+
        PRIMER4CRITICS - PART TWO
.
/ Subject-> Re: Primer on Homo-Hermeneutics/1 / 13Mar99 /
/ Ngz: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.christnet.bible /
.
> Stephen DeGrace of Codpeace of Newfoundland, MUN
> Chapter, writes: Hi Textman, Thank you for your interesting
> reply. In all honesty, this has not been so much about homosexuality
> for me as it has been about trying to get a better handle on you
> (although I do consider the ideas themselves presented), and this
> certainly gives me some interesting and worthwhile experimental
> results.
.
 Dear Stephen, if you're so interested in getting a handle on me, you
could always visit my two websites and/or check out my previously
archived epistles to newsgroups at the DejaNews website ... Instead of
so drastically upsetting my busy schedule. Moreover, I'm not at all
sure that I'm overly thrilled with being your current "specimen".
.
> Be that as it may, there are a couple points of interest I want to
> bring up. For one thing, I have to say that sometimes you impress me
> with the sharpness and clarity of your insights. For one thing, you
> picked up quickly on the liberal tendency to validate absolutely
> *everything* somewhat uncritically as a weakness in this type of
> essay, something that runs rather contrary to my own instincts as
> well and which is behind the reason why although I have rejected
> conservative Christianity I have not embraced liberal Christianity.
.
 Yes. rt.org claims to be a multi-faith site (even counting atheism
and agnosticism as among world religions; but how these deliberately
"faithless" systems/philosophies/ideologies can be considered as faiths,
I still haven't figured out), but really only presents two simplified
and contrasting perspectives and/or biblical interpretations. Of course,
the most basic feature of post-modern biblical hermeneutics in general
is the sheer unbridled multiplicity of ways to approach and understand
the Jewish and Christian sacred scriptures. There are many Christian
approaches; indeed, every denomination boasts of some unique elements
and/or emphases. There are many Jewish approaches also. And even
some interesting Buddhist interpretations. There are political approaches
and interpretations (eg. liberationist, social rights perspectives,
feminist, socialist, etc). The True Believer should be (at least) aware
of all these strange and wonderful 'readings' of the Sacred Text; for
they all have something of value to add to our overall understanding
and appreciation of the Word of God. Even if they *are* fundamentally
'faithless' and/or flawed and/or misguided in many and various ways.
.
> There are a lot of homosexuals following lifestyles that are hardly
> laudable IMO (although I must say that there has been a lot of
> improvement over the years, as the opening of society has created
> more opportunities for positive homosexual lifestyles - I have first
> hand experience that such things exist, so don't waste my time by
> telling me otherwise) and there is vast improvement needed in terms
> of the institutions and character of the gay community, IMO. Of
> course, as with heterosexuals, there are people who are good souls,
> people who are thoroughly scummy and self serving, and the vast
> majority who are a mixed bag. And as with heterosexuals, there are
> positive and negative lifestyles (which is not to say that variation
> cannot exist within both the positive and the negative). Just as I
> do not condemn heterosexuality just because heterosexuals have their
> share of "sluts and whores" as I believe you colorfully put it, so
> too do I not see it as valid to condemn homosexuality on the basis
> of the behavior of some individuals in a community, especially a
> community recovering from centuries of persecution.
.
 My dear Stephen, I am rather perplexed by this notion of yours that
there is some sort of social entity called the "homosexual community"
which has apparently existed for centuries, and indeed has suffered
persecution throughout this entire period. Does this community have
any nations or cities that exist in the real world? Does it have a unique
language and constitution and currency? Has it produced art, literature
and music? Does it have a unique documented culture with laws and
norms?  ... No, I'm afraid that I just can't buy into this fanciful notion
of yours that the post-modern homosexual subculture is centuries old.
Homo's have always existed as individuals *within* every nation and
society, but their status as an independent social entity is very much
a modern invention. If you do not, or cannot accept the truth of this,
then I think the onus is on you to demonstrate the historical reality
of this centuries old social entity called the homosexual community. Of
course, you needn't actually try to do this, as I'm well aware that such
an enterprise is, of its very nature as it were, *quite* impossible.
.
> Another point is, aren't you doing the same thing that liberals are
> accused of doing, being selective in your use of the Bible to validate
> your positions? Do you care to stand behind *every* statement of fact
> the Bible makes, and *every* moral position? Obviously not, because
> you're not a Creationist... I have to say I get a chuckle out of that,
> because I think the fundies are wiser than you on that one. If any
> part of the Bible is questionable, all is questionable... And I assume
> you eat pork, would not refuse to eat lobster on moral grounds, and
> wear textile blends... tell me, why are some laws, i.e., those
> pertaining to sex, held forth, and the other rules ignored?
.
 These are difficult matters, to be sure. Discretion and discernment
are surely required. When you say that "If any part of the Bible is
questionable, all is questionable", you are demonstrating false and
misleading reasoning. I do not agree with this statement in any way.
The bible is not inerrant in the realms of science and history (for it
is not the fruit of human reason); but it is inerrant in the realms
of morality, social-humanity, love, personal transcendence and trans-
formation, individual growth in faith and emotional maturity,
spirituality, ethics, etc etc. In other words, it is inerrant in all
things pertaining to spiritual realities ...
.
 Now religion is a mix of spiritual realities and various cultural
norms and habits. Norms and habits change over time, as civilizations
and individuals grow and decay. So spiritual realities are differently
lived and perceived as the generations come and go; but they also abide.
This is why scripture has always been the touchstone and canon of the
Faith. Christian religions come and go, grow and decay, get big or
remain small, rise and fall ... But the Faith abides. The Faith endures.
Because the Kingdom of God is not contained in churches and cathedrals
and meeting-houses. It is not written in creeds and declarations, nor
even preserved in the biblical text. It resides only in the faithful
and believing heart of each and every individual son or daughter of the
Heavenly Father. The Faith is a living, breathing spiritual reality
that defines who we are as Christians *and* as human beings.
.
> I note with interest that your rebuttal of the points where the essay
> deals with alleged translation errors basically consist of alluding
> to liberal bias. What an interesting way to dodge the issue! I should
> think that one who places such high importance in the scriptures
> would be keener on a minuter examination of the accuracy of the
> translation and what it might mean to your interpretation.
.
 Oh, I have not forgotten nor neglected this aspect of things in any
way, shape, or form, believe me! I have written a multitude of articles
pertaining to the many and various problems and prickles that attend
the stormy seas of translation and hermeneutics. Check em out, Stephen!
.
> Of course, this doesn't really mean a lot to me, because I rejected
> the Scriptures as a guide long ago for reasons unrelated to homo-
> sexuality (I found I couldn't conveniently ignore the places where
> I found the bible's stand to be grossly inaccurate, silly or evil),
> but I should think it would come in for a finer treatment from you.
.
 Huh? I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that I could ease
the rejection pangs by way of prophetic hermeneutics, I suppose this is
possible. There are passages that many good people have rejected and
despised because it seems to them to be contrary to reason or justice
or whatever, but *usually* the problem is more in the understanding and
underlying attitude than in the text itself. 4X: there's a story in the
OT about some kids making fun of a prophet. He got so pissed at them
that he called forth a bear to rip them to shreds. Now if this is
approached as a straight-forward historical account, then I can see
many problems being raised. But if it is seen as a parable, then the
truth slowly emerges. In the same way, Jonah is comic fiction with a
great deal of beauty and truth. But if it is taken as a record of actual
historical events, then the problems at once mount up to heaven. Should
a woman cover her hair in temple or church? It does not matter. Are pork
chops kosher? It does not matter. Should we apply the death penalty for
homosexuality, adultery, and blasphemy? Of course not. All these laws
and customs were appropriate to their age and generation, and we should
not preserve the letter of the scriptures over and above its spirit; nor
hang on to traditions that no longer serve the Faith and true religion.
.
> Finally, I note that you bring up bisexuals as an argument _against_
> a genetic factor in homosexuality. Interesting twist! Most
> conservative Christians reject the notion of bisexuality (as,
> actually do many gay activists, for their own political reasons
> having to do with wanting to interpret a bisexual as a homosexual
> who hasn't made up his or her mind yet - I pity bisexuals above all
> sexual minorities, because absolutely _everyone_ rejects them).
.
 Except, of course, other rainbows ... :)
.
> Well, for one thing, I accept that I am what I am on the evidence
> of my senses,
.
 I accept what I am on the evidence that Jesus died for us!
.
> just as Darwin was able to propose the theory of evolution by natural
> selection before the mechanisms of heredity and variation became
> known, and I accept that the cause isn't really known yet,
.
 Nonsense! The cause is the necessity of all life to grow and develop
and glorify the Creator of all things ...
.
> so this is of limited personal significance. But I just thought I
> should point out that your science is a bit shoddy.
.
 Ha! You wish!
.
> Skin colour, for example, is controlled by a whole set of genes,
> allowing an inherited gradation of colours from lily white to nearly
> black. Most examples of genetic control are more complicated than
> either-or, it's just that either-or and other simple type examples are
> more popular in school precisely because they're simple. You may take
> it from me, there is nothing scientific mitigating against the
> possibility of a genetic factor in homosexuality.
.
 OK. I'll allow that for some small fraction of homo's, genetic factors
as regards physical/biological systems can predispose us react in
certain ways to certain things. Yes, emotionally and morally and
spiritually immature human creatures have little control over their
many and various urges and chemistries; but that is because they lack
character and self-discipline and faith, not because the entire
universe and God made them homosexual. That's just the sort of claim
one would expect from children. 'Oh, it wasn't me! The devil made me
do it!' ... Sure he did, sweetheart. You're such a good girl! Here,
have another lollipop.
.
> Anyway, I must say it has been interesting, whatever else I can say
> about you, you're a good writer, you have interesting and challenging
> insights, and your essays are always stimulating and interesting to
> read. I just see your second installment in my mailbox now, and I'm
> about to delve into it. If I have not thanked you already, thanks for
> taking this effort for such a stubborn ingrate as me, and I sincerely
> hope that whatever I may think of your analysis that you are
> nevertheless deriving some satisfaction from this exercise, and that
> having these essays written will be valuable to you in your ministry.
> --  Sincerely, Stephen
.
 Dear Stephen, again and again and again you deliberately and willfully
misunderstand. You miss the point. And you reject out of hand whatsoever
I tell you. Whatever satisfaction I may or may not derive from this
exercise is utterly irrelevant, I assure you! I do not conduct my
ministry for my own sake. I do it for the Lord and his People. And
whatever value my postings may or may not have is for them to decide.
x
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+
/ Subject: Re: ERRORS Re:Bible&Homosexuality/3 / 13Mar99 /
.
>> On 13Mar99 textman wrote: Thus we can plainly see
>> that the ideology that empowers the entire convoluted
>> edifice of the homo hermeneutics rises from a direct denial of the
>> truths revealed in scripture. So they deny that homosexuality is
>> sinful, when the entire biblical tradition clearly indicates other-
>> wise. They deny that orientation/behavior can be changed by faith
>> and conversion, when Paul clearly states that is precisely what
>> happened to the Corinthians believers! Now they do not dare to call
>> Paul a liar directly, but that is exactly what their feeble denials
>> and pathetic assertions amount to.
.
> Stephen DeGrace answers: Thanks for these two articles, I was realy
> interested in seeing how you would handle the details. I just want to
> comment, thogh, what an excellent service conservative Christians
> have done for us in throwing a spotlight on the "ex-gay" movement.
> The constant struggle invariably reported by members, the "back-
> sliding" at the highest levels, that the consistent lack of success
> in changing people's sexual *feelings*, as opposed to behaviour
> (which is a separate thing entirely)
.
 Well, it's not that simple, I think. Feelings follow actions; just as
actions follow feelings. The Torah/Law - for the *most* part - concerns
actions. This is not because behavior has a greater priority over
affections and dispositions, but simply because it is simpler to control
and discipline actions than affections (which often seem to have a will
of their own). Hence the stress in Judeo-Christian traditions on virtues
and holiness. Hence Paul speaks of Believers being at war with their
'members'. But Christians are spiritual creatures; and because the
spirit has infinitely greater value than the flesh, just so the True
Believer can (with the Lord's grace, and a little help from one's
assembly) overcome the flesh and its affections. Occasional backsliding
is neither a horrendous treachery nor a demonstration that they are not
fit to follow the Way of Life & Truth. It is only human nature, and it
reflects the commitment, difficulty, and importance of ongoing
repentance, and continuing the battle, and never giving up (as if
Christ does not love you). Moreover, the way of faith requires the
disciple to embrace self-sacrifice as a demonstration of humility
and love for the Lord. But self-sacrifice is difficult even for the
greatest saints; and most post-modern Christians know it not at all!
.
> have been an inspiration to us all, and have merely served to prove
> our point that homosexual orientaion (as opposed to behaviour)
.
 There is no such thing as "orientation", Stephen. This is a myth, a
fancy, a dream well suited for the Dreaming Ones. An illusion along the
lines of your fabled centuries old homosexual community of oppressed
and persecuted martyrs. These lies do not impress me, and only show
that your politics is nowhere connected to the Faith of the saints
and apostles and Great Ones of the Lord's People.
.
> is simple a part of who you are,
.
 Yes, the Lie is most certainly a part of who 'your people' are. But
it is not any part of the Lord's People, because disciples follow the
Truth, not the illusions and delusions that the World lusteth after.
As goes Hollywood, so goes the World ... But not True Believers.
No way, Jose!
.
> just as heterosexual orientation is juat a part of who heterosexuals
> are, and that it is unchangeable by any means.
.
 I agree that non-existent ideas and illusions are incapable of
changing. For the Darkness is all of a piece ...
.
> And why *should* it be changeable?
.
   :)
.
> Even if you except that homosexual behaviour is intrinsically evil
.
 U mean "accept", don't U?
.
> (which I don't,
.
 U don't?! Oh, no ... I'm so shocked and appalled!
.
> I consider the notion patently absurd,
.
 Wut notion is that again? That "orientation is eternal"? That evil
does not exist? Nope. It don't sound *too* absurd ... (in Hell).
.
> and no one yet has been able to offer an explanation for their
> position that speaks to me the way saying that murder is wrong and
> lying is wrong speaks to me - all anyone has been able to do is
> quote the Bible in a way that is a transparent justification of
> prejudice rather than an exposition of a true understanding of a real
> moral principle), why should the God that made us this way to test us
> remove the test and the struggle? If the book of Job contains any
> lesson, it is that our purpose here is not to have it easy and have
> God cater to our personal comfort.     --  Stephen
.
 So then why does the homo-hermeneutics insist on turning the Cosmos
upside-down, and turning the Torah inside-out, and transforming the
Faith into nothing but or other than Absolute and Unqualified
Smurfyness? Eh? Is it not to force God to "cater to our personal
comfort"? ... Moreover, the lesson of Job is that despite all
appearances to the contrary, faith in the Lord will be rewarded! ...
For our God is good and great and just! And surely well beyond the
feeble wisdom of men, women, bishops, scholars, enlightened and
progressive psychologist types, and yea even dreaded homo-hermeneutics!
.
      Please proceed to PRIMER4CRITICS - PART THREE up next ...
x