CSvax:Pucc-H:aeq@pur-ee.UUCP (09/10/83)
Reply to Robert Wahl (excerpts from his article indented): "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality" by John Boswell, University of Chicago Press (Phoenix Books), 1981. Of all the books I have read on homosexuality (or religion, for that matter), this one has to be the most informative. It begins by analysing the Bible and other early Christian writings, and shows that there is *nothing* to indicate that homosexuality was regarded as a sin. Most people who object to homosexuality on religious grounds quote the story of Sodom or I Corinthians 6:9. I would point you to the second half of Romans 1 (I must make a practice of keeping my Bible in my backpack; alas, I haven't a Bible with me now). In that passage, Paul says something like "The men abandoned the natural function of the women and burned with lust for each other", and says something similar about women. The indications in that passage are pretty strong that God eventually gives up on those who choose to continue doing that, i.e. that homosexuality is a sin. However, I should also point out that Paul, if I recall rightly, equates this with "worshipping the creature instead of the Creator"; in other words, homosexuality is only a symptom of a deeper sin, but that doesn't make it right. A fever is only a symptom of an infection, but that doesn't make a fever right. Also, I remember reading somewhere in the Pentateuch, probably in Exodus, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy, that sexual relations between men or between women were against the Law. While I will admit I have not read the Hebrew or the Greek, the translations of these passages (and not just 20th-century translations) certainly appear to denounce ALL homosexuality, not just isolated cases such as the male prostitutes Mr. Wahl mentioned as the actual stars of I Cor. 6:9. There is not even evidence in the literature of the day to assume that homosexuality would be thought of as a sexual proclivity - no social distinction was drawn between homosexuality and heterosexuality, nor were the Jews noted for being "straight", a fact which would have stood out. Just because the Jews may not have followed the Law too carefully does not mean the Law wasn't there, speaking strongly against homosexuality! I should also point out my own analysis of the feelings which might start a person on the road to homosexuality--an informed analysis, because I've been uncomfortably close. Not too many months ago, I went through a period of deep despair over my chances of ever attracting a female. During this period, I had to fight down some strong homosexual feelings. These had occurred earlier in my life during similar "down" periods, though never with quite such intensity. Such feelings themselves are NOT sinful. However, if I had chosen to act upon them, to seek sexual involvement with another male, that would have been the sin--choosing an ersatz way of finding "love", closeness, intimacy, healing of the pain of loneliness. The right thing to do about such feelings was to (as one pastor friend of mine advised me) "show God my dirty pictures", i.e. admit these feelings to Him and let Him work on the underlying despair. (It worked, too; I have actually begun dating women now.) In summary, I would just say that the fact that the Bible condemns homosexuality (which I maintain it does) or anything else is not what makes it horrible; rather, the fact that it is horrible is the reason the Bible condemns it. The fact that something is in the Bible is not what makes it true; rather, it is in the Bible precisely BECAUSE it is true. -- Jeff Sargent/pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
CSvax:Pucc-H:aeq@pur-ee.UUCP (09/10/83)
Reply to Robert Wahl (excerpts from his article indented): "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality" by John Boswell, University of Chicago Press (Phoenix Books), 1981. Of all the books I have read on homosexuality (or religion, for that matter), this one has to be the most informative. It begins by analysing the Bible and other early Christian writings, and shows that there is *nothing* to indicate that homosexuality was regarded as a sin. Most people who object to homosexuality on religious grounds quote the story of Sodom or I Corinthians 6:9. I would point you to the second half of Romans 1 (I must make a practice of keeping my Bible in my backpack; alas, I haven't a Bible with me now). In that passage, Paul says something like "The men abandoned the natural function of the women and burned with lust for each other", and says something similar about women. The indications in that passage are pretty strong that God eventually gives up on those who choose to continue doing that, i.e. that homosexuality is a sin. However, I should also point out that Paul, if I recall rightly, equates this with "worshipping the creature instead of the Creator"; in other words, homosexuality is only a symptom of a deeper sin, but that doesn't make it right. A fever is only a symptom of an infection, but that doesn't make a fever right. Also, I remember reading somewhere in the Pentateuch, probably in Exodus, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy, that sexual relations between men or between women were against the Law. While I will admit I have not read the Hebrew or the Greek, the translations of these passages (and not just 20th-century translations) certainly appear to denounce ALL homosexuality, not just isolated cases such as the male prostitutes Mr. Wahl mentioned as the actual stars of I Cor. 6:9. There is not even evidence in the literature of the day to assume that homosexuality would be thought of as a sexual proclivity - no social distinction was drawn between homosexuality and heterosexuality, nor were the Jews noted for being "straight", a fact which would have stood out. Just because the Jews may not have followed the Law too carefully does not mean the Law wasn't there, speaking strongly against homosexuality! I should also point out my own analysis of the feelings which might start a person on the road to homosexuality--an informed analysis, because I've been uncomfortably close. Not too many months ago, I went through a period of deep despair over my chances of ever attracting a female. During this period, I had to fight down some strong homosexual feelings. These had occurred earlier in my life during similar "down" periods, though never with quite such intensity. Such feelings themselves are NOT sinful. However, if I had chosen to act upon them, to seek sexual involvement with another male, that would have been the sin--choosing an ersatz way of finding "love", closeness, intimacy, healing of the pain of loneliness. The right thing to do about such feelings was to (as one pastor friend of mine advised me) "show God my dirty pictures", i.e. admit these feelings to Him and let Him work on the underlying despair. (It worked, too; I have actually begun dating women now.) In summary, I would just say that the fact that the Bible condemns homosexuality (which I maintain it does) or anything else is not what makes it horrible; rather, the fact that it is horrible is the reason the Bible condemns it. The fact that something is in the Bible is not what makes it true; rather, it is in the Bible precisely BECAUSE it is true. -- Jeff Sargent/pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
sdb@shark.UUCP (Steven Den Beste) (09/12/83)
So, before I make my comments, let me state that I am hetero, and what I am about to say is based on talking to gay friends. No-one knows what makes someone homo-sexual. However, it is NOT mysogyny. Gay men don't turn to each other out of despair of never finding a woman - gay men REALLY just like men. Many like women too, but prefer men. Many hetero's who have a hard time finding a female partner will find themselves despairing "I have lots of male friends - it is easy for me to meet and get to know men - why is it so hard to get to know women?" At that point they start fantasizing about sexual contact with a man, and usually shortly thereafter begin flogging themselves mentally. Sorry, that isn't homosexuality, that is lonely heterosexuality. The urges for real homosexuality are entirely different. Steve Den Beste Tektronix
david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (03/24/85)
There has been some discussion about what the NT writings say about homosexuality. I'm glad that Jeff Gillette has commented on what Paul said. There are two things I would add. First, while the translation of some words is made more difficult because they are rare, or lacking in verbal context, or because the original words are lexically ambiguous, nevertheless we should not forget the apparent traditional presuppositions of the authors and readers. Jesus and Paul largely accepted their Jewish ethical tradition, and neither of them are famous for casuistry or for mincing words. The fact is that homosexuality was considered to be a perversion of nature according to Jewish tradition of the time. Secondly, if either had condoned homosexuality during that time, it surely would have been so scandalous to contemporary non-Christian Jews that we should be informed even today by their criticism, for example, in the Talmud. But this is not their complaint. I am not saying that the NT writings are ethically complete, or inerrant, simply that it is far-fetching to have the NT say what it plainly does not. I understand that homosexuals do not want to be denied their rights as individual human beings, and do not want to be excluded from social institutions. But, in the final analysis, are the churches to approve something which most believe to be ultimately destructive of human personality and society? Who can forsee the consequences of such approval? However, my point is that there is nothing, that I know of, in the scriptures in favor of homosexuality; it is always described as being under "the wrath of God" -- that is, self-destructive. I would say that this is not obviously wrong. Whether it is "involuntary" or not, is beside the point, since it is at least as "voluntary" as other conscious behaviors. In fact, Paul anticipates psychoanalysis by thousands of years, in attributing our behavior to very often unconscious motivations. We ordinarily say that something is voluntary when we mean that we are aware of our motives. But the matter of "sin" is not the "voluntariness" of behavior, which is related to our self-knowledge, but its "destructiveness". It is said that the Law, while it made us partially conscious of sin, could not make us better, less destructive men. But that with the coming of Christ, we are set free, by the power of God, from slavery to what would destroy us. Paul then says that it was this experience which "freed" him to become the "slave" of Christ, having been the slave to "sin". This would seem to be the meaning of "They shall know the truth, and the truth shall set them free." As an analogy, suppose that your grandfather died of lung cancer after smoking for 30 years. He never knew that he was killing himself. Then the surgeon general announces that smoking is the greatest cause of this fatal disease. Well, everyone knows this expert opinion, and becomes aware of the alternatives. Some may "voluntarily" stop smoking, after hearing this dire warning; nevertheless, others will "voluntarily" choose to disregard the warning, and die of cancer. Still others will "involuntarily" continue to be addicted to the self-destructive behavior. Hearing more medical opinions may not make a difference. Nevertheless, having been provided with these warnings, they will very well understand what the doctor means when he says "stop, or else." But no one seeks to find the doctor until he suffers "involuntarily", wishing to be saved. Hopefully, the doctor makes the one tremble in his boots, since anyone who "voluntarily" disregards this last warning is pretty far gone. I don't know of a large proportion of homosexuals who want to live a different life, and generally they deny that their lives are self-destructive. But, having lived in a number of major cities, this is not my general impression. I realize that this is not a popular "liberal" opinion, still I have to say what I believe is true. I might add that there is no morality to be found in singles bars, anymore than in gay bathhouses; and that there is no justification for persecution of those who are suffering already, whether they realize this, or say that they are "voluntarily" doing what is "natural" to them.
davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (03/26/85)
In article <202@cvl.UUCP> david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) writes: >......................., nevertheless we should not forget the >apparent traditional presuppositions of the authors and readers. >Jesus and Paul largely accepted their Jewish ethical tradition, >and neither of them are famous for casuistry or for mincing words. >The fact is that homosexuality was considered to be a perversion of >nature according to Jewish tradition of the time. I am interested in any references supporting this. Boswell's book may cover this in its many nooks and crannies, but I don't remember any lengthy discussions on it. >Secondly, if either >had condoned homosexuality during that time, it surely would have >been so scandalous to contemporary non-Christian Jews that we should >be informed even today by their criticism, for example, in the Talmud. >But this is not their complaint. But there is a problem here of the counter argument. If homosexuality was so rampant in Jesus' time (it is thought that for over 200 years most of the Roman Emperers were homosexuals) wouldn't he have said at least something negative about it? Neither the Roman religion nor Roman law recognized homosexual eroticism as distinct from - much less inferior to - heterosexual eroticism. Prejudices affecting sexual behavior applied to all persons uniformly. Roman society almost unanimously assumed that adult males would be capable of, in not interested in, sexual relations with both sexes. Male prostitution was taxed by law - there was even a yearly holiday off for male prostitutes. > ..... But, in the final analysis, are >the churches to approve something which most believe to be ultimately >destructive of human personality and society? Who can forsee the >consequences of such approval? When I look at the world and its history, there is one thing which stands out above all else which has caused most of the suffering and hatred in the world, and that is INTOLERANCE of others. Think about it and see if you don't agree. Intolerance caused things from the death of Jesus to the holocaust. So, we should make your questions more accurate and get at the real root of evil in the world: Are we to approve of something which has obviously caused most of the suffering and hatred in the world (intolerance) and which ultimately is destructive of human personality and society? Who can forsee the consequences of such approval? >However, my point is that there is >nothing, that I know of, in the scriptures in favor of homosexuality; >it is always described as being under "the wrath of God" -- that is, >self-destructive. I would say that this is not obviously wrong. You have made some pretty strong attacks against a minority group. I think it only just that you present some facts to support your view. First you talk about homosexuality as being ultimately destructive of human personality and society. I presume you have seen a lot of evidence before taking on such an extreme position. Since such a belief can cause physical aggravation and psychological damage to a large segment of the population, surely you must have conclusive evidence to support it. Another denigration are the words "self-destruction" and "destruction." Again, since I presume you haven't decided that homosexuals are self-destructive in a vacuum it would be enlightening to hear of your evidence. Without evidence, I'm sure many whites in the old south were sure that the negro was just inherently inferior. You mention that in the large cities this destructive tendency is noticed. Since there are gays working and living around you everywhere why don't you notice this tendency in the samll towns, or at work, as well? >This would seem to be the meaning of "They shall know the truth, and >the truth shall set them free." You know, its funny but when I read about Jesus in the Bible, it seems most of what he did was support the down and out, the poor and the oppressed. I I don't think he once critized minorities of any type of color, race or sexual disposition. I wonder if "the truth shall set them free" applies to ridding the world of intolerant thought which causes so many problems today as it did in Jesus' time. >.......................... I realize that this is not a popular "liberal" >opinion, still I have to say what I believe is true. You certainly have every right to your opinion. All I ask is that you investigate your stand with some hard data before you draw such severe conclusions. There are many studies that have been done on gay relationships starting with Masters and Johnson data on percent of population tending toward homosexuality to "The Mendola Report" on gay 'marriages' to the latest book "The Male Couple." Better yet, get to know some on a personal basis. Chances are that you already do, you just don't know it yet. My stereotype of gays was blown wide open when I did. Dave Trissel {ihnp4,seismo,gatech}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (03/26/85)
> Male prostitution was taxed by law - there was even a yearly holiday > off for male prostitutes. Wait a minute. Was prostitution a state-subsdized activity? If so, then did the male prostitutes obtain a full day's pay on their day off? If a private institution then did they received some sort of fixed compensation during a holiday from their "pimp?" Something seems strange about the concept of receiving a day off from the state, when you are in essence self-employed. How could the state grant something it was no tin a position to give... or am I ignorant of the situation? -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "And Frith made the world"
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (03/27/85)
In article <202@cvl.UUCP> david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) writes: > There are two things I would add. First, while the >translation of some words is made more difficult because they are >rare, or lacking in verbal context, or because the original words >are lexically ambiguous, nevertheless we should not forget the >apparent traditional presuppositions of the authors and readers. >Jesus and Paul largely accepted their Jewish ethical tradition, >and neither of them are famous for casuistry or for mincing words. >The fact is that homosexuality was considered to be a perversion of >nature according to Jewish tradition of the time. Secondly, if either >had condoned homosexuality during that time, it surely would have >been so scandalous to contemporary non-Christian Jews that we should >be informed even today by their criticism, for example, in the Talmud. >But this is not their complaint. JC never mentions homosexuals in any context. Paul, however, was not a freethinker in any respect, and followed the Jewish legal tradition quite strongly. He may have been adding some these sorts of personal prejudgements to his discourses (on totally different subjects). That is why such prejudgements need to reexamined periodically. >the churches to approve something which most believe to be ultimately >destructive of human personality and society? Who can forsee the >consequences of such approval? However, my point is that there is >nothing, that I know of, in the scriptures in favor of homosexuality; >it is always described as being under "the wrath of God" -- that is, >self-destructive. I would say that this is not obviously wrong. I question the use of most in the above paragraph. Do you mean most Christians? If so, while potentially true, this is the very point that we are pushing to have reexamined. Do you mean most cultures? This is not true. Do you mean most people today? This is the work of the Christian Church, and demonstrates why this belief must be changed. As for homosexuality being self-destructive, that is an opinion you seem to hold that has no justifications here. Prove it. > I don't know of a large proportion of homosexuals who want to >live a different life, and generally they deny that their lives are >self-destructive. But, having lived in a number of major cities, this is >not my general impression. I realize that this is not a popular "liberal" >opinion, still I have to say what I believe is true. I might add that >there is no morality to be found in singles bars, anymore than in gay >bathhouses; and that there is no justification for persecution of those >who are suffering already, whether they realize this, or say that they >are "voluntarily" doing what is "natural" to them. You seem to believe that all or most gays live their lives in bathhouses, and I have to say that that belief is completely incorrect. Unless you had friends and/or aquaintances who were openly gay, your big city experiences with gays have been confined to people who were out partying. Isn't making a judgement on such a skewed sample a little brash? I mean, I'm involved in a relationship that has been ongoing for 4 1/2 years. I supported my lover through school. Many gays are actively involved in charity efforts, upgrading their neighborhoods, politicing for minority rights, etc.; are these self-destrutive? I know lots of gays in stable relationships (just to point out that I am not a strange exception). While I do not contend that all gays are of benefit to their communities, I do contend that statements such as those in the above paragraph are at best unsubstantiated dreck, and are more likely to be considered rabble-rousing and hate mongering. Because while you claim to be so enlightened as to not persecute gays, it is a short step from "they are self-destructive" to "we must protect them from themselves so that they can be saved" to "put gay people in concentration camps so that they don't infect our children" by people not as enlightened as you claim to be. -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) (03/27/85)
I am confused on a point that perhaps someone can clarify for me.... Why is it that Lot is considered by some christians (and apparently by god) a great guy? How can someone who offers his daughters for a gang rape (apparently without even asking them) be anything but a scum, and his god being not so nice either? I realize that he was protecting his guests, but why then didn't he offer himself, or just say no, get lost?
larryg@teklds.UUCP (Larry Gardner) (04/03/85)
Richard, I still think discussions about christianity should be in net.religion. christian but here it was, so here I answer. Paul a jewish traditionalist? HA HA HA HA He was the farthest. Remember he was the one who preached against circumcision and following jewish tradition because he was teaching grace not law. So much for that theory to ignore part of God's word. Remember the verse about all scripture being inspired by God. Yes, even Paul's writings against homosexuality. Maybe God thinks it is destructive. karen
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (04/05/85)
In article <517@teklds.UUCP> larryg@teklds.UUCP (Karen Clark) writes: >Paul a jewish traditionalist? HA HA HA HA > >He was the farthest. Remember he was the one who preached against >circumcision and following jewish tradition because he was teaching >grace not law. So much for that theory to ignore part of God's word. Yes, he was a pharasee previous to his conversion. How much more traditional could a Jew get in those days. Although it is true that after his conversion he seems to have shed much of the legalist philosphy of the pharasees, it is quite possible that some of it carried over, especially when he was talking about an entirely different subject and brought homosexuality in as a bad example. (After all the ruling class, Romans, had a very bisexual culture and some of the prejedices may have been coming out in his statements also.) > >Remember the verse about all scripture being inspired by God. Yes, >even Paul's writings against homosexuality. Maybe God thinks it >is destructive. >karen It is true that Christianoids use this kind of statement to justify every word in their 2K-year-old "good-book". That is why the earth is flat, the world was created in 168 literal hours, and bigots like you discriminate against people like me. As I have said before, though, when I was made, I was made gay. If your bigoted idea of God doesn't like me this way He has to go. Not me, I'm real. -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/05/85)
The Pharisees were the liberal Jewish faction. The Sadducees were the conservative body at the time of Christ. The Pharisees founded the rRabbinical tradition from which modern Judaism is descended. The tendancy to think of the Pharisees as the arch-conservatives is a product of the present looking at the past with present eyes. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura ps -- I'm not at home. I forget how to spell Sadducees and Rabbinical. /usr /dict/words doesn't help.