*
+
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
tx