notes@isucs1.UUCP (11/03/85)
Thus saith the Lord ...
Romans I
... and even their men did turn from the natural use of women,
and burned in lust one toward another, working that which is
unseemly.
Isiah
... But if thou shall turn away from thy wicked ways, I will
have mercy on thee and wil heal your land and you shall be my
children and I shall be your God.beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (JB) (11/10/85)
[Don't you just love these folks? I mean, literally. ;-)] From: notes@isucs1.UUCP, Message-ID: <482@isucs1.UUCP>: > > Thus saith the Lord ... > > Romans I > ... and even their men did turn from the natural use of women, > and burned in lust one toward another, working that which is > unseemly. > > Isiah > ... But if thou shall turn away from thy wicked ways, I will > have mercy on thee and wil heal your land and you shall be my > children and I shall be your God. Well, that sure is enough for me. Guess I'll change my life now. I'll be unsubscribing from net.motss and signing up for net.I.cant. believe.I.ever.did.that. Oh, but Wait: I've turned *to* "the natural use of women". None of that "unseemly" stuff for me. Does that count? Do I still get in? What if I have a note from my mom that says it's ok? I guess I can stay here after all. Nevermind. -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) "I once heard the remainder of a colony of ants, which had been partially obliterated by a cow's foot, seriously discussing the intentions of the gods towards their civilization." -- Archy the Cockroach
rob@ptsfb.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (11/10/85)
In article <482@isucs1.UUCP> thus writeth notes@isucs1.UUCP: > > Thus saith the Lord ... > > Romans I > > ... and even their men did turn from the natural use of women, > and burned in lust one toward another, working that which is > unseemly. > > > Isiah > > ... But if thou shall turn away from thy wicked ways, I will > have mercy on thee and wil heal your land and you shall be my > children and I shall be your God. Sticks and stones will break my bones, but Bible quotes will never hurt me. Nya, nya, nya, nya, nya. Now go home to net.religion.cretin.
brad@SU-ISL.ARPA (11/11/85)
In article <255@ptsfb.UUCP> rob@ptsfb.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) writes: >In article <482@isucs1.UUCP> thus writeth notes@isucs1.UUCP: >> >> Thus saith the Lord ... >> >> Romans I >> >> ... and even their men did turn from the natural use of women, >> and burned in lust one toward another, working that which is >> unseemly. >> >> >> Isiah >> >> ... But if thou shall turn away from thy wicked ways, I will >> have mercy on thee and wil heal your land and you shall be my >> children and I shall be your God. > >Sticks and stones will break my bones, but Bible quotes will never hurt me. >Nya, nya, nya, nya, nya. Especially ones taken without consideration of the prevailing social conditions and out of context. ----------------------------- brad clymer
up547413042@ucdavis.UUCP (0048) (11/12/85)
> In article <482@isucs1.UUCP> thus writeth notes@isucs1.UUCP: > > > > Thus saith the Lord ... > > > > Romans I > > > > ... and even their men did turn from the natural use of women, > > and burned in lust one toward another, working that which is > > unseemly. > > > > > > Isiah > > > > ... But if thou shall turn away from thy wicked ways, I will > > have mercy on thee and wil heal your land and you shall be my > > children and I shall be your God. > > Sticks and stones will break my bones, but Bible quotes will never hurt me. > Nya, nya, nya, nya, nya. > > Now go home to net.religion.cretin. An understandable though silly response. The quotes above are out of context. Isiah was not talking about homosexuality. In Romans, Paul actually condemns homosexual acts by heterosexual people. It is natural for gay people to be attracted to the same sex. What is condemned in the passage is going against one's natural inclination.
jimc@haddock.UUCP (11/14/85)
> Well, that sure is enough for me. Guess I'll change my life now. > I'll be unsubscribing from net.motss and signing up for net.I.cant. > believe.I.ever.did.that. > > Oh, but Wait: I've turned *to* "the natural use of women". None of > that "unseemly" stuff for me. Does that count? Do I still get in? > What if I have a note from my mom that says it's ok? > > I guess I can stay here after all. Nevermind. Now I am curious -- does the Bible ever make an explicit statement against homosexuality in general, instead of just male homosexuality? Maybe someone out there knows. Thanks. ______________________________ Jim Campbell {decvax ! cca | yale | ihnp4 | cbosgd}!ima!jimc {bbncca | harvard | zurton | cfib | mit-ems | wjh12 }!ima!jimc {uscvax | ucla-vax | vortex}!ism780!jimc Interactive Systems, 7th floor, 441 Stuart St., Boston, MA 02116; 617-247-1155
rob@ptsfb.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (11/14/85)
In article <281@ucdavis.UUCP> up547413042@ucdavis.UUCP (0048) writes: >> In article <482@isucs1.UUCP> thus writeth notes@isucs1.UUCP: >> > >> > Thus saith the Lord ... >> > >> > Romans I >> > >> > ... and even their men did turn from the natural use of women, >> > and burned in lust one toward another, working that which is >> > unseemly. >> > >> > >> > Isiah >> > >> > ... But if thou shall turn away from thy wicked ways, I will >> > have mercy on thee and wil heal your land and you shall be my >> > children and I shall be your God. >> >> Sticks and stones will break my bones, but Bible quotes will never hurt me. >> Nya, nya, nya, nya, nya. >> >> Now go home to net.religion.cretin. > >An understandable though silly response. > >The quotes above are out of context. Isiah was not talking about homosexuality. >In Romans, Paul actually condemns homosexual acts by heterosexual people. It >is natural for gay people to be attracted to the same sex. What is condemned >in the passage is going against one's natural inclination. How do you know what the author considered "natural inclination"?
joe@emacs.UUCP (Joe Chapman) (11/16/85)
<> Jim Campbell in <90100003@haddock.UUCP> on 14 Nov 85: > Now I am curious -- does the Bible ever make an explicit statement against > homosexuality in general, instead of just male homosexuality? I don't think so. It's difficult to say what the Bible says explicitly on any subject. Perhaps most of the difficulties are linguistic: the words and rhetorical elements don't translate well across a few milennia. Whether the blessed Apostle Paul would have approved of Quentin Crisp is an exercise in psychohistorical speculation; whether he would have described him to the holy Church in Rome with any of the words many allege he used to mean "homosexual" is unlikely. The passages which might be read as proscriptions of homosexuality fall into two general categories. The first includes the Levitical "abomination" (you shall not lie with a man as you lie with a woman) and St. Paul's "men leaving the natural use of the woman and burning in lust towards one another" passage. It would be hard to argue that these don't apply exclusively to males. The other category includes the anathematic laundry-lists of the New Testament ("neither x, nor y, nor z shall ever inherit the kingdom of heaven"). The words used here are "arsenokoitai" and "malakos". The former is difficult to translate precisely, but it's clearly based on the root "arseno-", which refers to males. The latter is usually translated "soft" or "effeminate"; given the circumstances, I don't think it was meant to be interpreted as referring to lesbians. Incidentally, "malakos" is an especially interesting word: it takes up at least a column of tiny type in Liddell & Scott's Greek Lexicon (the standard reference work). The Latin "mollis" (used in the Vulgate) isn't any clearer. One might reasonably expect that little attention would be paid to women's sexuality in writings of the period; it was certainly no less a phallocratic society than our own. Considering the Bible as a whole, very little attention is paid to anyone's sexuality. I hate to have to have to admit to my personal interest in the matter, but I think that the Father of an Infinite Majesty, His Honorable, True, and only Son, and the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, would find my sex life rather boring. [ This is my ten-minute homily on this topic, so the citations and references are off the top of my head. I'm an Anglican, not a fundamentalist, so I can't quote chapter and verse of anything but the Book of Common Prayer. The best general discussion of the scriptures and homosexuality can be found in John Boswell's "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality" (Univ. of Chicago), of which an excellent summary was posted to this newsgroup by rrizzo (I think) several months ago. ] -- Joe Chapman Dr. Prentice: "I couldn't commit the decvax!cca!emacs!joe act. I'm a heterosexual." joe@cca-unix.arpa Dr. Rance: "I wish you wouldn't use those Chaucerian words."
up547413042@ucdavis.UUCP (0048) (11/16/85)
> In article <281@ucdavis.UUCP> up547413042@ucdavis.UUCP (0048) writes: > >> In article <482@isucs1.UUCP> thus writeth notes@isucs1.UUCP: > >> > > >> > Thus saith the Lord ... > >> > > >> > Romans I > >> > > >> > ... and even their men did turn from the natural use of women, > >> > and burned in lust one toward another, working that which is > >> > unseemly. > >> > > >> > > >> > Isiah > >> > > >> > ... But if thou shall turn away from thy wicked ways, I will > >> > have mercy on thee and wil heal your land and you shall be my > >> > children and I shall be your God. > >> > >> Sticks and stones will break my bones, but Bible quotes will never hurt me. > >> Nya, nya, nya, nya, nya. > >> > >> Now go home to net.religion.cretin. > > > >An understandable though silly response. > > > >The quotes above are out of context. Isiah was not talking about homosexuality. > >In Romans, Paul actually condemns homosexual acts by heterosexual people. It > >is natural for gay people to be attracted to the same sex. What is condemned > >in the passage is going against one's natural inclination. > > How do you know what the author considered "natural inclination"? From the context of the entire passage. The concept of homosexuality as such did not exist during Paul's time, though it was practised. Read the chapter. The primary subject didn't even involved sexual activity. There are some theological works which cover this, too. Some say that idolotry was involved. John Boswell is a good reference also (history: "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality). -- Chris.
joe@emacs.UUCP (Joe Chapman) (11/19/85)
<> >>In Romans, Paul actually condemns homosexual acts by heterosexual people. It >>is natural for gay people to be attracted to the same sex. What is condemned >>in the passage is going against one's natural inclination. > >How do you know what the author considered "natural inclination"? I think you're both starting to argue off in the wrong direction. In the passage in question, St. Paul is condemning the Romans for embracing and then abandoning the true religion. The "burning in lust" portion of the argument is used as an analogy, not as the topic. The natural inclination which is being discussed is not sexual, rather it is the inclination of the soul, which for the Apostle was towards Christianity. Furthermore, "natural inclination" is a risky phrase to use in this context as our concept of "natural law" had not yet been formulated. The point which I'm trying to make, and which I tried to imply in my last posting on the subject, is that a theological or ethical judgement requires a great deal more effort than isolated quotation from a translation of Holy Scripture. I can't imagine that throwing fragments of the Epistles about to justify everything from homophobia to the MX missile to the burning of Beach Boys records can even be considered good *fundamentalist* theology. -- Joe Chapman Geraldine: "I must be a boy. I like girls." decvax!cca!emacs!joe Dr. Rance: "I can't quite follow the joe@cca-unix.arpa reasoning there."