+
              PRIMER4CRITICS - PART THREE
.
/ Re: ERRORS Re:Bible&Homosexuality/3 / 16Mar99 /
/ Ngz: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.christnet.bible /
.
>> textman wrote: Dear Bruce, I tend to agree. However, I must take
>> exception to your direct line from inspiration to inerrancy. The
>> scriptures are certainly inspired (ie. written under the guidance
>> of the Holy Spirit), but this does *not* mean that it is perfect
>> in every detail. Indeed, I firmly reject the concept of inerrancy;
>> at least in regards to matters of science and history.
.
> Bruce answers: Interesting. However, you are in a minority among
> those who believe in the inspiration of the Bible.
.
 textman replies:  Yes? ... And so not worth considering, you mean?
.
>>> Bruce previously wrote: If you believe that it is writings by a
>>> number of authors who are promoting their own, different, religious
>>> beliefs, then your beliefs about these topics (and many more)
>>> logically follow.
.
>> They do? Perhaps not. Indeed, logic has very little to do with it.
.
> True. Most forms of bigotry (racism, sexism, homophobia, hatred of
> other religions, etc) are not rational.
.
 Would it be fair, then, to say that you and the organization which
you coordinate upholds and defends the 'faith' of rationalism?
.
>>> Fascinating. As with racism and sexism, there is no possibility
>>> of ending homophobia through reason. It will necessitate changes
>>> in the law.
.
 So then you put your faith in the law; rather than the Torah and
the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount and the Son of Man?
.
>> That, sir, is a frightening probability!
.
> Seems to me that there have been a lot of rather significant changes
> to the law that moved the U.S. gradually towards the concept of equal
> rights for all: abolition of slavery; votes for women, allowing
> persons of different races to marry, granting of civil rights based
> on slavery, and now equal rights for gays and lesbians (including the
> right to marry).
.
 Well, Bruce, if they're so eager to marry (and be fruitful and
multiply too?), and presumably to divorce also, who are we to stand in
their way? I will certainly not deny them the right to civil marriages
under the faithless civil laws of a faithless "civil" country ...
.
 BUT let us not confuse this with Christian marriage; which is not a
"right" that can legislated by corrupt governments, but a privilege
given from faith to faith, a sacred and solemn covenant between three
parties: man, woman, and God. ... If any single one of these elements
is missing from the scenario, then this is not a Christian marriage in
any way; but rather a sham, a fraud, and a travesty!
.
> Each time, the Union survived. And in retrospect, each of these laws
> was seen to be an improvement.
.
 In my opinion, there has been very little retrospect as yet; at least
as regards that last item of yours, I mean.
.
>>> I think that you are misunderstanding the nature of our site.
>>> We are not a Christian site.
.
>> Dear Bruce, this I already know. Where then is my misunderstanding?
.
> You refered to us as installing ourselves within the Kingdom of God.
> That would imply that we consider ourselves Christian.
.
 Which is not the case. Right. So rt.org is neither Christian nor homo-
sexual. OK then. We are all agreed on this. But nevertheless your essay
on the Bible and homosexuality certainly does function to promote,
defend, and assert the homo-interpretation of the Scriptures (that is
to say, it is a consciously and deliberately biased approach to the
Word of God); one whose purpose is *primarily* to install "the oriented
Christian" within the Kingdom of God. I fail to see how you can deny
this. Indeed, I fail to see why you should even want to dismiss your
responsibility for the consequences and effects of your rationalist
political philosophy ...
.
>>> We are a multi-faith site (Atheist, Agnostic, Wiccan, Christian)
.
>> A "multi-faith" site is a web-site devoted to spreading lies, and
>> serving the Wicked One. Either you are for Christ, or you are
>> against Him! Since you are clearly against Him, how is it that you
>> dare to call yourselves 'Christian' in any way, shape, or form?
.
> Please consider the possibiility that we are against your version of
> Yeshua of Nazareth, and that we are very much for our version of
> Yeshua of Nazareth.
.
 That would seem to be a logical prerequisite of your "multi-faith".
Indeed, I am well aware that the Son of Man testified to in the
Scriptures is a very different creature from the Smurf-Messiah
of homo-hermeneutics!
.
>>> We attempt to explain both conservative and liberal Christian views.
.
>> You do not 'explain' them so much as merely offer an over-simplified
>> and woefully inadequate version of what you consider to be 'liberal'
>> and 'conservative' Christian views.
.
> If you consider our treatment inadequate, did it every occur to
> you to offer your assistance at upgrading our site?
.
 Well, Bruce, I am laboring under the assumption that The Primer on
Homo-Hermeneutics, and these collaborative follow-up articles also,
*are* our collective offering to that end. All you need do is add
them to your site immediately following the end of your Bible and
Homosexuality essay. Or failing that, you could simply put up a link
to the First CyberChurch of James & Jude at
              http://homestead.dejanews.com/user.textman/
.
>> And what purpose does it serve to conceal your ideas and beliefs
>> from us? Do you seriously imagine that by hiding the truth from
>> your Readers you are somehow gaining credibility by way of a false
>> and deceitful objectivity?
.
> We do not advertise our beliefs. We simply explain the beliefs of
> the main players in the battle for civil rights.
.
 I think that you could and should do better as regards the more
specifically Christian attitudes and ideas about all these matters.
.
> We do not hide our beliefs; we will explain our beliefs to
> anyone who asks.
.
 It is only fair and proper to set forth your basic creed and/or creedo
right up front. So as to avoid the need to ask what these are, and the
suspicion that you may have something to hide. Moreover, you should
also invite queries about these matters; also right up front.
Furthermore, you should be willing and able to present more than
the two competing positions that you consider to be Christian
interpretations of these passages in question ...
.
>> Let me tell you something: If people have changed, it is only that
>> they are even more vain and arrogant and self-serving than they ever
>> were! And if this non-existent "orientation" is somehow "fixed", you
>> may be well assured that it is only because they wish it to be so!
.
>>> Our survey of studies into the effectiveness of reparative therapy
>>> shows this. See:  http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod.htm
.
>> Who gives a flying fart about reparative therapy? I'm talking about
>> handing everything that we have and are over to the Lord. I'm
>> talking about opening your hardened hearts to your Savior in
>> humility and thanksgiving. I'm talking about the power of faith and
>> grace to transform us into "new creatures" ... Into God's sons and
>> daughters. Wut? You don't think that the Faith of the saints and
>> apostles is able to effect any significant changes in Believers?
>> Check out the testimonies of those who have done just that <sniplist>
.
> Sounds really great. But I have never heard of a persons prayer to
> be answered if they pray for a change to their race, gender, sexual
> orientation, or any other genetically determined factor.
.
 If orientation is in any way genetically determined, is it not more
logical to suppose that it might have some connection or two to the
biological organs and systems relating to the reproductive functions?
That would be my first guess. Or are you suggesting that orientation
is entirely unrelated to this basic and necessary human reality?
.
> I have known gays and lesbians who are born again Christians who
> have prayed to God for decades to be made a heterosexual. And the
> answer is always no. Please consider the possibility that God loves
> diversity: diversity in race, language, ethnicity, gender, sexual
> orientation, etc.
.
 Diversity in race, language, ethnicity, gender, etc, are not a
problem. But diversity in sexual orientation means only one thing: a
license to be morally, spiritually, socially, and sexually retarded.
Check out the Universal Epistle of Jude, if you don't believe me.
.
> You say that sexual orientation does not exist.
.
 No, Bruce. I observed that 'sexual orientation' is purely and only a
conceptual construct having no demonstration nor verification in the
real world of concrete events and people. It is merely a theory. An
idea or hypothesis proposed to 'explain' and justify the existence and
behaviors of homosexuals.
.
 Moreover, even the Wicked One is more honest than this. She speaks
not of her orientation, but rather of her "chemistry". And this is far
closer to the truth of the things; for her chemistry is in no way
genetically determined (ie. God made me this way), but exists because
she would not have it any other way. Therefore, do not be deceived! If
young Canadian Christian girls take to lesbianism the way that pigs take
to slop, it is *only* because they freely and willfully choose to do so.
.
> Fortunately, there is a simple test that heterosexuals can perform:
> Simply fantasize about loving a person of the opposite gender,
> developing a committed relationship with that person, and making love
> to them. A nice fantasy. Now, repeat, but substitute a member of the
> same sex. The idea will probably make your stomach heave and skin
> crawl. Congratulations. You have just demonstrated your heterosexual
> sexual orientation. Now, attempt to understand with the logical part
> of your brain that for gays and lesbians, the same thing holds, with
> the genders reversed.  -- Regards,  Bruce Robinson, Coorddinator
> -------------------------------//----------------------------------
> The "Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance"  is a multi-faith
> group which promotes religious tolerance. Address: OCRT, Box 27026,
> Kingston ON Canada K7M8W5. URL:  http://www.religioustolerance.org
.
 So its like that, is it? Very interesting. So it seems that the great
and wonderful alternate and optional orientation that everyone is
crowing about is actually based on hatred and revulsion for all that
God declared "very good', founded upon the rejection of His righteous
commands and godly counsels, and implanted in a self-serving vanity
and arrogance that is always mindful unto itself. Yup, I think we all
understand what this orientation business is all about now. Thx, Bruce!
.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
.
                 / Re: ERRORS Re:Bible&Homosexuality/4 /
.
>> On 14Mar99 textman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Is the light of understanding beginning to break through the heavy
>> darkness of ignorance, and centuries of deliberate misunderstanding
>> and willful concealment? "Yes, these Ones are the grumblers and
>> complainers who walk according to their own lusts. By their mouths
>> they speak haughty words; and also admire persons for the sake of
>> advantage." (v.16). Are you still unsure? Then consider this:
>> "These are the Ones creating divisions; these "natural" men and
>> women (being utterly bereft of the Holy Spirit)" (v.19)!
.
> Stephen DeGrace <[email protected]> answers:  "Centuries
> of concealment"? Really. Methinks thou art taking a slight liberty for
> the sake of rhetorical flow. I think that for most of the centuries
> since this was written, the meaning has been taken cheerfully to be
> just as you have it.
.
 "Just as I have it", you say? I find that hard to credit, sir. And
I would dearly love to see some relevant snippets from commentaries
of previous centuries on these verses Jude 16 and 19.    . . .
*Please* don't disappoint me and say that you don't have any!
.
> If there is any "concealment" going on (or any light of understanding
> breaking through the heavy darkness of ignorance, however you
> want to look at it) it is distinctly modern.
.
 The sheer ferocity of the bias against Jude (and James) gained new
strength and vigor with the Reformation. ... That tradition has not
dwindled one whit since Luther. And, if anything, these NT prophets are
now sadistically and hypocritically ignored and despised by all those
who *much* prefer their own wisdom to that of the Lord's.
.
>> Now does anyone dare to claim that the prophet Jude does not know
>> *exactly* who these people are, and the things that they do? ... Who
>> rejects the Lord's righteous commands in the name of 'freedom and
>> liberation'; and at the same time defiles the flesh without shame or
>> conscience or remorse (cf. v.8)? Does anyone dare to accuse the Word
>> of God of being ignorant about these Dreaming Ones?! Do you under-
>> stand now why the many and varied apostate churches ignore and
>> reject the epistle of Jude? Yes indeed; for they consider it a great
>> and terrible error that it was ever even included among the Holy
>> Books in the first place!
.
> Well, you certainly have a good rhetorical flow going.
> You definitely have the talent to be a preacher.
.
 I'm not interested in being or becoming a preacher.
 Hey Stephen, read my lips: How do you spell P-R-O-P-H-E-T ?
.
> You didn't actually prove your point, though.
.
 Oh, now *that* hurts!
.
> You just sort of intimated that it was "obvious" who
> Jude refers to, without actually demonstrating it.
.
 What's left to demonstrate, Stephen? You can now read the entire
Epistle of Jude with some measure of understanding and insight ...
Can't you?! ... Is the Word of God not enough to convince you of the
truth of these matters? It's all there in those powerful 25 verses.
... Wut? The words just don't "ring true" with you, is that it?
... Verily, there are none so blind as those that will not see!
.
> Anyway, it's nice that you've posted this piece to alt.religion.
> christian.biblestudy and gotten some use out of it. -- Stephen
.
Oh, rest assured that it'll wind up at the 'First CyberChurch of James
& Jude' website too ... Sooner or later ... eventually ... maybe ... ?
.
                            the sorely sorry one:  textman  ;>
x