Christians egregious error

homosexual behavior is well documented throughout the animal kingdom

So, because some bonobos or confused sheep do it, you see no reason to rise
above the animals?

it's logical that nature would produce more than one sexual orientation

Why is it logical? What benefit is it to nature to do so?

Why would humans be singled out as a species that never varies in gender or
sexual orientation? It doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense to you because you don't realize that man _is_ 'singled
out', by his creator, made in His image. Animals are incapable of sin, and
are allowed to respond to their instincts, and when those instincts are
confused, they are not held accountable. You are.

[baffflegab snipped :)]

In other words, uses reverse deduction. One could do the same with
heterosexuality, i.e. nearly half of all heterosexual marriages fail,

In Massachusetts, with gay marriages legal for a short time, they are
failing at an alarming rate. And the dirty little secret is the rate of
spousal abuse among gays.

it results in over-population, hunger and starvation and the transmission of
diseases including AIDS.

Hogwarsh. 'Overpopulation' has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
Neither do hunger and disease transmission. As far as HIV/AIDS go, a non
drug using, non-promiscuous person of any stripe, who also does not engage
in anal 'sex', has about as much chance of dying of AIDS as gettin hit on
the head by a meteorite. AIDS is not specifically a 'gay disease,' but gay
men in a western urban setting with lots of others are a powerful and
efficient vector.

It's time to shake off the archaic
"homosexuality is a sin" thinking and > welcome the rainbow of diversity of
humanity, including sexuality and > gender.

Matthew Johnson

2007-02-07 02:29:23 UTC

Post by sweepster
I'm emailing this, as well as sending it through google, since you said
you were having problems with posting.
Thanks,
Tara
--------------------------------
I was basking in the warm glow that comes after attending my
GLBT-friendly church

If if is warm glows you want, recreational drugs can give you
that. But if it is true following of Christ you want, then you should
go to a real Church, and avoid these anti-churches calling themselves
"GLBT-friendly churches".

Post by sweepster
and the thought came to me that one of the most egregious errors that
some Christians make is to oppose homosexuality. Instead of taking a
critical look at the context and translation in which homosexuality
appears in the Bible (i.e. homosexual prostitution and population
increasing in nomadic, agrarian societies), they take the passages
literally to mean the loving, longterm relationships of today.

And that 'thought' is not even worthy of the name. For example, you
give only lip service to "critical look at context and
translation". What you _really_ do is despise both the context _and_
translation, substituting ersatz context and translation in their
places.

Post by sweepster
If one looks at the nearly infinite numbers of species of animals that
have been discovered, and wait to be discovered, the abundance and
variety in nature and that homosexual behavior is well documented
throughout the animal kingdom,

Hardly. One can reach such a conclusion only if you "look at the
nearly infinite number" with a jaundiced eye, one already determined
to see what it wants to see. Predictably, this is exactly what you
did.

Post by sweepster
it's logical that nature would produce more than one sexual
orientation or two genders

Nothing 'logical' about it. And what stands out as _most_ illogical
about your incoherent argument is the application willy-nilly of
inaccurate observations in lower life forms to higher forms.

Besides: where in the animal kingdom do you _ever_ see more than two
genders?

Post by sweepster
(there are asexual reproduction and sex-changing animals).

Not among the higher orders. There is a reason for this. But I will
let George cover the details, since he is the biologist.

Post by sweepster
Why would humans be singled out as a species that never varies in
gender or sexual orientation? It doesn't make sense.

Because the premise of your statement is false. We are NOT singled
out. The overwhelming majority of higher animals engage predominantly
in heterosexual reproduction to maintain high variability in the gene
pool. Asexual reproduction cannot do this; it can't even get close.

Post by sweepster
Some claim homosexuality is a "dysfunction" because it doesn't result
in the complimentary nature of the female/male pairing or
procreation. Just because the majority of humans are heterosexual
doesn't make homosexuality a dysfunction, no more than a greater
number of babies born with brown eyes and the procreation argument is
non sequiter since the percentage of homosexuals is too small to ever
significantly impact the continuation of humans.

This argument of yours is nonsense. Why, you can't even use "non
sequitur" correctly. You can't even _spell_ it correctly. The two
traits are not at all comparable. Eye color is clearly entirely
genetic. Despite the noisy confusion in the press, there is NO
evidence that homosexuality is a Mendelian trait like eye-color.

Post by sweepster
Also, in many homosexual relationships one partner takes on the
dominant role and vice versa.

Which does not help you.

Post by sweepster
The Bible is a great collection of writings, but considering the
original documents no longer exist, much was passed down through
oratory, there are missing and destroyed parts of the copies of the
originals, committees were formed to decide what was meant in obscure
and missing passages, it's ignorant not to look at context and the
culture that existed when trying to decide what certain passages meant.

Speaking of ignorance, you just showed off an awful lot of ignorance
with this last paragraph. The passages in question all come from parts
of the Bible where these 'committees' you mention are unanimous: the
text is completely sound. There is no doubt about what Paul wrote when
he condemned homosexuality so harshly.

Nor is this the only way you showed off your woeful ignorance. You
also showed it off when you condemned failing to look at the "context
and culture" -- and then _immediately_ failed to look yourself.

If you _had_ looked at the "context and culture", you would have
noticed: the commands concerning marriage, even the Genesis Creation
accounts, _are_ ancient culture's way of exressing a fundamental truth
for all time, that the commandment of God to Man is to bridge the
divisions in nature, the very _first_ of which is the last in the
Genesis account: that between male and female.

But homosexuality is a radical _denial_ and _refusal_ to bridge this
division. That is the real reason it is so harshly condemned both by
the Deuteronomist and by St. Paul. That is why the commandment against
it is _timeless_, unlike the commandments against eating shellfish
etc.

Post by sweepster
By first deciding homosexuality is a "sin," the person then rationalizes
why it's a sin.

IOW, you consider St. Paul such a sinner. For he most certainly DID
"decide it is a sin". And he left us no room for a reasonable doubt in
1 Cor 6:9-10.

But you, no doubt, will now treat us to a parade of unreasonable
doubts. Partisans of perversity always do.

Post by sweepster
In other words, uses reverse deduction.

That is not what "reverse deduction" means. You only make a fool of
yourself by misusing terms you do not understand.

Post by sweepster
One could do the same with heterosexuality, i.e. nearly half of all
heterosexual marriages fail, it results in over-population, hunger
and starvation and the transmission of diseases including AIDS.

Who do you think you can fool with this? That is NOT the
same. Heterosexuality does not commit the same radical denial of the
division between the sexes and the call from God Himself to bridge
that divide -- even if the most commonly practiced forms of
heterosexuality in today's depraved society fail to bridge it.

So no, there is no comparison. Your practice is a radical denial of
the command, heterosexuality is not.

Post by sweepster
It's time to shake off the archaic "homosexuality is a sin" thinking and
welcome the rainbow of diversity of humanity, including sexuality and
gender.

No, it is time to shake off the fraud of "GLBT-friendly churches" and
return to basic faithfulness to the commandment of God to bridge the
divisions in nature.

--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

shegeek72

2007-02-08 03:31:40 UTC

Post by Jeff Caird
So, because some bonobos or confused sheep do it, you see no reason to rise
above the animals?

Confused sheep? :P

Humans are animals - advanced in our intelligence - but we're still
animals and share many traits, of which sexuality is probably the most
powerful, after life preservation. Judging someone on their sexual
orientation is like judging their skin color.

it's logical that nature would produce more than one sexual orientation

Why is it logical? What benefit is it to nature to do so?

It's logical because of the abundant variety in nature. Intersexed
people are examples of variety in sexuality. What benefit? What
benefit are different races, cultures, etc? They add to the variety of
the rainbow of the human race.

Why would humans be singled out as a species that never varies in gender or
sexual orientation? It doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense to you because you don't realize that man _is_ 'singled
out', by his creator, made in His image.

<snip religio-babble>

That's your interpretation of some passages in the Bible, that you're
entitled to, but don't expect others to agree.

In other words, uses reverse deduction. One could do the same with
heterosexuality, i.e. nearly half of all heterosexual marriages fail,

In Massachusetts, with gay marriages legal for a short time, they are
failing at an alarming rate.

Sounds unlikely. Source?

Post by Jeff Caird
And the dirty little secret is the rate of
spousal abuse among gays.

Haven't heard this claim for years and I've never seen substantiation.
But I'd like to see it.

Post by Jeff Caird
'Overpopulation' has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
Neither do hunger and disease transmission.

Heterosexual behavior is responsible for procreation, therefore it's
responsible for over-population. There are several STDs that can be
spread by heterosexual sex. AIDS is increasing the fastest in Africa
from_heterosexual_sex. Whereas homosexual sex does not result in
procreation and does not increase the population. And that brings up
the most logical reason for the prohibition on homosexual sex in
Leviticus, that it was a social custom needed for a nomadic, agrarian
society to increase the population. The other passages in the Bible
that deal with homosexuality are referring to homosexual prostitution,
that was prevalent.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarafoundation.org

Paul

2007-02-09 07:28:35 UTC

"shegeek72" <***@peoplepc.com> wrote in message news:wQwyh.37384$***@trnddc07...
<snip>

Post by Jeff Caird
It doesn't make sense to you because you don't realize that man _is_
'singled
out', by his creator, made in His image.

<snip religio-babble>
That's your interpretation of some passages in the Bible, that you're
entitled to, but don't expect others to agree.

Ah. Well actually, that's a pretty standard Christian understanding of the
Bible as a whole, with quite a few specific passages that state it pretty
much in those terms. So, there really isn't much "interpretation" involved.
If you're implying that "interpretation" is somehow non-standard, you need
to substantiate that. But the innuendo is out of place:

On a newsgroup titled "soc.religion.christian", we can most certainly
"expect others to agree" in general.

(Sorry to butt in, but that seemed to need saying. :-)

In Christ,
Paul

Matthew Johnson

2007-02-09 07:28:36 UTC

Post by Jeff Caird
So, because some bonobos or confused sheep do it, you see no reason to rise
above the animals?

Confused sheep? :P
Humans are animals - advanced in our intelligence - but we're still
animals and share many traits, of which sexuality is probably the most
powerful, after life preservation.

Not true. Rather, that is the purely _materialistic_ interpretation of
human nature. Humans have a compound nature that is a mediator between
the unintelligent animal creation and the intelligent, noetic
creation.

Post by shegeek72
Judging someone on their sexual orientation is like judging their
skin color.

Also not true. Of course, you would _like_ for us to fall for this
line, since it would make your campaign of deception _so_ much easier.

it's logical that nature would produce more than one sexual
orientation

Why is it logical? What benefit is it to nature to do so?

It's logical because of the abundant variety in nature.

Nothing 'logical' about _that_ non sequitur!

Post by shegeek72
Intersexed people are examples of variety in sexuality.

You call _that_ variety? No wonder you are so confused. From the
purely materialistic viewpoint you are _so_ too close too, being born
'intersexed' is a pure curse, with no benefit at all to anyone.

Post by shegeek72
What benefit? What benefit are different races, cultures, etc? They
add to the variety of the rainbow of the human race.

Interesting that you missed the chance to say what 'benefit' follows
from people being born 'intersexed'. Perhaps that is because there
_is_ no benefit from being 'intersexed'? Or perhaps that is because in
order to see any benefit whatsoever, you will have to give up the
pseudo-scientific assumptiosn your entire propaganda campaign is based
on?

Why would humans be singled out as a species that never varies in
gender or sexual orientation? It doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense to you because you don't realize that man
_is_ 'singled out', by his creator, made in His image.

Ah yes! When you don't like what your interlocutor says, by all means
snip it out! That way, you expose yourself to the entire NG as a
fraud.

Post by shegeek72
That's your interpretation of some passages in the Bible, that you're
entitled to, but don't expect others to agree.

As always, those who know what they are talking about will agree with
neither of you, but be much closer to Jeff than to you.

In other words, uses reverse deduction. One could do the same with
heterosexuality, i.e. nearly half of all heterosexual marriages fail,

In Massachusetts, with gay marriages legal for a short time, they are
failing at an alarming rate.

Sounds unlikely. Source?

Yes, it would be interesting to know what the source is. But _I_ don't
find it so unlikely.

Post by Jeff Caird
And the dirty little secret is the rate of spousal abuse among
gays.

Haven't heard this claim for years and I've never seen substantiation.
But I'd like to see it.

Post by Jeff Caird
'Overpopulation' has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
Neither do hunger and disease transmission.

Heterosexual behavior is responsible for procreation, therefore it's
responsible for over-population.

Another bizarre non-sequitur!

Post by shegeek72
There are several STDs that can be spread by heterosexual sex.

So what? There are more, and more dangerous diseases spread by
homosexual activity.

Post by shegeek72
AIDS is increasing the fastest in Africa from
_heterosexual_sex. Whereas homosexual sex does not result in
procreation and does not increase the population. And that brings up
the most logical reason for the prohibition on homosexual sex in
Leviticus, that it was a social custom needed for a nomadic, agrarian
society to increase the population.

This is a modern myth. Increasing the population took little or no
effort fromt eh lawmakers of that time. Without effective and safe
birth control, and with the strong support of custom for a couple's
natural desire to have children, the population increased well enough
without any such help, thank you very much.

The _real_ reason for the prohibition is that it subverts the very
purpose for which God placed these desires in Man: the right use of
our natural energies for overcoming the divisions in nature, starting
with that between male and female.

Post by shegeek72
The other passages in the Bible that deal with homosexuality are
referring to homosexual prostitution, that was prevalent.

This is another common myth. 1 Cor 6:9-10 condemns _all_ male
homosexual activity, not just prostitution. The belief that it
concerns only prostitution is based on irresponsibly bad philology,
motivated by a strong desire to twist the words of Scripture to say
what it _never_ said.

--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

sweepster

2007-02-13 02:49:04 UTC

On Feb 8, 11:28 pm, Paul <***@nospam.pronetisp.nospam.net> wrote:
.

Post by Paul
Ah. Well actually, that's a pretty standard Christian understanding

of the

Post by Paul
Bible as a whole, with quite a few specific passages that state it pretty
much in those terms.

Just because it's a "standard" Christian understanding doesn't mean it's
the correct one. For example, there's a common belief that the
homosexuality in the Bible refers to the loving, longterm relationships
of today. I've already presented why I believe this is wrong. That the
earth was flat and the universe revolved around the earth was standard
Christian understanding at one time and countering ideas were punished.
The problem is some Christians are like sheep, in that they believe
what's told to them as true without critically looking at it, especially
in light of context and the culture that existed at the time.

Post by Paul
So, there really isn't much "interpretation" involved.

There is a great amount of interpretation involved. Just translating
the_copies_of the original texts into English (and other languages),
trying to figure out what missing or obscure passages meant involved
much interpretation. Then we have the fact that some of the Bible was
passed by oratory and written by scribes, it's folly to follow anyone's,
even a seeming majority, interpretation as correct.

--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarafoundation.org

sweepster

2007-02-13 02:49:05 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
You call _that_ variety? No wonder you are so confused. From the
purely materialistic viewpoint you are _so_ too close too, being born
'intersexed' is a pure curse, with no benefit at all to anyone.

This is a judgment, an insult to all IS people and you owe them an
apology. I'd like to know how many intersexed people do you know. I'd
bet none! I know several and_none_consider it a "curse." Indeed, it's
your prejudicial thinking that's the curse in this case.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Interesting that you missed the chance to say what 'benefit' follows
from people being born 'intersexed'. Perhaps that is because there
_is_ no benefit from being 'intersexed'?

What benefit is being born Asian instead of caucasian, or nergo instead
of Australian aboriginal?

Post by Matthew Johnson
As always, those who know what they are talking about will agree with
neither of you, but be much closer to Jeff than to you.

Debatable.

Post by Matthew Johnson
So what? There are more, and more dangerous diseases spread by
homosexual activity.

What disease can be spread via homosexual sex that can't be spread via
heterosexual sex?

Post by Matthew Johnson
This is another common myth. 1 Cor 6:9-10 condemns _all_ male
homosexual activity, not just prostitution.

Not according to my Bible (KJV). And I've already covered this: in that
section homosexuals are lumped in with thieves, robbers and adulterers.
Therefore, the logical conclusion is it was referring to homosexual
prostitution, not gay sex per say.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Ah. Well actually, that's a pretty standard Christian understanding

of the

Post by Matthew Johnson
Bible as a whole, with quite a few specific passages that state it pretty
much in those terms.

Just because it's a "standard" Christian understanding doesn't mean it's
the correct one. For example, there's a common belief that the
homosexuality in the Bible refers to the loving, longterm relationships
of today. I've already presented why I believe this is wrong. The
problem is some Christians are like sheep, in that they believe what's
told to them as true without critically looking at it, especially in
light of context and the culture that existed at the time.

Post by Matthew Johnson
So, there really isn't much "interpretation" involved.

--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarafoundation.org

Joel Drussis

2007-02-13 02:49:08 UTC

one of the most egregious errors that some Christians make
is to oppose homosexuality. Instead of taking a critical look at
the context and translation in which homosexuality appears in
the Bible

Context, perhaps, but "translation"? Regardless, I'm sure you're
familiar with all the standard passages which are cited by those who
claim the Bible prohibits homosexuality. Could you, perhaps, elaborate
on what the problem is?

If one looks at the nearly infinite numbers of species of animals that
have been discovered, and wait to be discovered, the abundance and
variety in nature and that homosexual behavior is well documented
throughout the animal kingdom, it's logical that nature would produce
more than one sexual orientation or two genders (there are asexual
reproduction and sex-changing animals).

Well, hind-sight is 20/20. Nonetheless, I don't understand this appeal
to nature, or the relevance it has to Christian doctrine. For example,
I am confident that eating one's young is far more prevalent among
animals than homosexuality, but I doubt that means Christianity
should, therefore, not consider a parent eating their own child to be
sinful. Or take into account the way various communal insects (such as
ants, wasps, et cetera) often invade a rival colony, killing all the
inhabitants and consuming their corpses. Should Christianity condone
that sort of behavior among humans? In short, I would like for you to
elaborate on how this appeal to nature is relevant to Christian
doctrine.

Why would humans be singled out as a species that never varies
in gender or sexual orientation?

Within the paradigm of Christianity, isn't this God's decision? For
example, why would God ever tell a certain people to not consume the
flesh of pigs? Why would God tell people not to work on Saturdays? Are
these sorts of questions really the foundation of an argument which
would conclude that the Bible didn't actually prohibit pork or working
on the sabbath for Israelites in Biblical times? What exactly is the
point of the question above?

It doesn't make sense.

What the Bible teaches is not a subject which requires that it make
sense to you. There are probably many things in the Bible that do not
make sense to you, but that does not mean, therefore, that the Bible
doesn't actually teach those things.

Some claim homosexuality is a "dysfunction" because it doesn't result in
the complimentary nature of the female/male pairing or procreation. Just
because the majority of humans are heterosexual doesn't make
homosexuality a dysfunction

I agree. Analogously, just because there are more Monotheists than
polytheists today, that doesn't mean polytheism is therefore false.
Nonetheless, that doesn't change the fact that the Bible condemns
polytheism. Understand the difference?

The Bible is a great collection of writings, but considering the
original documents no longer exist, much was passed down through
oratory, there are missing and destroyed parts of the copies of the
originals, committees were formed to decide what was meant in obscure
and missing passages, it's ignorant not to look at context and the
culture that existed when trying to decide what certain passages meant.

Huh? I don't see how this follows. Now, I would understand if you
believed that the "original" Bible has been lost to us, therefore you
choose not to be guided by the strictures of the Bible in its present
form. That, however, is different from denying what the Bible in its
present form teaches. By the way, are you arguing that there was once
a version of the Bible that condoned homosexuality?

By first deciding homosexuality is a "sin," the person then rationalizes
why it's a sin. In other words, uses reverse deduction. One could do the
same with heterosexuality, i.e. nearly half of all heterosexual
marriages fail, it results in over-population, hunger and starvation and
the transmission of diseases including AIDS.

These are minor arguments that Christians use when speaking with non-
Christians. For the Christian himself, the first reason homosexuality
is a sin is because the Bible says so.

Jeff Caird

2007-02-13 02:49:11 UTC

[snipped to reduce 'splatter.' I'll address just this part of the topic.

In other words, uses reverse deduction. One could do the same with
heterosexuality, i.e. nearly half of all heterosexual marriages fail,

In Massachusetts, with gay marriages legal for a short time, they are
failing at an alarming rate.

Sounds unlikely. Source?

Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Cape Cod Times, etc.; personal knowledge,
anecdotes from gay and lesbian friends.

Post by Jeff Caird
And the dirty little secret is the rate of
spousal abuse among gays.

Haven't heard this claim for years and I've never seen substantiation.
But I'd like to see it.

Unfortunately, gay and lesbian domestic abuse is even less reported than
straight abuse, which is why I call it a 'dirty little secret.' One needs to
have access to police logs in a community with a significant g/l population.
Provincetown, Mass. is just such a place and I spend a good deal of time
there and did reside there at one time.

About 28 years ago was a watershed time for me. Being newly (and amicably)
separated from my wife, and having done nothing notable in my life since
getting out of the army, I decided to be a writer of fiction. I quit my
boring engineering job, threw a battered typewriter, a few books and a
change of clothes onto the back of my motorcycle and headed for
Provincetown.

I wanted to breath the same air as O'neil and Norman Mailer. I breathed the
air in my crummy, but affordable, basement studio instead. Above me was a
lesbian couple who would demonstrate that g/l relationships are anything but
idyllic. My looks and style made it easy for me to move about among gay men
(though it required skill and tact to parry their advances!), and I saw what
few straight men see. I saw blackened eyes and bloody noses. A gay man in
a rage does not 'fight like a girl.' He punches and kicks like other men.

I'm sorry I can't give you more than anecdotes. The MSM doesn't like to do
it in very much depth, though I haven't checked out any of the g/l
publications (advocate etc.?) Only the most extreme examples may
surface--recently there was a gay/gay murder in Provincetown. You can dig
up the news at the Cape Cod Times website.

A dear old friend of mine spent time in county jail for beating up her
lover. So it goes. jealousy and rage have no boundaries.

Jeff Caird

2007-02-13 02:49:11 UTC

it's logical that nature would produce more than one sexual orientation

Why is it logical? What benefit is it to nature to do so?

It's logical because of the abundant variety in nature. Intersexed
people are examples of variety in sexuality. What benefit?

Yeah, what benefit. There is a wife-murderer in a Massachusetts prison who
claims to be a 'woman in a man's body.' He wants to get hormones and surgery
at taxpayer expense--and be treated as a woman, which will include him being
moved to the women's prison at Framingham. There is an idiot judge that
agrees. This benefits mankind how?

Post by shegeek72
What benefit are different races, cultures, etc?

Let's see... they give us reasons to kill and enslave each other?

B.G. Kent

2007-02-13 02:49:12 UTC