brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (01/30/85)
OK, I surrender. People have told me before that trying to carry on
a reasoned argument with any kind of a Christian fundamentalist is
not possible, but I had to try for a while. But I'll give up now,
really. (I may read this for some time in the future, but I'll quit
bothering trying to communicate with Christianoids, after posting this
article.)
Boswell showed that the basis for the current homophobic crisis was
some mistranslations and the thoughts of some of the 'Saints' during
the the dark ages. Well, I knew that that wouldn't change anyone's
mind. But the way I see the Christianoids twist and turn things from
the Bible has finally made me turn away in complete disgust.
Now you can pick and choose the laws in the Old Testament that you
will follow, you can lie to yourselves and others about how good you
are and how evil faggots are while you cook your Sunday ham.
Well, I claim to not being a Christian, not because I doubt the validity
of Christ's claim to being God and not because of His teachings, which seem
reasonable and self evident; but because I cannot in good conscience join
with those who are such hypocrites.
As for the fact that I cannot marry my boyfriend (we've been together
for four plus years), that is a matter of the law of the land which I
would like to see changed, but the Christianoids wouldn't allow such
changes to go through. I would have been perfectly happy to see that
Steven had medical benefits while I was sending him to school, the
tax savings during that time when he didn't have an income would have
been substantial (although we'll make up for that now that he is working),
and there will be some difficulty in probate since we are not married that
would be eased if we were married. They would rather see me starve on
the street because nobody would give me work or rent me a place to live
(as they have shown time and again by working to defeat civil rights
legislation). And of course all the time that they are trying to keep
me from having any rights to jobs or home, they keep giving me this
line that it isn't that they hate gay people...
So, go stand up in your churches and temples and pray, "Thank you Lord,
for not making me a filthy faggot like that Richard Brower character...",
but quit with the lies. You cannot love me and claim that my lifestyle
is evil. You cannot love me and claim that my relationship is invalid.
You cannot love me and refuse me jobs and housing. You cannot love me
by throwing me in jail or having me put to death. You cannot love me
and throw my brothers out of your churches (I left by myself, but I
know when I'm not wanted).
You are not fooling anyone one with this love talk, except possibly
yourselves. You are not fooling me, you are not fooling your gay
children (yes, Christianoids do have gay children who suffer their
parents beliefs the rest of their lives), and you are not fooling
good old JC.
"By their fruits, you shall know them."
--
Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems
{ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!browerwmk@ptsfa.UUCP (Bill Klein) (01/31/85)
In response to the feeling that it is the (Judeo-)Christian society that prevents same sex mariages (as it did in the previous century for Mormons who wanted multi-partner marriages) I would agree that such was in deed our past, but it need not be our future. Although they are still having sever problems with the technicalities of "non-standard" marriages you might be interested in the following excerpt from "The Parsonage News" (February 1985) "Celebrations and blessings for covenants, associations and other relationships Early in 1983, the Rt. Rev. William E. Swing, Episcopal Bishop of California, authorized the Diocessan Commission on Liturgical Renewal to consider what liturgical responsse might be appropriate to same-sex couples seeking the blessing of the Church on their commitment to each other. . . . As the work of the commission progressed, it became apparent that a rite was being developed that, while it clearly parallels much of the marriage rite, is in many ways quite distinct. 'The Celebration and Blessing of a Covenant in Love' is the result. . . . The commission earnestly hopes that those who deplore the project will at least respect the sincerity in undertaking it. They also hope that for those Christians whose needs are fulfilled by the rites they will consider these efforts worthy of them." More information on the rite and the Parsonage (an officially sponsered project of the Episcopal Diocese of California) can be obtained from: The Parsonage 555A Castro Street San Francisco, CA 94114 (415) 552-2909
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (02/01/85)
A response to Richard Brower: >OK, I surrender. People have told me before that trying to carry on >a reasoned argument with any kind of a Christian fundamentalist is >not possible, but I had to try for a while. But I'll give up now, >really. (I may read this for some time in the future, but I'll quit >bothering trying to communicate with Christianoids, after posting this >article.) > >Boswell showed that the basis for the current homophobic crisis was >some mistranslations and the thoughts of some of the 'Saints' during >the the dark ages. Well, I knew that that wouldn't change anyone's >mind. But the way I see the Christianoids twist and turn things from >the Bible has finally made me turn away in complete disgust. Is Boswell a final authority?. What makes his exegesis more sound that that of other scholars who conflict with him? True, many Christians see Boswell's arguments and can't refute them, because they don't know Greek themselves and aren't familiar with the historical data. The issue is one of trust. You would like Christians to place their trust in Boswell because you think he is right. Yet those who would disagree with him are written off as homophobes. It is valid to criticize those who stubbornly believe Boswell is wrong because they want to cling to the idea of homosexuality being a sin. That is your opinion of "Christianoids". Yet, it is equally valid to ciriticize those who start with the premise that their homosexuality must be OK and therefore the Bible must not really be saying the things about it that it appears to. If Boswell's argument were to be refuted, how many of those who champion him do you think would be convinced? I would expect none. I've collected Boswell's arguments as they have been posted to the net and I intend to examine his hermeneutics for myself. Until then I'll suspend judgement. Is that OK? Still, I get the feeling that if I come to a different conclusion I will be written off as a homosexual hater. I don't see those who agree with Boswell getting their motives or presuppositions in favor of homosexual practice by Christians brought into question. It's easy to see one who agrees with you as being more objective, I guess. >Well, I claim to not being a Christian, not because I doubt the validity >of Christ's claim to being God and not because of His teachings, which seem >reasonable and self evident; but because I cannot in good conscience join >with those who are such hypocrites. You say you don't consider yourself a Christian just because you don't like many who call themselves Christians? That's not a good reason. I'm quite embarrased and angered by many of the attitudes of many who call themselves Christians, but I wouldn't deny my own claim to be a Christian because of them. >So, go stand up in your churches and temples and pray, "Thank you Lord, >for not making me a filthy faggot like that Richard Brower character...", >but quit with the lies. You cannot love me and claim that my lifestyle >is evil. You cannot love me and claim that my relationship is invalid. >You cannot love me and refuse me jobs and housing. You cannot love me >by throwing me in jail or having me put to death. You cannot love me >and throw my brothers out of your churches (I left by myself, but I >know when I'm not wanted). I disagree that one cannot love another while thinking that something he does is sin. It's hard I'll admit, but look for yourself at Jesus' own example. I know that I sin and also that he loves you and I equally. That does not imply that he thinks our sins are OK and we shouldn't change. As for persecution by Christians--when they take judgement into their own hands--you are certainly right to call this hatred and hypocrisy. You are right that the actions of most Christians do not at all come close to the love that Jesus said we are to have for one another. But I think you are mistaken in implying that that love implies thinking that homosexual practice is fine, for the same reason that anyone who loves me does not have to think that everything I do and believe is right and acceptable to God. Anyone who believes that God approves of everything they do because he loves them is mistaken. God loves eveyone the same; no matter who they are or what they do or believe. The only thing that God calls into question is how much we love him. Jesus that those who love him will keep his commands. The question then becomes, "What are his commands?" They are not necessarily what we feel comfortable with, so we are all in danger of projecting our own will into God's, especially when we want so much to believe that what we are doing is right. >You are not fooling anyone one with this love talk, except possibly >yourselves. You are not fooling me, you are not fooling your gay >children (yes, Christianoids do have gay children who suffer their >parents beliefs the rest of their lives), and you are not fooling >good old JC. True, no one fools Jesus; neither you nor I. As for the rest of us, yes we can all be fooled and fool ourselves; you as well as I. I'll try to be open to the issue of whether or not homosexual practice is a sin. (If it really is, it isn't any worse than some I commit, I'm sure. But I'm willing to recognise my sins as sins and submit to God's remedy for them.) I intend to take Boswell's writing seriously and examine the pros and cons for myself. But do you think many homosexuals are open to the possibility that Boswell is wrong? If not, I hope you won't be so judgemental of Christians who won't face the possibility that he is right. No one is immune from stubborness and bigotry, even those in minorities. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) (02/02/85)
I cannot help but feel angry at everyone's treatment of Richard Bower.
What kind of a religion is it in which its members imply they are acting
on behalf of God by denying access to those whom its members consider
"sinners"? It has appalled me to see the "knee-jerk" dogmatic response
to the so called moral sins (homosexuality, abortion, pre-marital sex...)
that has developed from the teachings of one who ONLY preached tolerance
and refrained from judgement of ANYONE. Who are they to do what their
messiah deemed unacceptable?
The "modern day" (anything after about 500 AD) church has totally warped
the perceptions of the book they consider the most sacred (not to mention
warping the religions that came before to suit their own purposes). The
advice given in a previous article ("You be the best Christian you can,
while I'll be the best Jew") is the most logical and least dogmatic line
I've read in any of these newsgroups. I guess, however, nobody would
agree with "be the best homosexual you can".
Blessed Be.