sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (02/04/85)
Actually, the responses to the arguments in Boswell's book have not been
forthcoming from what one would consider the traditional audience for
this scholarship: Protestant and Catholic moral theologians, Bible scholars
and Church historians. Some early reviews took issue with his background
as a medieval historian, unspecialized in some of the particular times
covered by his book, the early Christian era up to the 14th Century,
but these were all rather ad hominem and unsubstantive, and glaringly
evasive of any discussion of his conclusions. So far, there have
been NO articles disputing any of his major points. Clearly it cannot
be his credentials which would prevent him from being taken seriously,
an assistant professor of history at Yale, and the book published by
the University of Chicago Press. To my mind, the topic is too aversive
to many who should be reading the book, and the implications too
frighteningly revolutionary to risk being persuaded by the evidence
he presents. In a curious way, modern Christianity is trying to neutralize
Boswell's arguments without being "contaminated" by them, and that is
to ignore them and feign ignorance of the book and its conclusions.
This is unfortunate, and it serves no one well in the long run.
Scholarship never advances in a vacuum. I am sure that most people
who have read the book would like nothing more than to see some
intelligent responses from the Christian mainstream and the dialogue
which it would engender. To present evidence against Boswell's own
and argue it persuasively, is not necessarily to be labelled a
"homophobe", nor do I think that label would dissuade anyone with a
serious opinion of the work from presenting it.
So, Paul, the ball is squarely in the Church's court. As good as
are Ron Rizzo's summaries of the book and lectures by Boswell, I
invite you again to pick up the original, if you intend to address
its points. It's in most college and religious bookstores (at least
the liberal Seabury kinds) as well as your public library. The reference
is: Boswell, John, "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality",
University of Chicago Press, 1980.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbnccv.ARPAhedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) (02/06/85)
Thanks to Ron Rizzo's reposting of Boswell's exegeses, I am now in a position to give at least some response to Steve Dyer's recent challenge. (He asked why no one from the mainstream of Christianity had responded to Boswell's critiques of the Christian opposition to homosexuality.) I am going to take a somewhat indirect path to giving an answer to him. This is primarily because I don't see the issue about homosexuality in the Church in the same terms as the discussion so far on the net. Most of the discussion has taken it for granted that what the Bible says goes, and homosexuals who want to be considered Christians have to show that the Bible never condemns homosexuality. Certainly as I Christian, I consider the Bible as authoritative. But I am afraid that is somewhat of an oversimplification. I suspect that the homosexual issue is going to proceed along roughly the same trajectory as the issue of giving women leadership roles within the Church. Since that is further along, we may be able to learn something from the experience. There have been a number of books written discussing Biblical attitudes towards women. But I think when it finally came down to it, the critical argument was not over the attitude towards women in the Bible so much as the way the 20th Century should use the Bible. Basically, those churches that now ordain women are pretty much those churches that make relatively flexible (liberal? - I am looking for a neutral term here and not finding it) use of Scripture. They (and I) believe that the Bible is a document written by human beings who were witnesses to God's actions in history. As such, it shows both divine actions and human reporting. If Jesus or Paul had as part of their revelation that we should remove rights from women or gays, then I'd have a real problem. But where Paul seems to just be repeating an attitude from around him, and where it has no organic connection with the Christian message itself, many of us are prepared to say that it is not necessarily binding today. (We would have more trouble doing this with Jesus, but fortunately Jesus himself was extremely accepting of everybody.) It's not that we devalue what the Bible has to say on the subject. It's just that we would prefer to apply what the author is actually saying (love for all mankind, acceptance of our fellow sinners) rather than becoming overly concerned about some place where his early training may happen to have shown through for a moment. The more conservative approach is that *everything* that the Biblical authors said was inspired, and that there are no places where anything shows through by accident. Anything that they said even in passing is important. It is this process of deciding how to apply the Bible to current questions (refered to by theologians as "hermeneutics") that is really at issue between conservatives and liberals, not any debate over whether Paul did or did not imply that homosexuality is wrong. [In case it is not clear to some of you, this issue about how literally to apply Scripture is *the* issue between liberals and conservatives. It underlies evolution, the role of women, and the role of homosexuals. It is almost the only issue of genuine theological importance dividing Christians today. Almost everyone, from Southern Baptists and Missouri Synod Lutherans, up to Anglicans and Catholics, agree on the traditional doctrines: the Trinity, the Incarnation (that Christ was both God and Man), the Atonement (that Christ's death and resurrection saved us), etc. The major battleground is the groundrules for using the Bible.] I believe that to the extent that homosexuals are accepted in the Church, it is going to be through this process of examining our hermeneutics. I think it is hopeless to try to convince everybody that the OT in general and Paul in particular didn't have negative attitudes towards homosexuality. (I'll have a bit more to say about that below.) About a month ago I had the somewhat dubious honor of being present in a debate on whether the New Brunswick Presbytery (of the Presbyterian Church (USA)) should adopt a policy prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation, applied to jobs with the Presbytery itself (*NOT* all of the churches within it -- just the Presbytery staff). We heard some of the same arguments that have been appearing on this list (though in somewhat more enlightened forms). We heard a particularly impressive statement from a homosexual Presbyterian begging the church to live up to its ideals. But I found one interchange particularly interesting. Someone asked the Taskforce on Homosexuality what he should say to his congregation when they pointed to all of these passages in the Bible and asked him how the Church could possibly be taking the stand that it is. The response was not a discussion of the Greek words, trying to show that they didn't refer to homosexuality. Rather it was said that he was going to have to discuss the meaning and nature of Biblical authority, and the way that we apply the Bible to current issues. [By the way, let me not leave the wrong impression. This battle is not yet over in the Presbyterian Church (USA). The denomination has recommended that all of its parts adopt policies of non-discrimination in hiring. It is also conducting an internal campaign against "homophobia". But there is still a ruling from the General Assembly that homosexuals should not be ordained. I believe that this ruling is inconsistent with the direction in which the church as a whole is moving, and expect to see it overturned within a few years. Apparently several Presbyteries consider it merely advisory, and are ordaining homosexuals anyway. But the ruling is there, and there are still plenty of individual churches and other parts of the denomination do not want homosexual pastors or other leaders, at least not those who have "come out of the closet."] Now, for the exegeses. I find his discussions about word meanings very interesting. But I am more concerned with what use we are to make of all of this scholarship. Many of the people who quote it seem to believe that he has in effect "explained away" all of the passages about homosexuality. That is, that the burden of his exegesis is that the authors didn't really think that homosexuality was intrinsically wrong. Without reading Boswell himself, I can't be sure whether that is the conclusion that he himself drew. But it doesn't seem to me to be the right way to use his material. The question is not one of the attitudes of the Biblical authors. It seems clear to me that the author of Leviticus and Paul both believed that homosexuality is wrong. But the crucial issue in today's debate isn't about that. It is about hermeneutics: how do we apply the Bible to problems today? I argued above that one task of the Church today is to decide which parts of Paul's letters are his actual Christian witness, and which are just his cultural background. If you agree with that, then I think Boswell's analysis of Rom. 1:26-27 is helpful. It seems to show that Paul is not actually preaching against homosexuality. Rather he just refers to it in passing while he is talking about something else entirely. He simply takes it for granted that everyone is heterosexual, and so becoming homosexual is unnatural for them. If you are trying to separate Paul's message from his cultural assumptions, then it sure looks like an opposition to homosexuality is a cultural assumption. But I do not believe that you can take the analysis further and say that Paul did not consider homosexuality to be wrong. Although he never says it explicitly, I think there is a clear assumption that everyone is by nature heterosexual, and that any homosexuality is a perversion. As this message is already long enough, I am not going to comment in detail on the Lev. passages. As Boswell himself notes, Christians' use of the OT is a complicated issue. By the very nature of the case, we have to decide which of the rules there are still binding on Christians. I am afraid that nothing I saw (at least in the summary on the net) really helps me in that decision.
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (02/08/85)
>[from Steve Dyer:] >... To my mind, the topic is too aversive >to many who should be reading the book, and the implications too >frighteningly revolutionary to risk being persuaded by the evidence >he presents. In a curious way, modern Christianity is trying to neutralize >Boswell's arguments without being "contaminated" by them, and that is >to ignore them and feign ignorance of the book and its conclusions. Steve, I think you're going to have to wait a little longer to get a response from the "traditional audience" for Boswell's scholarship. Boswell's book is only 3 or 4 years old. There are other reasons besides willful ignorance for the lack of response thus far. The nature of Boswell's book seems to be such as to require much time and effort for an effective response. Scholars are going to have to justifiy this effort. I think that the lack of impact of Boswell's book thus far upon Christian thought and public opinion prevents them from justifying the time spent rebutting Boswell's arguments. A segment of that gay community has championed him, but apparently not too many others have yet. If I'm not mistaken, some of the criticism in the early reviews of Boswell's book came from those sympathetic to the gay cause, even from gays themselves. It is easy to make outspoken Christian activists the heavies for injustices brought agains gays. But I think the resistance to gays is more pervasive than that. Rightly or wrongly, the general public is less than sympathetic to the gay rights cause. There are many people whose disdain for the gay lifestyle stems from asthetics rather than any religious doctrine. In fact, I think homophobia has its roots in asthetic considerations for most people. Doctrines are ofen used to justify and objectivfy those feelings of disdain. I think that Boswell's book has simply not had enought influence yet to push opposing Scholars into devoting time to a response. It may be a poor excuse for not responding (pragmatically rather than intellectually justified), but that's human nature. Would you be so concerned about what Jerry Falwell says if you thought no one was listening to him? Probably not. There would be other things to demand your attention. I think that as Boswell's ideas continue to be championed by gays and are pushed more and more into the mainstream, the responses from conservative Christian scholars will come. It's too early for you to stand on Boswell's book and claim victory. >This is unfortunate, and it serves no one well in the long run. >Scholarship never advances in a vacuum. I am sure that most people >who have read the book would like nothing more than to see some >intelligent responses from the Christian mainstream and the dialogue >which it would engender. To present evidence against Boswell's own >and argue it persuasively, is not necessarily to be labelled a >"homophobe", nor do I think that label would dissuade anyone with a >serious opinion of the work from presenting it. I agree whole heartedly with the first two sentences here, but I have a very hard time believing the rest of it, based on my own attempt at dialogue in net.motss. I'm sure you remember that, Steve. Do you want my perception of that experience? You invoke a double standard when you demand that Christians should lay their biblical beliefs that homosexual practice is immoral on the table for open discussion while, at the same time, refusing to do so (even on a non-religious basis) in net.motss. I took my first (and probably last) plunge into discussion in net.motss by responding to a fellow who claimed a scientific basis for homosexual behaviour (i.e. that it is an intrisic part of their nature). I took issue with the the idea that all homosexuals could claim this as a justification for their sexual preference. Then you entered the debate, Steve (as well as others who sent me hate mail and insulted me in followup articles--you were more reasonable, however). At first you ignored the substance of my article and dismissed my argument as being religiously based simply because you knew I was an evangelical Christian from articles I posted in other newsgroups. When I took issue with that we exchanged a few articles in discussion. You entered the discussion claiming not to care whether homosexuality was intrinsic or nurtured. Yet when I suggested a means for nurturing based on an established psychological model of reinforcing and negating filters, you simply ridiculed it; claiming I made the whole thing up. It wasn't long before I realized that discussion of the moral issues connected with homosexuality was very unwelcome in net.motss. When I tried to bow out of the discusion early, you called me a coward; claiming I started the discussion and should finish it. I did continue for another round or two. In response to my last article (Really!) you indicated that we could continue our discussion "off line" (i.e. by mail). I sent you mail indicating that I was willing to do this and asking if you really meant what you said. You changed your mind because "we don't have much in common". I agree that we probably don't have much in common with regard to the issue at hand, but that is the whole impetus for discussion. You ignored my last letter to you, I think. The only thing I could gather from your actions and those of others in net.motss is that your main desire was to stifle opposing argument in that newsgroup. You don't put your views of homosexuality on the table for examination as readily as you expect "Christianoids" to put theirs up. My impression is that you are for open and serious discussion only as long it is not on your turf and the "ball" is in your opponent's court. When you think you have good reason that discussion will advance your cause, you are all for it. When you are asked to consider your own beliefs and values about the subject in question, it's a different story. >So, Paul, the ball is squarely in the Church's court. As good as >are Ron Rizzo's summaries of the book and lectures by Boswell, I >invite you again to pick up the original, if you intend to address >its points. It's in most college and religious bookstores (at least >the liberal Seabury kinds) as well as your public library. The reference >is: Boswell, John, "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality", >University of Chicago Press, 1980. I agree that the ball is in the Church's court. I'm telling you why I think it has not been tossed back as quickly as you would like. Looking through Ron's summaries, I have found enough exegetical errors to satisfy me personally that Boswell's argument is probably not very sound. Yet I realize that I'm going to have to peruse the book to see if Boswell is really making those mistakes. Ron put a convenient disclaimer in his articles saying that all errors in fact and interpretation belong to him and not Boswell. So responding to Ron's articles without reading the book would probably be wasted effort. Yet it will take more time and effort to do it right. On the other side of the coin, why are so many gays who champion Boswell, holding up summaries like this as if they ought to convice Christians that he is right? If the summaries to not constitute solid argument in themselves (as inferred by Ron's disclaimer) why are opponents blamed for not responding to them? The only convincing value the summaries have is that Christians ought to consider the book; not that they should be convinced that Boswell is right. Yet Richard Brower and even Ron defintitely seem to be expecting the latter as well as the former. I am not making any promises here to post a detailed examination of Boswell's argument. (If I do, I'm sure not going to post in in net.motss). It's bound to be a long drawn out debate in any case. Those kind really wear me out though they are beneficial to me as a learning experience. I will look fruther into Boswell's argument just to satisfy myself, however. I can promise you that. I can't do anything about how other Christians respond to (or ignore) Boswell. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (02/10/85)
Uh, Paul, you dredged up a lot of old stuff in your reply to me unrelated
to this particular issue, so I'll take that up with you "off-line", as we
like to say.
Regarding the purpose of summaries, I would expect them to act much like
trailers for movies, to stir up interest in actually reading Boswell's work.
On the more mundane level of debate, they also are doubtlessly an attempt
to address those peculiar few who are wont to use quotes from the Bible
even more carelessly. I don't think that Ron Rizzo assumes that the
debate is finished, only that it has not been addressed, and the arguments
used previously need not be responded to still one more time.
The publication of Boswell's work was a major event in 1980. It was
reviewed in most newspapers and literary magazines. Why then the lack
of attention from any of the Christian press? Clearly it cannot be
their lack of interest in the subject. No one is claiming "victory"
as you describe, but the silence is disturbing (wasn't it Thomas More who
claimed that "silence implies assent"? That didn't help him either.)
In any event, you are right to note that with enough pressure and PR,
the work will eventually have to be addressed. I hope this has encouraged
you.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbnccv.ARPAlarry@cci-bdc.UUCP (Larry DeLuca) (02/11/85)
> > >This is unfortunate, and it serves no one well in the long run. > >Scholarship never advances in a vacuum. I am sure that most people > >who have read the book would like nothing more than to see some > >intelligent responses from the Christian mainstream and the dialogue > >which it would engender. To present evidence against Boswell's own > >and argue it persuasively, is not necessarily to be labelled a > >"homophobe", nor do I think that label would dissuade anyone with a > >serious opinion of the work from presenting it. > > I agree whole heartedly with the first two sentences here, but I have a > very hard time believing the rest of it, based on my own attempt at > dialogue in net.motss. I'm sure you remember that, Steve. Do you > want my perception of that experience? > > You invoke a double standard when you demand that Christians should > lay their biblical beliefs that homosexual practice is immoral on the > table for open discussion while, at the same time, refusing to do so > (even on a non-religious basis) in net.motss. I took my first (and > probably last) plunge into discussion in net.motss by responding to > a fellow who claimed a scientific basis for homosexual behaviour (i.e. > that it is an intrisic part of their nature). I took issue with the > the idea that all homosexuals could claim this as a justification for > their sexual preference. > i think the problem here is a misconception of the purpose of net.motss. its purpose in the first posting (which i was mailed a copy of when i sent a copy of a reply to an article in net.religion.christian) clearly is stated as a forum for the discussion of gay-related issues and NOT for debating the right or wrong of homosexuality... it's much like net.women.only in that respect...sort of a safe haven where people don't have to worry about being attacked for the most part -- maybe what is needed is an equivalent newsgroup -- say net.christian.only? > Then you entered the debate, Steve (as well as others who sent me > hate mail and insulted me in followup articles--you were more reasonable, > however). At first you ignored the substance of my article and dismissed > my argument as being religiously based simply because you knew I was > an evangelical Christian from articles I posted in other newsgroups. > When I took issue with that we exchanged a few articles in discussion. > You entered the discussion claiming not to care whether homosexuality > was intrinsic or nurtured. Yet when I suggested a means for nurturing > based on an established psychological model of reinforcing and negating > filters, you simply ridiculed it; claiming I made the whole thing up. > if you saw my posting to net.religion.christian (and i'm generally not a flaming politically correct faggot championing 'the cause') i think it a good example that people react violently when threatened. i assume you would respond in a similar manner if someone questioned your belief in the church or labelled your sexual preference invalid (or had given you that impression). > It wasn't long before I realized that discussion of the moral issues > connected with homosexuality was very unwelcome in net.motss. When I > tried to bow out of the discusion early, you called me a coward; > claiming I started the discussion and should finish it. I did continue > for another round or two. In response to my last article (Really!) > you indicated that we could continue our discussion "off line" (i.e. > by mail). I sent you mail indicating that I was willing to do this > and asking if you really meant what you said. You changed your mind > because "we don't have much in common". I agree that we probably don't > have much in common with regard to the issue at hand, but that is > the whole impetus for discussion. You ignored my last letter to you, > I think. > > The only thing I could gather from your actions and those of others in > net.motss is that your main desire was to stifle opposing argument in > that newsgroup. You don't put your views of homosexuality on the table > for examination as readily as you expect "Christianoids" to put theirs up. > My impression is that you are for open and serious discussion only as > long it is not on your turf and the "ball" is in your opponent's court. > When you think you have good reason that discussion will advance your > cause, you are all for it. When you are asked to consider your own beliefs > and values about the subject in question, it's a different story. > i think the main reason for wanting to stifle the argument in net.motss is that the entire newsgroup could become too easily filled up by it and people who wanted to discuss other aspects of sexuality or just simply ANYTHING would be driven off the list by a few people whose names would go down in the history of net.flame anyway. a great many of us came from 'good catholic families' and the like, and have all argued the positions in our heads, with our souls, within our families. many of us have talked to our priests and ministers, with mixed results. a great many of us have forsaken religion altogether because it has nothing to offer us, save salvation on its terms. i have a hard time dealing with Christians because despite the fact that i think the majority of them that i have met that have attacked me straight out speak from a position of ignorance (to say the least) they DO believe very sincerely in what they're saying and believe that this is the only way they can help you (and they are concerned for you). it's too bad we can't quell some of the more negative aspects of the Christian movement but preserve this concern for the human condition it seems to instill in the people it touches. > >So, Paul, the ball is squarely in the Church's court. As good as > >are Ron Rizzo's summaries of the book and lectures by Boswell, I > >invite you again to pick up the original, if you intend to address > >its points. It's in most college and religious bookstores (at least > >the liberal Seabury kinds) as well as your public library. The reference > >is: Boswell, John, "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality", > >University of Chicago Press, 1980. > > I agree that the ball is in the Church's court. I'm telling you why I > think it has not been tossed back as quickly as you would like. Looking > through Ron's summaries, I have found enough exegetical errors to satisfy > me personally that Boswell's argument is probably not very sound. Yet > I realize that I'm going to have to peruse the book to see if Boswell > is really making those mistakes. Ron put a convenient disclaimer in his > articles saying that all errors in fact and interpretation belong to > him and not Boswell. So responding to Ron's articles without reading > the book would probably be wasted effort. Yet it will take more time > and effort to do it right. On the other side of the coin, why are so > many gays who champion Boswell, holding up summaries like this as if > they ought to convice Christians that he is right? If the summaries > to not constitute solid argument in themselves (as inferred by Ron's > disclaimer) why are opponents blamed for not responding to them? The > only convincing value the summaries have is that Christians ought to > consider the book; not that they should be convinced that Boswell is > right. Yet Richard Brower and even Ron defintitely seem to be expecting > the latter as well as the former. > i think i know what you're feeling here. do you feel trapped? like someone is trying to trip you up? like someone is trying to shut you up? that's how we've felt for years and years. every time we get into any kind of argument with the church. while i sympathize with your position (having been trapped in corners like it before) i can't help but use it as an opportunity to point out the other side of the coin -- if the facts don't fit the faith, simply ignore them. the problem once again is that the argument at this point will always boil down ultimately to an attack on one group or the other's deep set of beliefs. when any such attack is launched it will be treated as such -- by either side. though this prevents much discussion that might otherwise clear things up, it is unfortunately very much a part of our makeup. > I am not making any promises here to post a detailed examination of > Boswell's argument. (If I do, I'm sure not going to post in in net.motss). > It's bound to be a long drawn out debate in any case. Those kind really > wear me out though they are beneficial to me as a learning experience. > I will look fruther into Boswell's argument just to satisfy myself, > however. I can promise you that. I can't do anything about how other > Christians respond to (or ignore) Boswell. > -- > > Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd it would be nice if you did post your personal findings on Boswell's arguments (if you think you can withstand the flamage). while i may not agree with your views, i would be interested in hearing them. larry... -- uucp: ..mit-eddie!cybvax0!cci-bdc!larry arpa: henrik@mit-mc.ARPA This mind intentionally left blank.
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (02/12/85)
[From Steve Dyer:] >Uh, Paul, you dredged up a lot of old stuff in your reply to me unrelated >to this particular issue, so I'll take that up with you "off-line", as we >like to say. Whether or not it's unrelated to the issue of communication on these sorts of issues is a matter of perspective, I guess. I was giving you my perspective. "Off-line" it is, then. >Regarding the purpose of summaries, I would expect them to act much like >trailers for movies, to stir up interest in actually reading Boswell's work. >On the more mundane level of debate, they also are doubtlessly an attempt >to address those peculiar few who are wont to use quotes from the Bible >even more carelessly. I don't think that Ron Rizzo assumes that the >debate is finished, only that it has not been addressed, and the arguments >used previously need not be responded to still one more time. Fine, I agree that if Christians are going to oppose homosexual practice on biblical grounds they should answer Boswell's arguments and not ignore them. It did seem like Richard Brower expected Christians to be convinced by Ron's summary, however, and it was in response to him that this discussion has gotten started. >The publication of Boswell's work was a major event in 1980. It was >reviewed in most newspapers and literary magazines. Why then the lack >of attention from any of the Christian press? Clearly it cannot be >their lack of interest in the subject. No one is claiming "victory" >as you describe, but the silence is disturbing (wasn't it Thomas More who >claimed that "silence implies assent"? That didn't help him either.) >In any event, you are right to note that with enough pressure and PR, >the work will eventually have to be addressed. I hope this has encouraged >you. While it is technically true that there has been no response to Boswell's book, it's not true that his arguments have not been taken in to account. There is one book that appears to have anticipated Boswell's book: _What You Should Know About Homosexuality_, Edited by Charles W. Keysor Zondervan, 1979 220pp. $6.95 (paper) Each chapter is written by a different person qualified to write in the particular areas of Old Testament, New Testament, Church History, Biology and Psychology, Civil Rights, and Church Ministry. Keysor is the founder of *Good News* magazine, a forum for evangelical renewal in the United Methodist Church. While the book is obviously not a direct response to Boswell's book, one of the authors does respond to some Boswell's previous writing in the United Methodist publication *News*. The rest of the book seems to pretty much deal with the same issues Boswell raises. It will be be interesting to see if Boswell takes the argument of this book into account. There probably wasn't time. The manuscript of Boswell's book was probably in its final form by the time this book came out. Still, it should provide a good contrast to Boswell. There are some very strong admonitions against homophobic attitudes in the book and critique of the bad attitude the Church has had toward gays. A much needed madate for changes in the Church here. Anyway, one interesting thing in the book was the reference to Boswell as a clergyman. Is this true? In what church was he ordained? Did he leave the ministry to take his post at Yale? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd ... or is it Paul DuBois? Oh! Now *I'm* confused!
larryg@teklds.UUCP (Larry Gardner) (02/21/85)
Well Steve, (and anyone else interested) It is almost pointless to respond to Boswell's book. If someone insists on justifying what they want to do, they will. Anyone really seeking God's heart knows right from wrong. Boswell has taken straightforward scripture and come to his own conclusions. Leviticus and Romans and all the rest are pretty plain (IN THE ENGLISH AND ORIGINAL LANGUAGE). I guess people want to think whatever they do is right, even if it is wrong. Why the push to get the Bible to approve? Jesus doesn't condemn us, we have already condemned ourselves but we have freedom by His blood if we accept HIS WAY and life. If God wanted homosexual relationships then why do people have to change their body surgically. This is an obvious statement that God didn't do it right. To men and two women physically are not made for each other. karen
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (02/22/85)
In article <343@teklds.UUCP> larryg@teklds.UUCP (Karen Clark) writes: > >Well Steve, > >(and anyone else interested) > >It is almost pointless to respond to Boswell's book. If someone insists >on justifying what they want to do, they will. Anyone really seeking >God's heart knows right from wrong. Boswell has taken straightforward >scripture and come to his own conclusions. Leviticus and Romans and all >the rest are pretty plain (IN THE ENGLISH AND ORIGINAL LANGUAGE). I >guess people want to think whatever they do is right, even if it is >wrong. Why the push to get the Bible to approve? > >Jesus doesn't condemn us, we have already condemned ourselves but >we have freedom by His blood if we accept HIS WAY and life. > >If God wanted homosexual relationships then why do people have to >change their body surgically. This is an obvious statement that >God didn't do it right. To men and two women physically are >not made for each other. > >karen I must protest. Karen, you demonstrate an amazing insensitivity and an even more amazing naivete. Surgical modifications are NOT required for homosexual relationships. We are talking about HUMAN BEINGS here, Karen. We are also talking about salvation by grace. Do you ever gossip? Do you ever find yourself hating someone who hurts you? These things are mentioned in the same context as murder, in the admonitions Paul makes against sexual immorality. If you do these things, it does not invalidate your salvation. Jesus' death on the cross was complete and perfect absolution for ALL your sins. Note that the Apostles were constantly, humbly confessing that they continued to sin, in thought and deed. They repented. They tried to change with the Lord's help. They sometimes managed. These were men and women who had SEEN the Lord, who had SPOKEN with Him and who had been taught by Him in the flesh. Even if we hold Homosexuality to be sinful, we cannot and must not drive those we call sinners from the Lord. Boswell's book IS important. We need to make certain that we are not imposing our own legalism where it ought not be. We are warned against the legalism which Jesus called the Sin of the Pharisee. If Boswell has found a place where we have been inventing laws and by them, driving away those whom the Lord has called, then we MUST make certain that we do not continue to interpose our legalism between sinners and their salvation. It is important because we need to determine for certain whether or not that authority of Scripture does indeed explicitly prohibit homosexuality. As a final note. We are enabled to obey the Law which the Lord has written in our hearts, by His grace and the power of the Holy Spirit. How can we expect those who are NOT saved and do not have that power to help them, to obey the Law which we ourselves cannot consistently follow? I do not mean that we should condone immorality. However, the best proof we can make is to be an example. What kind of example do we make of love when it consists of shouting at people that they are damned, for something which they do not consider to be wrong. Hutch
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (02/22/85)
>Well Steve, > >(and anyone else interested) > >It is almost pointless to respond to Boswell's book. Karen, A response to Boswell's book is not pointless. I think it's rather necessary. >If someone insists on justifying what they want to do, they will. The same could be said about those who think responding to Boswell is pointless. If, for the sake of argument, Boswell is right (and you haven't shown that he isn't) then you are in the position of justifying your own beliefs. What you are talking about here is people who will not listen to an opposing view and respond accordingly. It is possible for you and I to be guilty of that as well as Boswell. If it is ever going to be determined which, it is necessary to respond to one another's arguments; not simply accuse the other of trying to justify their position when they really know better. >Anyone really seeking God's heart knows right from wrong. Knowing right and wrong involves more than "seeking God's heart" (there is no precise definition for that term, so I think it needs to be qualified). People have different ideas about what seeking God's heart means. >Boswell has taken straightforward >scripture and come to his own conclusions. Leviticus and Romans and all >the rest are pretty plain (IN THE ENGLISH AND ORIGINAL LANGUAGE). I >guess people want to think whatever they do is right, even if it is >wrong. Why the push to get the Bible to approve? This is your conclusion, which is missing any supporting argument. You and those who champion Boswell's view are always going to talk past each other unless you deal with the content of each other's argument. I doubt that Steve, Ron, or even John Boswell are pushing to get the Bible to approve. I don't think they accept the Bible as the "Word of God" in the same way you and I would (that is the issue that lies under the one of whether or not Boswell is right about what the Bible teaches). I have the feeling that if Boswell's hermenutics were shown to be false, most gays wouldn't care. They are just trying to use this to chip at the foundation of your position, not necessarily support their own (there is a difference). But the point is that if we care whether or not our position on Scripture is really sound, then we need to check our Boswell's argument for ourselves. I know most of us do not have the time to persue every argument first hand, but there are others who have tried. In a previous posting I mentioned Keysor's edition of "What You Should Know About Homosexuality" which seems to have anticipated Boswell's book. At least do some reading and answer the arguments instead of just implying your opponent should know better. >Jesus doesn't condemn us, we have already condemned ourselves but >we have freedom by His blood if we accept HIS WAY and life. I agree. But the details of what HIS WAY is are not always clear and obvious. You are acting as if they are. >If God wanted homosexual relationships then why do people have to >change their body surgically. This is an obvious statement that >God didn't do it right. To men and two women physically are >not made for each other. This is going to get you a lot of flames, I know it. Homosexuals to not change their bodies surgically, some transexuals do. There's a difference. Karen, I am not trying to side against you here on the biblical basis of whether or not homosexuality is morally right. I am trying to illustrate some principles for discussion in this news group that will make it a beneficial forum for discussion. I don't want it to take on the character of net.religion. I care a lot more about this group than that one. This does not mean that we cannot strongly disagree with another's point of view. But we are only going to generate wasted heat if we do not focus on the *content* of what people are saying instead of the people themselves. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (02/22/85)
In article <343@teklds.UUCP> larryg@teklds.UUCP (Karen Clark) writes: >If God wanted homosexual relationships then why do people have to >change their body surgically. This is an obvious statement that >God didn't do it right. To men and two women physically are >not made for each other. > >karen Those who surgically change their bodies from one sex to another are not necessarily homosexuals. In fact, I know of several cases that have only become homosexual *after* their operations. And as for your contention that (I assume you meant "two men" rather than "to men") men are not physically made for each other, I can assure you that that is definately not true... I will not speak for women, but several whom I have met seem to feel that two women are made for each other. This particular argument probabally doesn't belong in n.r.c, but you posted your original lies here and I wanted to make sure that they were challenged before the same audience. -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
johnson@hplabsc.UUCP (Mark Scott Johnson) (02/26/85)
>If God wanted homosexual relationships then why do people have to >change their body surgically. I hope this is not a reference to the myth that Lesbians are really men in women's bodies and that gay men are really women in men's bodies. I'd hate to think that anyone educated enough to be using a computer network could be so unknowledgeable. > To [sic] men and two women physically are >not made for each other. Not made for making babies, true. But other than that, you speaketh of what you knoweth not. -- Mark Scott Johnson CSnet: Johnson%hplabs@csnet-relay.csnet ARPAnet: Johnson%hplabs@csnet-relay.arpa USENET: {allegra,decvax,Shasta,ucbvax}!hplabs!johnson
larry@cci-bdc.UUCP (Larry DeLuca) (02/28/85)
> we have freedom by His blood if we accept HIS WAY and life. > > If God wanted homosexual relationships then why do people have to > change their body surgically. This is an obvious statement that > God didn't do it right. To men and two women physically are > not made for each other. > > karen come off it, karen... what do you know about it all, anyway... there's more to love than just sex (didn't they teach you that in bible school?????)... my lover's hands are the same as a woman's (just bigger and stronger) and i can hold them equally well... while his face has more hair than a woman's (some women's :-) ) his mouth can speak truth and lies, his eyes allow me to look into his soul, and his nose captures the beautiful essence of a spring day as well as any woman's... i can hold him close, i can look at him...just hearing his voice on the telephone (he lives a long way away and we spend a fortune in phone calls and long distance travel) is enough to make my day, and that isn't anything sexual, it's just because he makes me feel good... his voice, though deeper, is just as soothing as that of any kind female i have known... on top of that, we don't have any problems in bed, either...but if we did, i sure as hell wouldn't leave him over that... to me it doesn't matter what sex a person is (other than on the basis of pure physical attraction --- and i am the way i am, and god made me that way, and therefore i am good), it matters if the person is kind, if they care, if they're willing to go that extra mile to help a total stranger for no reason other than it needs to be done... i hope you don't think love is all about two sets of genitalia that collide when the lights are off...if you do, i feel sorry for you... larry... -- uucp: ..mit-eddie!cybvax0!cci-bdc!larry arpa: henrik@mit-mc.ARPA This mind intentionally left blank.
larryg@teklds.UUCP (Larry Gardner) (03/06/85)
Larry, I agree that love has very little to do with sex. The point is actually that if someone is claiming to be a follower of Jesus and they have a lover (without being married to them) then they are deceiving themselves. If you make no claim to being a christian then there is no inconsistency in your life. The principle of having sex-change operations is what I was referring to. A person is saying that God made a mistake. They are saying that they can't be satisfied with who they are but must become another sex to be happy. Jesus wants us to accept ourselves the way He made us and the way He wants to make us. Homosexuality is along the same principle. Sure their can be love between the same sex, but to have it become sexual isn't love anymore it is lust. Jesus offers something mor; Jesus wants to be your lover, to fulfill all your needs, right where you are if you will accept His love. karen
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (03/07/85)
In article <415@teklds.UUCP> larryg@teklds.UUCP (Karen Clark) writes: >Larry, >The principle of having sex-change operations is what I was referring >to. A person is saying that God made a mistake. They are saying that >they can't be satisfied with who they are but must become another sex >to be happy. Jesus wants us to accept ourselves the way He made us >and the way He wants to make us. Have you met any Transsexuals? Do you have any idea of the difficulty most of them have had trying to live their lives as men or women when they feel like women or men respectively? Can you appreciate the years of pain and conflict and the total disruption of their lives? You are very cruel and are trying to justify yourself "in the name of Jesus". >Homosexuality is along the same principle. Sure their can be love >between the same sex, but to have it become sexual isn't love anymore >it is lust. You do not know what you are talking about. You are making statements in the above two sentences the are complete fabrications. Not only is my personal relationship based on love, but I know of hundreds of others that are also based on love. Isn't there a comandment about bearing false witness against your neighbor? >Jesus offers something mor; Jesus wants to be your lover, >to fulfill all your needs, right where you are if you will accept >His love. > >karen Were you a selfrightous prig before you became a Christian, or has it grown on you like a fungus? Your marriage is OK and it is OK for you to have sex within it, right? Unless other people have relationships exactly like yours, they have no valid relationships, right? WRONG! Every couple is different and needs to build a unique relationship, and even though keep claiming gay people are evil, we have existed (read 'been made by God') for as long as there are historical records. Under your theory, why hasn't God quit making us or at least reduced the number of us he makes? One in every six men is gay or bisexual according to the sex researchers... He must like us alot. May your God really enter your heart someday, -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (03/09/85)
In article <415@teklds.UUCP> larryg@teklds.UUCP (Karen Clark) writes: >Homosexuality is along the same principle. Sure their can be love >between the same sex, but to have it become sexual isn't love anymore >it is lust. Jesus offers something more; Jesus wants to be your lover, >to fulfill all your needs, right where you are if you will accept >His love. > >karen I am not convinced that this is valid. If a man and a woman are in love, and choose to marry according to the rules of their culture, and then decide to have sex, by your argument, it is now lust and no longer love. I will forestall the eventual complaint and admit that if a man and woman have sex only in order to procreate, and take no pleasure of it, then lust may not be involved. Sounds dreadful. But if you admit that husband and wife can have sex without the degradation of their love into lust, then you have made the cultural institution of marriage the arbiter of whether or not sex is wrong. The only possible reason by which a man and man, or woman and woman, having chosen to love one another, would then be stayed from realizing the sexual expression of their love, is that the culture forbids it. We, as Christians, are often called to overthrow those institutional chains with which our cultures bind us. For instance, we are called to strive against war, to be peacemakers. Yet our culture has war deeply ingrained in its every fibre. We know that many things we are called to fight against aren't necessarily explicit in the scriptures. How can you say that the cultural censure of homosexual marriages isn't one of these areas? Notes: First, I am not necessarily endorsing homosexual marriages. I am merely saying that it isn't clear from scripture that it is something we should oppose. Prayre brings no clear answer either. All I ever got for my efforts was to be informed that homosexuality is not right for me, and it was none of my business if it was right for others. Second, you haven't made it clear why lust is wrong. I offer that it is wrong because in its normal unalloyed form, it prevents the luster from seeing the lustee as a real person, another precious instance of the image of God.
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/10/85)
Question: why is a sex change operation any more upsetting to God than an operation to correct a cleft palate, or spinal disorders, or any number of conditions that one might be concerned with? Any scriptural reference that God really cares about ``maleness'' and ``femaleness' per se anyway? Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (03/11/85)
>>Homosexuality is along the same principle. Sure their can be love >>between the same sex, but to have it become sexual isn't love anymore >>it is lust. >> >>karen This statement is not correct. Sexual relationships are no more lustful be- tween MOTSS and MOTOS. Lust is a property of the relationship, not of the sexes of those engaging in it. Like I said in an earlier posting, this is society's attack on homosexuals. -- ... hey, we've gotta get out of this place, there's got to be something better than this ... Greg Skinner (gregbo) {allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo gregbo%houxm.uucp@harvard.arpa
larry@cci-bdc.UUCP (Larry DeLuca) (03/19/85)
> > Larry, > > > The principle of having sex-change operations is what I was referring > to. A person is saying that God made a mistake. They are saying that > they can't be satisfied with who they are but must become another sex > to be happy. Jesus wants us to accept ourselves the way He made us > and the way He wants to make us. > though it is a bit more radical, that's like denying people the right to dye their hair...while i have never had any transsexual urges myself, i have a friend who is a transsexual (just about all the way there, too). from what she's said, she's happier now than she ever was. god wanted us to live as good people, but he wanted us to be happy as well, no? > Homosexuality is along the same principle. Sure their can be love > between the same sex, but to have it become sexual isn't love anymore > it is lust. Jesus offers something mor; Jesus wants to be your lover, > to fulfill all your needs, right where you are if you will accept > His love. > but that's the point! yes, there is lust, yes, there is passion. but all of that grows out of an respect and love for him. sex makes us both happy, but it's overall a small part of everything. i'd marry him if i could, but the reason i don't is because the ceremony would be perceived more as a mockery than what it truly is, a joining of two people in love and faith. because of that i see more harm than good coming of it, so i choose not to. this doesn't diminish my feeling for him at all, it's just unfortunate. > karen larry... -- uucp: ..mit-eddie!cybvax0!cci-bdc!larry arpa: henrik@mit-mc.ARPA This mind intentionally left blank.