david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (04/01/85)
Reply to a reply: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >From: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Christianity and homosexuality Message-ID: <5152@fortune.UUCP> 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i. Paul's 'personal prejudgments' were, rather, traditional. ii. It is 'personal prejudgment' to have Paul say what he plainly does not. iii. Paul was 'freethinking' for his time, but this does not mean he would agree with anything we would like. Although he was formerly the student of a famous Pharisaic teacher, his understanding of Scripture and human psychology is remarkably 'modern'; certainly his interpretations of Scripture are very figurative, instead of simply literal. Also, he did set aside many rules of traditional Jewish ritual Law, which he believed were less important ethically and theologically, which might cause non-Jews to stumble, so that they might listen to the Gospel. Finally, Paul said that while Christians had been set free by Christ, still not all things were good for them. iii. Jesus cites Scripture that man and woman were created by God for each other. This is the traditional Jewish view, which one can misconstrue only if one is very obstinate. iv. Jesus was not condemnatory of any sins, but merciful, so that all men, being sinners, might come to repentance. It is mercifulness, rather than vengeance, which leaves open the possibility of repentance. Vengeance hardens our hearts. v. The primary point is that if Jesus had approved, even privately, of homosexuality, no matter what is recorded in the NT writings, this would have been so scandalous to the contemporary Jewish society, notably to the religious leaders, that we would certainly be informed about it according to orthodox Jewish tradition. I stand on this. vi. I should say that my purpose in making these observations is to make clear that no one can plausibly suggest that Jesus, or Paul, approved of homosexuality. However, Jesus certainly did not persecute anyone. And those who do are not like him. vii. Faith is said to be a gift of God, but for those who would desire it. Jesus could only heal the spiritual afflictions of those who sought his help, who would desire faith, as in the saying, "Lord, help my unbelief," and the ultimate petition of Mass, based on the faithful petition even of a Gentile centurion, "Lord, I am not worthy to recieve you, but only say the word, and I shall be healed." viii. I believe that the churches should help to secure the human rights of all individuals, including rights to assembly, speech, religion, voting, employment, and housing. I believe that homosexuals should not be excluded from congregations, anymore than are sexually promiscuous persons. And although they may elect to exclude them- by a sort of self-excommunication, the consequences of enforced separation may be harmful to someone who would otherwise change in the course of time and fellowship. We should be patient, rather than condemnatory; by excluding or persecuting others, we are condemning them, since therefore they cannot not come to change. viii.Most Christians simply believe that God has created mankind with the intention of heterosexuality; one may not believe in the divine creation, but our anatomy and reproduction alone suggest very strongly that evolution has selected for phenotypic heterosexuality -- other- wise we would suffer self-extinction very quickly. For someone who does believe in creation by God, he must also faithfully believe that the means of this creation, including our heterosexual reproduction, is good, even if we cannot forsee yet what is the fulfillment of creation. My point is that a religious view of nature is religious, and not purely existential as if the only purposes were our own. ix. I believe that you must surely understand what I've said, even if you disagree with my views, or with those of Jesus or Paul, so that there is no reason to falsely characterize what I have said. What I object to is a view which misrepresents the ethical teachings of the NT for the sake of a prejudice, and furthermore expects that the churches should approve of behavior which is considered to be a sin according to Christian as well as precedent Jewish tradition. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As you already first observe, and as the context suggests, "most" means "most of the living body of Christians." Do I have to prove this to you? Do you yourself want to live as a large proportion of homosexuals do? I am simply giving my opinion based on discussion with homosexual individuals, 20 or so, over 20 years, also based on listening to televised discussions by physicians who are said to be expert. My impression is that the rates of suicide, drug abuse, promiscuity, transience, infection, and death are considerably higher among this population than among non- homosexual groups, especially married persons. Certainly, the health and happiness of those with whom I talked was not good, even according to them. The thing I always wondered was -- how can you live this way? And why? If you do not believe me, then ask your doctor to recommend unbiased physicians at a medical school who are expert in public health. Then report this survey to the Net. You should understand that nearly everyone who is not homosexual, not matter how liberal or religious, recommends against this life. Further- more, as I have been informed by Indian and Chinese friends, who are from ancient countries representing 1/3 of world population, homosexuality is not accepted, and rare among these comparatively restrictive cultures. Neither do Muslim nations, who represent another very large proportion, accept this. All these tradtionally reject it. One has to go back to pagan Greek and Roman days to find such widespread acceptance. You are very mistaken. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 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). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I said what I meant: here I am addressing the general problem of promiscuity, whether it is heterosexual or homosexual. Of course, I am not commenting on where you can find it. Like you also, I believe that all of us are capable of doing good, and of responding to the needs of others. But we do this because we are human with conscience, not because we are gay or not, perfect or not. You are saying that gays are human beings capable of good, and I completely agree that none of us should forget this. If you and your friends are not 'promiscuous', then are you really representative of most homosexuals? We all want to have secure relationships with others; the question is -- what sort of relationship are we securing? Is it to be recommended to young people? Whether or not it is 'voluntary', is it to be recommended? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There are two points made in my article, one about Christian tradition, the other about my opinion. You dislike my opinion, which is that homosexuality is self-destructive, that it should not be approved by the churches, but that no one should persecute anyone, but treat everyone as an individual who has fallen short, but is capable of change for the better. I've found good qualities in almost everyone, but I would certainly not recommend everyone's life to others. I am not speaking to rabble -- I am speaking to you, without compromise but also without aspersion. Those who would persecute others will find no encouragement in what I say, unless they would distort what I've said. We should always keep in mind what Jesus said about the adulterer: consider that you who would condemn this one are also sinners; I have not condemned this one; the one should stop sinning. This was the new, more merciful commandment which, it is said, he stooped to write on the earth with his finger, even as it is said that the Lord God descended at Sinai to write with His finger on the stone tablets of men's hearts. Being homosexual as you are, also does not make you very 'enlightened' I'm afraid. Besides this, it almost certainly does not mean the same thing to you as it does to me. To begin with, it is said that the life of Christ is the light of mankind. How many are living as he did? Also, as you may not know, the Greek word for 'enlightenment' was, in very early Christian writings, used to refer to baptism, in the sense of the experience at conversion, or initiation. (It was also similarly used by the pre-Christian Essene Jews at Qumran.) What is your initiation? What has set you on your way? But my point is that the expression 'enlightenment' has a specific religious meaning, which you do not appreciate, and is generally confused with a quality of opinion.
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (04/03/85)
In article <237@cvl.UUCP> david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) writes: > Do I have to prove this to you? Do you yourself want to live >as a large proportion of homosexuals do? > I am simply giving my opinion based on discussion with homosexual >individuals, 20 or so, over 20 years, also based on listening to televised >discussions by physicians who are said to be expert. My impression is >that the rates of suicide, drug abuse, promiscuity, transience, infection, >and death are considerably higher among this population than among non- >homosexual groups, especially married persons. Certainly, the health and >happiness of those with whom I talked was not good, even according to them. >The thing I always wondered was -- how can you live this way? And why? As I stated in my previous article, much of the unhappiness of gay people, evident in the above symptoms, is due to the oppression we suffer rather than being intimately connected to homosexuality. As for how I can live "this way", I cannot live any other way than gay. "Why?" you ask, so that the gay people who come after me don't have to suffer such shit. Finally, a sample size of "20 or so" is a very small sample to base such a judgement on out of the 30,000,000 or so homosexuals in the United States... obviously most of the homosexuals that you have met didn't trust you enough to mention it. > You should understand that nearly everyone who is not homosexual, >not matter how liberal or religious, recommends against this life. Further- >more, as I have been informed by Indian and Chinese friends, who are from >ancient countries representing 1/3 of world population, homosexuality is >not accepted, and rare among these comparatively restrictive cultures. >Neither do Muslim nations, who represent another very large proportion, >accept this. All these tradtionally reject it. One has to go back to >pagan Greek and Roman days to find such widespread acceptance. You are >very mistaken. You forget that 15% of *all* men are gay or bisexual, actually I doubt you forget, but wish to conviently brush the facts aside. You are right about the fact that many non-gays recommend against a gay lifestyle, *mostly due to Christian spread intolerence* however. I don't even recommend it, if one can be straight, one may save ones life, job, home and health by not being gay and thereby incurring the wrath of bigots. > If you and your friends are not 'promiscuous', then are you really >representative of most homosexuals? Yes. > We all want to have secure relationships with others; the question >is -- what sort of relationship are we securing? Is it to be recommended >to young people? Whether or not it is 'voluntary', is it to be recommended? 15% of all male children will grow up to be gay/bisexual. Is it healthy to teach children that the life they will lead is somehow sick, evil, etc? No. Isn't this a method of making sure that they will have problems for the rest of their lives? Yes. Will it change their orientation to tell them such things? No. Will some of the larger percentage of children that aren't gay take these concepts about gays and use them to justify going out and "bashing queers" and otherwise denying gays human rights. Yes. Do you wish to continue the cycle? > Being homosexual as you are, also does not make you very >'enlightened' I'm afraid. Besides this, it almost certainly does not >mean the same thing to you as it does to me. To begin with, it is >said that the life of Christ is the light of mankind. How many are >living as he did? Also, as you may not know, the Greek word for >'enlightenment' was, in very early Christian writings, used to >refer to baptism, in the sense of the experience at conversion, >or initiation. (It was also similarly used by the pre-Christian >Essene Jews at Qumran.) What is your initiation? What has set you >on your way? But my point is that the expression 'enlightenment' >has a specific religious meaning, which you do not appreciate, and >is generally confused with a quality of opinion. enlighten: 1. to free from ignorence, prejedice, etc. 2. to inform, instruct. enlightenment n. _Webster's_NewWorld_Dictionary_ Perhaps the Christians who used it that way were enlightened. Some Christians today are enlightened, but certainly you are not one of those. Quit trying to use some obscure definition of the word enlighten as *the* definition. What enlightened me, by the way, was having to live with prejedice every day of my life. Since one of the major teachings of JC that I still believe and use in my own religious/moral code, is that you should love your neighbor as yourself. Since I do not like prejedice against myself, I assume that my neighbor doesn't either. Therefore, I try to enlighten others, like you, who are in need of enlightenment. -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (04/05/85)
In reply to a reply ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >From: brower@fortune.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Reply to Dave Trisell Message-ID: <5166@fortune.UUCP> > Then you ask why did not Jesus say something against it. >Paul did plainly say something against it, despite the far-fetched >interpretations of Boswell. Recall that Paul was addressing Romans >and Greeks (Corinthians), not Jews. > What about Jesus? First of all, as I've already observed, homo- >sexuality was not accepted or common among the Jews, no matter whether >it was accepted by the Emporer or other Gentiles of the time. It was >absolutely condemned (by stoning). Jesus preached to the Jews, not to >the Gentiles, and he criticized their hypocrisy, not that of the others-- >they (Jews) were ones who should know better. To begin with, it is very >probable that Jesus never came across a persecuted homosexual Jew, there >were so few. Stoning was only done for a very few and specific acts. As far as I have been able to determine homosexuality was not one of these. If you have other information please define its source (chapter and verse of the Bible will be sufficient). By all of the studies, 6% to 15% of all men are homosexual *irreguardless of race, religion, or time in history*. Thus your above arguement is bogus horseshit. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (I definitely do not agree with punishment of homosexuals; I am rebutting your contention about Jewish law; I have consulted an Orthodox friend who is a rabbinical student.) Translation from NEB. Lev.18.22. You shall not lie with a man as with a woman: that is an abomination (an expression for a most grave sin). Lev.18.29,30. for anyone who does any of these abominable things shall be cut off from his people. Observe the charge, therefore, and follow none of the abominable institutions customary before your time. Lev.20.13. If a man has intercourse with a man as with a woman, they both commit an abomination. They shall be put to death; their blood shall be on their own hands. There are four punishments by death, according to the offense: stoning to death is considered to be the least severe. You should consult an Orthodox authority concerning the interpretation of Jewish Law, if you want to understand their tradition. I did not say what you would have, but said "it is very probable that Jesus never came across a persecuted homosexual Jew, there were so few." I said nothing about estimates of proportions of homosexuals in various cultures; besides, this is very speculative. What I said is that it was considered to be an 'abomination' among the Jews, punishable by death. Jesus was very probably a public figure for one year (and no more than three years); as I said, in this repressive society, Jesus very well might not have met a public example of 'a persecuted homosexual Jew' during his ministry. Recall that disciples who knew about his ministry wrote the Gospels; he did not write anything himself. They do report the account of the adulterous woman, which gives his attitude toward both sexual sins and toward the Law: he reminds us that we have all sinned; he does not condemn her; he tells her to stop sinning. That is, he rejects the mercilessness of the old law, and the hypocrisy of those who would condemn others with punishment. (I have never met 'a persecuted homosexual', as such, even in this fairly open society. I've seen them on television, but I've never met one. I have demonstrated in Austin, Texas against proposals of housing laws which discriminate against homosexuals. There was no TV in Jesus day, his society was repressive, and he seems to be very busy with those who sought him out or whom he encountered.) As for your contentions about modern foreign cultures, you seem to be very uninformed by their members. I work in a research institute in which we have literally dozens of visitors every year from all over the world: China, Taiwan, India, Australia, Italy, Israel, East Germany, Finland, Japan, France, Iran, from all over the world. I have been informed that homosexuality is very uncommon and unaccepted among the very largest cultures. You may say that is because they are repressive, so that homosexuals do not disclose themselves publicly, but that is not my point: it is not publicly common or even privately accepted in these cultures. It is here and in some more tolerant countries. But their 'repressiveness' has nothing to do with Christianity, and you are denigrating their cultural values if you insist upon this. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > As for his other attitudes about sexuality, they are very clear. >First, he says marriage may interfere with ministry, but does not insist You seem to be confusing Jesus and Paul (Saul) here. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Of course not. Paul does make some recommendations. But read Matthew where Jesus says some are celibate for the sake of the kingdom of God, but he does not insist upon this. (see a commentary) By the way, apparently the contemporary Essene monks were celibate, while the Pharisaic rabbis were married of course. But this, as well as his own unmarried state, may have prompted this exchange. (The Essenes were extremely ascetic and pious; however this may be, they were not merciful to sinners, and their ethical teachings were not like those of Jesus.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > The most revealing thing Jesus says, quoting scripture in Genesis, >is that man and woman were made by God for each other, therefore, no man >should break this bond (marriage). You may draw your own conclusion about >his tacit presuppositions, if you are sincere. I've never been married to a woman. Does this mean that I shouldn't break up with my lover of five years. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Of course not; do you reason like this all the time? He presupposes the divine provision of heterosexual mating, period. There is no provision for homosexuality at all; this would undermine the sanctity of the other. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > There is no room for the persecution of anyone, especially of >those who suffer. This is what the Gospel teaches. But there is no >recommendation of homosexuality either; it is clear that Jesus accepted >the Jewish tradition that men and women were made for each other according >to the purpose of God. However, he rejected the merciless cruelty shown to >sinners, who after all were suffering anyway, and who might come to >repentance if only we were more merciful, as God would have us be. -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On this, I suppose we are agreed. From umcp-cs!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!fortune!brower Article 6126 of net.religion: Relay-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cvl.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site fortune.UUCP Path: cvl!umcp-cs!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!fortune!brower >From: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: reply to Richard Brower Message-ID: <5168@fortune.UUCP> Date: 3 Apr 85 02:07:13 GMT Date-Received: 4 Apr 85 13:05:54 GMT References: <237@cvl.UUCP> Reply-To: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard brower) Distribution: net Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA Lines: 87 In article <237@cvl.UUCP> david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) writes: > Do I have to prove this to you? Do you yourself want to live >as a large proportion of homosexuals do? > I am simply giving my opinion based on discussion with homosexual >individuals, 20 or so, over 20 years, also based on listening to televised >discussions by physicians who are said to be expert. My impression is >that the rates of suicide, drug abuse, promiscuity, transience, infection, >and death are considerably higher among this population than among non- >homosexual groups, especially married persons. Certainly, the health and >happiness of those with whom I talked was not good, even according to them. >The thing I always wondered was -- how can you live this way? And why? As I stated in my previous article, much of the unhappiness of gay people, evident in the above symptoms, is due to the oppression we suffer rather than being intimately connected to homosexuality. As for how I can live "this way", I cannot live any other way than gay. "Why?" you ask, so that the gay people who come after me don't have to suffer such shit. Finally, a sample size of "20 or so" is a very small sample to base such a judgement on out of the 30,000,000 or so homosexuals in the United States... obviously most of the homosexuals that you have met didn't trust you enough to mention it. > You should understand that nearly everyone who is not homosexual, >not matter how liberal or religious, recommends against this life. Further- >more, as I have been informed by Indian and Chinese friends, who are from >ancient countries representing 1/3 of world population, homosexuality is >not accepted, and rare among these comparatively restrictive cultures. >Neither do Muslim nations, who represent another very large proportion, >accept this. All these tradtionally reject it. One has to go back to >pagan Greek and Roman days to find such widespread acceptance. You are >very mistaken. You forget that 15% of *all* men are gay or bisexual, actually I doubt you forget, but wish to conviently brush the facts aside. You are right about the fact that many non-gays recommend against a gay lifestyle, *mostly due to Christian spread intolerence* however. I don't even recommend it, if one can be straight, one may save ones life, job, home and health by not being gay and thereby incurring the wrath of bigots. > If you and your friends are not 'promiscuous', then are you really >representative of most homosexuals? Yes. > We all want to have secure relationships with others; the question >is -- what sort of relationship are we securing? Is it to be recommended >to young people? Whether or not it is 'voluntary', is it to be recommended? 15% of all male children will grow up to be gay/bisexual. Is it healthy to teach children that the life they will lead is somehow sick, evil, etc? No. Isn't this a method of making sure that they will have problems for the rest of their lives? Yes. Will it change their orientation to tell them such things? No. Will some of the larger percentage of children that aren't gay take these concepts about gays and use them to justify going out and "bashing queers" and otherwise denying gays human rights. Yes. Do you wish to continue the cycle? > Being homosexual as you are, also does not make you very >'enlightened' I'm afraid. Besides this, it almost certainly does not >mean the same thing to you as it does to me. To begin with, it is >said that the life of Christ is the light of mankind. How many are >living as he did? Also, as you may not know, the Greek word for >'enlightenment' was, in very early Christian writings, used to >refer to baptism, in the sense of the experience at conversion, >or initiation. (It was also similarly used by the pre-Christian >Essene Jews at Qumran.) What is your initiation? What has set you >on your way? But my point is that the expression 'enlightenment' >has a specific religious meaning, which you do not appreciate, and >is generally confused with a quality of opinion. enlighten: 1. to free from ignorence, prejedice, etc. 2. to inform, instruct. enlightenment n. _Webster's_NewWorld_Dictionary_ Perhaps the Christians who used it that way were enlightened. Some Christians today are enlightened, but certainly you are not one of those. Quit trying to use some obscure definition of the word enlighten as *the* definition. What enlightened me, by the way, was having to live with prejedice every day of my life. Since one of the major teachings of JC that I still believe and use in my own religious/moral code, is that you should love your neighbor as yourself. Since I do not like prejedice against myself, I assume that my neighbor doesn't either. Therefore, I try to enlighten others, like you, who are in need of enlightenment. -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower