mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (01/31/85)
In article <128@cci-bdc.UUCP> larry@cci-bdc.UUCP (Larry DeLuca) writes: >we spend a lot of time wondering whether the greek was translated >correctly...what about the other languages before it? what about the >oral tradition that surely started long before...? Oral transmission isn't nearly as important in NT texts as it is with the OT. Evidence in nearly all the Gospels indicates less than a generation between the major events and the writing of the text; the consistent use of the the first person throughout the travels of Paul indicates that Luke was a witness to much of what he describes. All the evidence suggests that the NT has always been written in Greek, and in any case, the only other language involved is Aramaic. >who's to say what was and wasn't implemented for practicality as opposed >to true objections on god's part (a good portion of the kosher laws, for >example...if you tell people they'll get sick if they eat uncooked pork >they ignore you -- tell them god will kill you for it and they listen >up real fast)... Current experience, not to mention OT testimony, indicates that the latter techinque isn't particularly effective; I might also add that the proposed explanation is unprovable rationalization. One of my orthodox friends holds that at least part of the reason for the dietary laws is to mark the jews off as a special people; one could draw an analogy to flags and other heraldic devices, where the content of the sign is important, not for its intrinsic meaning, but because it serves to identify and to differentiate. >it doesn't seem to make much sense that "a man shall not lie with a >man as with a woman. it is an abomination." should mean that male >homosexuality is inpermissible, but that there is no mention of lesbian >sexual practices (are lesbians a product of the twentieth century, or >is it the men that wrote the bible got off on watching two women go >at it, or is it just that they (being shepherds) were so busy molesting >the sheep (which is also not mentioned) that they didn't notice...? First of all, I believe bestiality is in fact specifically prohibited (although I admit that I can't cite a passage: any ideas, anyone?). Second, one obvious reason why the OT concerns itself with male homosexuality is that it had important ritual connotations in many other semetic religions. One can make a strong argument from the spirit of the law that the prohibition against male homosexuality should extend to lesbianism as well. Could we please leave "homophobia" in net.motss? One can certainly argue that the part of <text> that one doesn't like were added later by <evil person>, and are not original, but such arguments should be taken with massive blocks of salt, since they are generally not amenable to investigation. Besides, the word has consistently been used to refer to those who find homosexuality immoral in a pejorative fashion. I find this unreasonable one two grounds: (1) it interferes with intellegent argument, and (2) it incorrectly implies that the moral repugnance arises from other psychological causes. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
larry@cci-bdc.UUCP (Larry DeLuca) (02/01/85)
> In article <128@cci-bdc.UUCP> larry@cci-bdc.UUCP (Larry DeLuca) writes: > > >we spend a lot of time wondering whether the greek was translated > >correctly...what about the other languages before it? what about the > >oral tradition that surely started long before...? > > Oral transmission isn't nearly as important in NT texts as it is with the OT. > Evidence in nearly all the Gospels indicates less than a generation between > the major events and the writing of the text; the consistent use of the the > first person throughout the travels of Paul indicates that Luke was a witness > to much of what he describes. All the evidence suggests that the NT has > always been written in Greek, and in any case, the only other language > involved is Aramaic. > very true...but all of the examples i have referred from are things inferred from the Old Testament... > >who's to say what was and wasn't implemented for practicality as opposed > >to true objections on god's part (a good portion of the kosher laws, for > >example...if you tell people they'll get sick if they eat uncooked pork > >they ignore you -- tell them god will kill you for it and they listen > >up real fast)... > > Current experience, not to mention OT testimony, indicates that the latter > techinque isn't particularly effective; I might also add that the proposed > explanation is unprovable rationalization. One of my orthodox friends holds > that at least part of the reason for the dietary laws is to mark the jews off > as a special people; one could draw an analogy to flags and other heraldic > devices, where the content of the sign is important, not for its intrinsic > meaning, but because it serves to identify and to differentiate. > i stand corrected...just an opinion, and if you add the incentive of becoming a "chosen person" (or staying that way) the offer does become much more attractive... > >it doesn't seem to make much sense that "a man shall not lie with a > >man as with a woman. it is an abomination." should mean that male > >homosexuality is inpermissible, but that there is no mention of lesbian > >sexual practices (are lesbians a product of the twentieth century, or > >is it the men that wrote the bible got off on watching two women go > >at it, or is it just that they (being shepherds) were so busy molesting > >the sheep (which is also not mentioned) that they didn't notice...? > > First of all, I believe bestiality is in fact specifically prohibited > (although I admit that I can't cite a passage: any ideas, anyone?). Second, > one obvious reason why the OT concerns itself with male homosexuality is that > it had important ritual connotations in many other semetic religions. One > can make a strong argument from the spirit of the law that the prohibition > against male homosexuality should extend to lesbianism as well. > > Could we please leave "homophobia" in net.motss? One can certainly argue > that the part of <text> that one doesn't like were added later by <evil > person>, and are not original, but such arguments should be taken with > massive blocks of salt, since they are generally not amenable to > investigation. Besides, the word has consistently been used to refer to > those who find homosexuality immoral in a pejorative fashion. I find this > unreasonable one two grounds: (1) it interferes with intellegent argument, > and (2) it incorrectly implies that the moral repugnance arises from other > psychological causes. > what you're saying, though, is that because we can't investigate the possibility that part (or maybe all) of the text is fraudulent we should just ignore it and move from there. that's perfectly fine with me. there's a lot of good advice in that book, and some useful allegory. at the same time, though, the book itself should be taken with massive blocks of salt since it probably isn't (as i had been taught) the EXACT words you-know-who sent down from you-know-where (we were given to believe genesis, et. al. were merely scribes for the almighty, and he appeared to them to dictate the bible much like a boss dictates a letter)... i.e., the "Christian" thing to do seems to give blessing wherever the bible says to (who can it hurt, and if god asks, tell him it's in the book), and to be very hesitant to knock others' choices (part of treating thy neighbor as thyself...you (general you) wouldn't want anyone knocking your choices, would you?)... larry... > Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** -- uucp: ..mit-eddie!cybvax0!cci-bdc!larry arpa: henrik@mit-mc.ARPA This mind intentionally left blank.
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (02/06/85)
In article <2909@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: >Could we please leave "homophobia" in net.motss? >Besides, the word has consistently been used to refer to >those who find homosexuality immoral in a pejorative fashion. I find this >unreasonable one two grounds: (1) it interferes with intellegent argument, >and (2) it incorrectly implies that the moral repugnance arises from other >psychological causes. > >Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe No. The term homophobia needs to be applied where it is found, and one finds more homophobia here in Net.religion.Christian than one finds anyplace else. Also, the term homophobia makes no judgement as to why you are homophobic, just that you are! You claim that you are homophobic because you read it in a book (although there are people who read the same book and didn't catch it), I claim that it makes no difference why you are a homophobe just that you should get over it (or at least not allow it to to have any effects on your actions). -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower