-embracing inclusiveness of "unnatural lusts".  So much so that homosexuality can be denied; when that is *very* NOT the prophet's intent!
.
> Can anyone point to where angels engaged in fornication and unnatural lusts in Scripture?
.
 Note to Reader: John is here reasoning from error to error ...
.
> Therefore, it must be to the apocryphal book of Enoch that this refers. Matthew Poole, 17th century,
> and John Gill, 18th century did not believe an actual apocalyptic book of Enoch existed. Manuscripts
> have since been found for these books of Enoch, with many found in the Qumran caves. They have
> recently been re-edited by Matthew Black (1970). I am taking this from The International Standard Bible
> Encyclopedia, Fully Revised, Vol.1, page156: "The main part of the first book is concerned with the
> problem of evil. Evil is traced to the fallen angels who lusted after the daughters of men. The fallen
> angels instructed men in many arts and crafts of civilization. Furthermore, all sin is ascribed to these
> fallen angels (10:8). They are allowed to plague mankind throughout human history, but Enoch foresees
> their final doom." Therefore, it is not generally thought today that Jude 7 is referring to homosexuality
> for now the mystery of the background is clearer.
.
 Good Grief already! The background may be "clearer"; but this has obviously not helped the scholars and commentators to understand Jude any better. No, not one whit better! Indeed, the only thing that is clear is that the ubiquitious bias in favor of perversion is now allowed to determine what the scriptures are *really* saying ...
.
> I conclude with the remark in the Harper Collins Bible Dictionary, Rev.Ed. - "If there is any identification
> of Sodom with homosexuality in the NT, it is in Jude 7 (cf. 2 Pet. 2:6-8), but it is more likely that the
> 'unnatural lust' mentioned there is that of mortals for angels (Lot's visitors)." page 433
.
 Well John, since the prophet Jude does NOT say anything about 'unnatural lust' in v.7, I'd say that the Harper Collins Bible Dictionary, Rev.Ed. is an unreliable source at best.  Nor is anything else said here correct in any way.
.
> But, I'm sure people would prefer to listen to 'textman' who speaks with a filthy mouth:
.
>> On 14Mar99 textman wrote: Well, well, well! I art so overcome, that I art at a loss as to how to begin.
>> What can we say about such a huge and smelly pile of bullshit?!
.
> Prophet indeed!    -- JohnJ: A Christian friend.
.
 "A Christian friend", you say? Is that 'a friend of Christians', or 'a Christian, also a friend'? Art thou a Christian, friend John? Then why do you place such emphasis on one word so as to underline and underline and underline my "filthy mouth" so as to demonstrate that no prophet would ever ever stoop so low as to employ the "BS" word? ... Have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps the Lord's idea of who shall be a prophet may not be the same as yours? ... I'll wager not.

/ Subject > Re: Primer on Homo-Hermeneutics-4 / Date > 15 March 1999 /
.
>> On 14Mar99 textman wrote: Dear Joe, about your translation: VERY FRAGGIN GROSS!!!!
>>        the one who despises bad translations:  textman  ;>
.
> JohnJ answers: Has anyone looked in their dictionary to see what "fraggin" means? I can find "frag", but not
> "fraggin". I can find it by using search engines on the Internet. I suggest all put it in their search engines and
> check out the contexts where it is found. This guy is another "Michael Christ"...
> a fruitcake whose verbiage can snag the ignorant.
.
 "a fruitcake whose verbiage can snag the ignorant" ... LOL ... Dear John, your verbiage art verily snagglesome also forsooth ... btw: Now I don't know about the contexts presented by your search engines; but I do know where textman picked it up. Some years ago I ran across a certain intergalactic scoundrel called Lobo. He's the ugliest and meanest SOB you'd never want to meet; with pure white skin and wild black hair and tough as nails, etc. ... Very NOT recommended!
.
> Joe, you did well to ask his credentials to presume on translation. -- JohnJ: A Christian friend.

/ Subject > Re: Primer on Homo-Hermeneutics-4 / Date > 15 March 1999 /
.
>> JohnJ wrote: Joe, you did well to ask his credentials to presume on translation.
.
> "*** Joe ***" answers: Hi John. Yes, but I was hoping that he did.   --  Joe #7
.
 huh? Wut? U wuz hoping that he did ... WUT?! Did have credentials, you mean? As in scholarly credentials so as to prove me competent to translate? As in then your hopes would be realized? ... What?! ... I think you are both missing something. Sheesh! Pay attention U guys!

/ Subject > Re: Primer on Homo-Hermeneutics-4 / Date > 15 March 1999 /
.
>> textman wrote: <snip> This is a slight improvement; in that the KJV is a *marginally* better translation than
>> the one you presented previously. But this too is, alas, woefully inadequate; and indeed a rather shoddy
>> piece of work. The Inclusive Edited Version is, by comparison, vastly superior in every conceivable way.
>> After all, who is more able to translate the words of a prophet than another prophet? Neither scholar nor
>> bishop nor committee is thus fit to do justice to the wonderfully synthetic mind of the prophet Jude! ...
>> Therefore, receive thee the IEV with faith and gratitude; as befits a true disciple being worthy of the Name:
.
> "*** Joe ***" answers: Wow, it is great to have someone who reads and speaks Greek. I have a few
> questions that maybe you can help me with. outoi de hsan eugenesteroi twn en qessalonikh oitineV
> edexanto ton logon meta pashV proqumiaV to kaq hmeran anakrinonteV taV grafaV ei ecoi tauta outwV
.
 Dear Joe, let me begin by making it clear that I never claimed to be an expert in the Koine Greek, nor am I fluent enough to speak the language freely and easily. Nevertheless, it did not take me long to realize that your Greek is barbaric and atrocious in the extreme! No doubt this was deliberate on your part; but, thanks to a wonderful friend, your awful words were made recognizable and understandable. For those who may be curious, here is an English translation of Joe's alleged Greek questions:
.
"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11). In other words, there are no questions here. A pox on Joe :)

/ Subject > Re: Reply to religioustolerance.org / Date > 15 March 1999 /
.
>> On 14Mar99 textman wrote: REPLY TO RELIGIOUSTOLERANCE.ORG
>> / Re: Primer on Homo-Hermeneutics / Date > 14 March 1999 /
.
] Bruce Robinson of www.religioustolerance.org emails textman in answer to his criticisms of their online
] essay: <snip> The longer that I work in the field of religious tolerance, the more I realize that EVERYTHING
] depends upon your basic concept of the Bible. If you believe that it is inspired by God, and thus inerrant,
] then everything else follows: from a Christian's beliefs concerning equality of the sexes, concerning
] homosexuality, concerning spanking children etc.
.
>> Dear Bruce, I tend to agree. However, I must take exception to your direct line from inspiration to inerrancy.
>> The scriptures are certainly inspired (ie. written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit), but this does *not*
>> mean that it is perfect in every detail. Indeed, I firmly reject the concept of inerrancy; at least in regards to
>> matters of science and history.
.
> JohnJ answers: I suppose the guidance of God the Holy Spirit is less than perfect.
.
It is when you mix it up with such a silly beast as humankind ... Who can foul up anything ... Even the
grace and mercy and inspiration of God! ... Check out some church history if you don't believe me ...
.
> mmmmm  a less than perfect God.
.
I didn't say that, John. You did. So *please* don't put your ill-conceived words and thoughts
into my mouth. Okay? ... thx so much
.
> ... You are indeed a flake and a cult leader of some type.  -- JohnJ
.
You're *still* missing the mark, friend johnny ... And you know what *that* means, right?   . . . 
.
Please proceed to Primer4Critics-2 up next ...

PRIMER4CRITICS - PART TWO

/ Re: Primer on Homo-Hermeneutics-1 / 13 March 1999 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.christnet.bible /
.
> Stephen DeGrace of Codpeace of Newfoundland, MUN Chapter, writes: Hi Textman, Thank you for
> your interesting reply. In all honesty, this has not been so much about homosexuality for me as it
> has been about trying to get a better handle on you (although I do consider the ideas themselves
> presented), and this certainly gives me some interesting and worthwhile experimental results.
.
 Dear Stephen, if you're so interested in getting a handle on me, you could always visit my two websites and/or check out my previously archived epistles to newsgroups at the DejaNews website ... Instead of so drastically upsetting my busy schedule. Moreover, I'm not at all sure that I'm overly thrilled with being your current "specimen".
.
> Be that as it may, there are a couple points of interest I want to bring up. For one thing, I have to say
> that sometimes you impress me with the sharpness and clarity of your insights. For one thing, you picked
> up quickly on the liberal tendency to validate absolutely *everything* somewhat uncritically as a weakness
> in this type of essay, something that runs rather contrary to my own instincts as well and which is behind
> the reason why although I have rejected conservative Christianity I have not embraced liberal Christianity.
.
 Yes. rt.org claims to be a multi-faith site (even counting atheism and agnosticism as among world religions; but how these deliberately "faithless" systems/philosophies/ideologies can be considered as faiths, I still haven't figured out), but really only presents two simplified and contrasting perspectives and/or biblical interpretations. Of course, the most basic feature of post-modern biblical hermeneutics in general is the sheer unbridled multiplicity of ways to approach and understand the Jewish and Christian sacred scriptures. There are many Christian approaches; indeed, every denomination boasts of some unique elements and/or emphases. There are many Jewish approaches also. And even some interesting Buddhist interpretations. There are political approaches and interpretations (eg. liberationist, social rights perspectives, feminist, socialist, etc). The True Believer should be (at least) aware of all these strange and wonderful 'readings' of the Sacred Text; for they all have something of value to add to our overall understanding and appreciation of the Word of God. Even if they *are* fundamentally 'faithless' and/or flawed and/or misguided in many and various ways.
.
> There are a lot of homosexuals following lifestyles that are hardly laudable IMO (although I must say
> that there has been a lot of improvement over the years, as the opening of society has created more
> opportunities for positive homosexual lifestyles - I have first hand experience that such things exist, so
> don't waste my time by telling me otherwise) and there is vast improvement needed in terms of the
> institutions and character of the gay community, IMO. Of course, as with heterosexuals, there are people
> who are good souls, people who are thoroughly scummy and self serving, and the vast majority who are
> a mixed bag. And as with heterosexuals, there are positive and negative lifestyles (which is not to say
> that variation cannot exist within both the positive and the negative). Just as I do not condemn hetero-
> sexuality just because heterosexuals have their share of "sluts and whores" as I believe you colorfully
> put it, so too do I not see it as valid to condemn homosexuality on the basis of the behavior of some
> individuals in a community, especially a community recovering from centuries of persecution.
.
 My dear Stephen, I am rather perplexed by this notion of yours that there is some sort of social entity called the "homosexual community" which has apparently existed for centuries, and indeed has suffered persecution throughout this entire period. Does this community have any nations or cities that exist in the real world? Does it have a unique language and constitution and currency? Has it produced art, literature and music? Does it have a unique documented culture with laws and norms?  ... No, I'm afraid that I just can't buy into this fanciful notion of yours that the post-modern homosexual subculture is centuries old. Homo's have always existed as individuals *within* every nation and society, but their status as an independent social entity is very much a modern invention. If you do not, or cannot accept the truth of this, then I think the onus is on you to demonstrate the historical reality of this centuries old social entity called the homosexual community. Of course, you needn't actually try to do this, as I'm well aware that such an enterprise is, of its very nature as it were, *quite* impossible.
.
> Another point is, aren't you doing the same thing that liberals are accused of doing, being selective in
> your use of the Bible to validate your positions? Do you care to stand behind *every* statement of fact
> the Bible makes, and *every* moral position? Obviously not, because you're not a Creationist... I have
> to say I get a chuckle out of that, because I think the fundies are wiser than you on that one. If any
> part of the Bible is questionable, all is questionable... And I assume you eat pork, would not refuse
> to eat lobster on moral grounds, and wear textile blends... tell me, why are some laws, i.e., those
> pertaining to sex, held forth, and the other rules ignored?
.
 These are difficult matters, to be sure. Discretion and discernment are surely required. When you say that "If any part of the Bible is questionable, all is questionable", you are demonstrating false and misleading reasoning. I do not agree with this statement in any way. The bible is not inerrant in the realms of science and history (for it is not the fruit of human reason); but it is inerrant in the realms of morality, social-humanity, love, personal transcendence and transformation, individual growth in faith and emotional maturity, spirituality, ethics, etc etc. In other words, it is inerrant in all things pertaining to spiritual realities ...
.
 Now religion is a mix of spiritual realities and various cultural norms and habits. Norms and habits change over time, as civilizations and individuals grow and decay. So spiritual realities are differently lived and perceived as the generations come and go; but they also abide. This is why scripture has always been the touchstone and canon of the Faith. Christian religions come and go, grow and decay, get big or remain small, rise and fall ... But the Faith abides. The Faith endures. Because the Kingdom of God is not contained in churches and cathedrals and meeting-houses. It is not written in creeds and declarations, nor even preserved in the biblical text. It resides only in the faithful and believing heart of each and every individual son or daughter of the Heavenly Father. The Faith is a living, breathing spiritual reality that defines who we are as Christians *and* as human beings.
.
> I note with interest that your rebuttal of the points where the essay deals with alleged translation
> errors basically consist of alluding to liberal bias. What an interesting way to dodge the issue! I
> should think that one who places such high importance in the scriptures would be keener on a minuter
> examination of the accuracy of the translation and what it might mean to your interpretation.
.
 Oh, I have not forgotten nor neglected this aspect of things in any way, shape, or form, believe me! I have written a multitude of articles pertaining to the many and various problems and prickles that attend the stormy seas of translation and hermeneutics. Check em out, Stephen!
.
> Of course, this doesn't really mean a lot to me, because I rejected the Scriptures as a guide long ago
> for reasons unrelated to homosexuality (I found I couldn't conveniently ignore the places where I
> found the bible's stand to be grossly inaccurate, silly or evil), but I should think it would come in for
> a finer treatment from you.
.
 Huh? I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that I could ease the rejection pangs by way of prophetic hermeneutics, I suppose this is possible. There are passages that many good people have rejected and despised because it seems to them to be contrary to reason or justice or whatever, but *usually* the problem is more in the understanding and underlying attitude than in the text itself. 4X: there's a story in the OT about some kids making fun of a prophet. He got so pissed at them that he called forth a bear to rip them to shreds. Now if this is approached as a straight-forward historical account, then I can see many problems being raised. But if it is seen as a parable, then the truth slowly emerges. In the same way, Jonah is comic fiction with a great deal of beauty and truth. But if it is taken as a record of actual historical events, then the problems at once mount up to heaven. Should a woman cover her hair in temple or church? It does not matter. Are pork chops kosher? It does not matter. Should we apply the death penalty for homosexuality, adultery, and blasphemy? Of course not. All these laws and customs were appropriate to their age and generation, and we should not preserve the letter of the scriptures over and above its spirit; nor hang on to traditions that no longer serve the Faith and true religion.
.
> Finally, I note that you bring up bisexuals as an argument _against_ a genetic factor in homosexuality.
> Interesting twist! Most conservative Christians reject the notion of bisexuality (as, actually do many
> gay activists, for their own political reasons having to do with wanting to interpret a bisexual as a
> homosexual who hasn't made up his or her mind yet - I pity bisexuals above all sexual minorities,
> because absolutely _everyone_ rejects them).
.
 Except, of course, other rainbows ... :)
.
> Well, for one thing, I accept that I am what I am on the evidence of my senses,
.
 I accept what I am on the evidence that Jesus died for us!
.
> just as Darwin was able to propose the theory of evolution by natural selection before the
> mechanisms of heredity and variation became known, and I accept that the cause isn't really known yet,
.
 Nonsense! The cause is the necessity of all life to grow and develop and glorify the Creator of all things ...
.
> so this is of limited personal significance. But I just thought I should point out that your
> science is a bit shoddy.
.
 Ha! You wish!
.
> Skin colour, for example, is controlled by a whole set of genes, allowing an inherited gradation
> of colours from lily white to nearly black. Most examples of genetic control are more complicated
> than either-or, it's just that either-or and other simple type examples are more popular in school
> precisely because they're simple. You may take it from me, there is nothing scientific mitigating
> against the possibility of a genetic factor in homosexuality.
.
 OK. I'll allow that for some small fraction of homo's, genetic factors as regards physical/biological systems can predispose us react in certain ways to certain things. Yes, emotionally and morally and spiritually immature human creatures have little control over their many and various urges and chemistries; but that is because they lack character and self-discipline and faith, not because the entire universe and God made them homosexual. That's just the sort of claim one would expect from children. 'Oh, it wasn't me! The devil made me do it!' ... Sure he did, sweetheart. You're such a good girl! Here, have another lollipop.
.
> Anyway, I must say it has been interesting, whatever else I can say about you, you're a good writer,
> you have interesting and challenging insights, and your essays are always stimulating and interesting
> to read. I just see your second installment in my mailbox now, and I'm about to delve into it. If I have
> not thanked you already, thanks for taking this effort for such a stubborn ingrate as me, and I sincerely
> hope that whatever I may think of your analysis that you are nevertheless deriving some satisfaction
> from this exercise, and that having these essays written will be valuable to you in your ministry.
> --  Sincerely, Stephen
.
 Dear Stephen, again and again and again you deliberately and willfully misunderstand. You miss the point. And you reject out of hand whatsoever I tell you. Whatever satisfaction I may or may not derive from this exercise is utterly irrelevant, I assure you! I do not conduct my ministry for my own sake. I do it for the Lord and his People. And whatever value my postings may or may not have is for them to decide.

/ Subject > Re: ERRORS Re:Bible&Homosexuality-3 / Date > 13 March 1999 /
.
>> On 13Mar99 textman wrote: Thus we can plainly see that the ideology that empowers the entire
>> convoluted edifice of the homo hermeneutics rises from a direct denial of the truths revealed in
>> scripture. So they deny that homosexuality is sinful, when the entire biblical tradition clearly
>> indicates otherwise. They deny that orientation/behavior can be changed by faith and conversion,
>> when Paul clearly states that is precisely what happened to the Corinthians believers! Now they
>> do not dare to call Paul a liar directly, but that is exactly what their feeble denials and pathetic
>> assertions amount to.
.
> Stephen DeGrace answers: Thanks for these two articles, I was realy interested in seeing how
> you would handle the details. I just want to comment, though, what an excellent service
> conservative Christians have done for us in throwing a spotlight on the "ex-gay" movement. The
> constant struggle invariably reported by members, the "backsliding" at the highest levels, that the
> consistent lack of success in changing people's sexual *feelings*, as opposed to behaviour (which
> is a separate thing entirely)
.
 Well, it's not that simple, I think. Feelings follow actions; just as actions follow feelings. The Torah/Law - for the *most* part - concerns actions. This is not because behavior has a greater priority over affections and dispositions, but simply because it is simpler to control and discipline actions than affections (which often seem to have a will of their own). Hence the stress in Judeo-Christian traditions on virtues and holiness. Hence Paul speaks of Believers being at war with their 'members'. But Christians are spiritual creatures; and because the spirit has infinitely greater value than the flesh, just so the True Believer can (with the Lord's grace, and a little help from one's assembly) overcome the flesh and its affections. Occasional backsliding is neither a horrendous treachery nor a demonstration that they are not fit to follow the Way of Life & Truth. It is only human nature, and it reflects the commitment, difficulty, and importance of ongoing repentance, and continuing the battle, and never giving up (as if Christ does not love you). Moreover, the way of faith requires the disciple to embrace self-sacrifice as a demonstration of humility and love for the Lord. But self-sacrifice is difficult even for the greatest saints; and most post-modern Christians know it not at all!
.
> have been an inspiration to us all, and have merely served to prove
> our point that homosexual orientaion (as opposed to behaviour)
.
 There is no such thing as "orientation", Stephen. This is a myth, a fancy, a dream well suited for the Dreaming Ones. An illusion along the lines of your fabled centuries old homosexual community of oppressed and persecuted martyrs. These lies do not impress me, and only show that your politics is nowhere connected to the Faith of the saints and apostles and Great Ones of the Lord's People.
.
> is simple a part of who you are,
.
 Yes, the Lie is most certainly a part of who 'your people' are. But it is not any part of the Lord's People, because disciples follow the Truth, not the illusions and delusions that the World lusteth after. As goes Hollywood, so goes the World ... But not True Believers. No way, Jose!
.
> just as heterosexual orientation is juat a part of who heterosexuals
> are, and that it is unchangeable by any means.
.
 I agree that non-existent ideas and illusions are incapable of changing. For the Darkness is all of a piece ...
.
> And why *should* it be changeable?
.
   :)
.
> Even if you except that homosexual behaviour is intrinsically evil
.
 U mean "accept", don't U?
.
> (which I don't,
.
 U don't?! Oh, no ... I'm so shocked and appalled!
.
> I consider the notion patently absurd,
.
 Wut notion is that again? That "orientation is eternal"? That evil does not exist?
Nope. It don't sound *too* absurd ... (in Hell).
.
> and no one yet has been able to offer an explanation for their position that speaks to me the way
> saying that murder is wrong and lying is wrong speaks to me - all anyone has been able to do is
> quote the Bible in a way that is a transparent justification of prejudice rather than an exposition
> of a true understanding of a real moral principle), why should the God that made us this way to
> test us remove the test and the struggle? If the book of Job contains any lesson, it is that our
> purpose here is not to have it easy and have God cater to our personal comfort.     --  Stephen
.
 So then why does the homo-hermeneutics insist on turning the Cosmos upside-down, and turning the Torah inside-out, and transforming the Faith into nothing but or other than Absolute and Unqualified Smurfyness? Eh? Is it not to force God to "cater to our personal comfort"? ... Moreover, the lesson of Job is that despite all appearances to the contrary, faith in the Lord will be rewarded! ... For our God is good and great and just! And surely well beyond the feeble wisdom of men, women, bishops, scholars, enlightened and progressive psychologist types, and yea even dreaded homo-hermeneutics!

/ Re: ERRORS Re:Bible&Homosexuality-3 / 16 Mar 1999 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.christnet.bible /
.
>> textman wrote: Dear Bruce, I tend to agree. However, I must take exception to your direct line
>> from inspiration to inerrancy. The scriptures are certainly inspired (ie. written under the guidance
>> of the Holy Spirit), but this does *not* mean that it is perfect in every detail. Indeed, I firmly reject
>> the concept of inerrancy; at least in regards to matters of science and history.
.
> Bruce answers: Interesting. However, you are in a minority among
> those who believe in the inspiration of the Bible.
.
 textman replies:  Yes? ... And so not worth considering, you mean?
.
>>> Bruce previously wrote: If you believe that it is writings by a number of authors who are
>>> promoting their own, different, religious beliefs, then your beliefs about these topics (and
>>> many more) logically follow.
.
>> They do? Perhaps not. Indeed, logic has very little to do with it.
.
> True. Most forms of bigotry (racism, sexism, homophobia, hatred of other religions, etc) are not rational.
.
 Would it be fair, then, to say that you and the organization which you coordinate upholds and
defends the 'faith' of rationalism?
.
>>> Fascinating. As with racism and sexism, there is no possibility of ending homophobia
>>> through reason. It will necessitate changes in the law.
.
 So then you put your faith in the law; rather than the Torah and the Golden Rule and the Sermon on
the Mount and the Son of Man?
.
>> That, sir, is a frightening probability!
.
> Seems to me that there have been a lot of rather significant changes to the law that moved the U.S.
> gradually towards the concept of equal rights for all: abolition of slavery; votes for women, allowing
> persons of different races to marry, granting of civil rights based on slavery, and now equal rights for
> gays and lesbians (including the right to marry).
.
 Well, Bruce, if they're so eager to marry (and be fruitful and multiply too?), and presumably to divorce also, who are we to stand in their way? I will certainly not deny them the right to civil marriages under the faithless civil laws of a faithless "civil" country ...
.
 BUT let us not confuse this with Christian marriage; which is not a "right" that can legislated by corrupt governments, but a privilege given from faith to faith, a sacred and solemn covenant between three parties: man, woman, and God. ... If any single one of these elements is missing from the scenario, then this is not a Christian marriage in any way; but rather a sham, a fraud, and a travesty!
.
> Each time, the Union survived. And in retrospect, each of these laws was seen to be an improvement.
.
 In my opinion, there has been very little retrospect as yet; at least as regards that last item of yours, I mean.
.
>>> I think that you are misunderstanding the nature of our site. We are not a Christian site.
.
>> Dear Bruce, this I already know. Where then is my misunderstanding?
.
> You refered to us as installing ourselves within the Kingdom of God.
> That would imply that we consider ourselves Christian.
.
 Which is not the case. Right. So rt.org is neither Christian nor homosexual. OK then. We are all agreed on this. But nevertheless your essay on the Bible and homosexuality certainly does function to promote, defend, and assert the homo-interpretation of the Scriptures (that is to say, it is a consciously and deliberately biased approach to the Word of God); one whose purpose is *primarily* to install "the oriented Christian" within the Kingdom of God. I fail to see how you can deny this. Indeed, I fail to see why you should even want to dismiss your responsibility for the consequences and effects of your rationalist political philosophy ...
.
>>> We are a multi-faith site (Atheist, Agnostic, Wiccan, Christian)
.
>> A "multi-faith" site is a web-site devoted to spreading lies, and serving the Wicked One. Either
>> you are for Christ, or you are against Him! Since you are clearly against Him, how is it that you
>> dare to call yourselves 'Christian' in any way, shape, or form?
.
> Please consider the possibiility that we are against your version of Yeshua of Nazareth,
> and that we are very much for our version of Yeshua of Nazareth.
.
 That would seem to be a logical prerequisite of your "multi-faith". Indeed, I am well aware that the Son of Man
testified to in the Scriptures is a very different creature from the Smurf-Messiah of homo-hermeneutics!
.
>>> We attempt to explain both conservative and liberal Christian views.
.
>> You do not 'explain' them so much as merely offer an over-simplified and woefully inadequate
>> version of what you consider to be 'liberal' and 'conservative' Christian views.
.
> If you consider our treatment inadequate, did it every occur to you to offer your assistance
> at upgrading our site?
.
 Well, Bruce, I am laboring under the assumption that The Primer on Homo-Hermeneutics, and these collaborative follow-up articles also, *are* our collective offering to that end. All you need do is add them to your site immediately following the end of your Bible and Homosexuality essay. Or failing that, you could simply put up a link to the First CyberChurch of James & Jude at http://homestead.dejanews.com/user.textman/
.
>> And what purpose does it serve to conceal your ideas and beliefs from us? Do you seriously
>> imagine that by hiding the truth from your Readers you are somehow gaining credibility by
>> way of a false and deceitful objectivity?
.
> We do not advertise our beliefs. We simply explain the beliefs of the main players in the
> battle for civil rights.
.
 I think that you could and should do better as regards the more specifically Christian attitudes
and ideas about all these matters.
.
> We do not hide our beliefs; we will explain our beliefs to anyone who asks.
.
 It is only fair and proper to set forth your basic creed and/or creedo right up front. So as to avoid the need to ask what these are, and the suspicion that you may have something to hide. Moreover, you should also invite queries about these matters; also right up front. Furthermore, you should be willing and able to present more than the two competing positions that you consider to be Christian interpretations of these passages in question ...
.
>> Let me tell you something: If people have changed, it is only that they are even more vain and
>> arrogant and self-serving than they ever were! And if this non-existent "orientation" is somehow
>> "fixed", you may be well assured that it is only because they wish it to be so!
.
>>> Our survey of studies into the effectiveness of reparative therapy
>>> shows this. See:  http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod.htm
.
>> Who gives a flying fart about reparative therapy? I'm talking about handing everything that we
>> have and are over to the Lord. I'm talking about opening your hardened hearts to your Savior in
>> humility and thanksgiving. I'm talking about the power of faith and grace to transform us into
>> "new creatures" ... Into God's sons and daughters. Wut? You don't think that the Faith of the
>> saints and apostles is able to effect any significant changes in Believers? Check out the testimonies
>> of those who have done just that <sniplist>
.
> Sounds really great. But I have never heard of a persons prayer to be answered if they pray for
> a change to their race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other genetically determined factor.
.
 If orientation is in any way genetically determined, is it not more logical to suppose that it might have some connection or two to the biological organs and systems relating to the reproductive functions? That would be my first guess. Or are you suggesting that orientation is entirely unrelated to this basic and necessary human reality?
.
> I have known gays and lesbians who are born again Christians who have prayed to God for decades
> to be made a heterosexual. And the answer is always no. Please consider the possibility that God
> loves diversity: diversity in race, language, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
.
 Diversity in race, language, ethnicity, gender, etc, are not a problem. But diversity in sexual orientation means only one thing: a license to be morally, spiritually, socially, and sexually retarded. Check out the Universal Epistle of Jude, if you don't believe me.
.
> You say that sexual orientation does not exist.
.
 No, Bruce. I observed that 'sexual orientation' is purely and only a conceptual construct having no demonstration nor verification in the real world of concrete events and people. It is merely a theory. An idea or hypothesis proposed to 'explain' and justify the existence and behaviors of homosexuals.
.
 Moreover, even the Wicked One is more honest than this. She speaks not of her orientation, but rather of her "chemistry". And this is far closer to the truth of the things; for her chemistry is in no way genetically determined (ie. God made me this way), but exists because she would not have it any other way. Therefore, do not be deceived! If young Canadian Christian girls take to lesbianism the way that pigs take to slop, it is *only* because they freely and willfully choose to do so.
.
> Fortunately, there is a simple test that heterosexuals can perform: Simply fantasize about loving a
> person of the opposite gender, developing a committed relationship with that person, and making
> love to them. A nice fantasy. Now, repeat, but substitute a member of the same sex. The idea will
> probably make your stomach heave and skin crawl. Congratulations. You have just demonstrated
> your heterosexual sexual orientation. Now, attempt to understand with the logical part of your brain
> that for gays and lesbians, the same thing holds, with the genders reversed.
> -- Regards,  Bruce Robinson, Coordinator
.
 So its like that, is it? Very interesting. So it seems that the great and wonderful alternate and optional orientation that everyone is crowing about is actually based on hatred and revulsion for all that God declared "very good', founded upon the rejection of His righteous commands and godly counsels, and implanted in a self-serving vanity and arrogance that is always mindful unto itself. Yup, I think we all understand what this orientation business is all about now. Thx, Bruce!

/ Topic > Re: ERRORS Re:Bible&Homosexuality-4 /
.
>> On 14Mar99 textman wrote: Is the light of understanding beginning to break through the heavy
>> darkness of ignorance, and centuries of deliberate misunderstanding and willful concealment?
>> "Yes, these Ones are the grumblers and complainers who walk according to their own lusts. By
>> their mouths they speak haughty words; and also admire persons for the sake of advantage."
>> (v.16). Are you still unsure? Then consider this: "These are the Ones creating divisions; these
>> "natural" men and women (being utterly bereft of the Holy Spirit)" (v.19)!
.
> Stephen DeGrace answers: "Centuries of concealment"? Really. Methinks thou art taking a slight
> liberty for the sake of rhetorical flow. I think that for most of the centuries since this was written,
> the meaning has been taken cheerfully to be just as you have it.
.
 "Just as I have it", you say? I find that hard to credit, sir. And I would dearly love to see some relevant snippets from commentaries of previous centuries on these verses Jude 16 and 19 . . . *Please* don't disappoint me and say that you don't have any!
.
> If there is any "concealment" going on (or any light of understanding breaking through the
> heavy darkness of ignorance, however you want to look at it) it is distinctly modern.
.
 The sheer ferocity of the bias against Jude (and James) gained new strength and vigor with the Reformation ...
That tradition has not dwindled one whit since Luther. And, if anything, these NT prophets are now sadistically
and hypocritically ignored and despised by all those who *much* prefer their own wisdom to that of the Lord's.
.
>> Now does anyone dare to claim that the prophet Jude does not know *exactly* who these people are,
>> and the things that they do? ... Who rejects the Lord's righteous commands in the name of 'freedom and
>> liberation'; and at the same time defiles the flesh without shame or conscience or remorse (cf. v.8)? Does
>> anyone dare to accuse the Word of God of being ignorant about these Dreaming Ones?! Do you under-
>> stand now why the many and varied apostate churches ignore and reject the epistle of Jude? Yes indeed;
>> for they consider it a great and terrible error that it was ever even included among the Holy Books in the
>> first place!
.
> Well, you certainly have a good rhetorical flow going. You definitely have the talent to be a preacher.
.
 I'm not interested in being or becoming a preacher. Hey Stephen, read my lips:
How do you spell P-R-O-P-H-E-T ?
.
> You didn't actually prove your point, though.
.
 Oh, now *that* hurts!
.
> You just sort of intimated that it was "obvious" who Jude refers to, without actually demonstrating it.
.
 What's left to demonstrate, Stephen? You can now read the entire Epistle of Jude with some measure of understanding and insight ... Can't you?! ... Is the Word of God not enough to convince you of the truth of these matters? It's all there in those powerful 25 verses. ... Wut? The words just don't "ring true" with you, is that it? ... Verily, there are none so blind as those that will not see!
.
> Anyway, it's nice that you've posted this piece to alt.religion.christian.biblestudy
> and gotten some use out of it. -- Stephen
.
Oh, rest assured that it'll wind up at the 'First CyberChurch of James & Jude' website too ...
Sooner or later ... eventually ... maybe ... ?