From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Bible, Homosexuality, Translations, etc.
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 08:29:26 GMT
 <17hDr*sX0@caleb.UUCP> <1685B13D3C.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1685B13D3C.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>, Joseph L. Lockett writes:

> In article <17hDr*sX0@caleb.UUCP>
> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) vents:
>  
> >Only because you don't like what he wrote.  That is not a very solid foundation
> >for you to build on.
>  
> You're right. I don't like what Paul wrote. Do you? And will you follow it?
> I have specifically quoted, with references, rather strict portions of the
> Old Testament and Epistles.  You claim I'm 'perverting' the Scriptures.
> I beg pardon, but is it written somewhere which pieces of the Epistles we
> are expected to believe and which we aren't?  Maybe I'm missing something...

You are the one who made the ridiculous, unsupported (and unsupportable) claim
about what the Bible teaches.  Then YOU decided to redefine what the Bible is.

> >Wrong.  Jesus was NEVER open-minded.  He never said a single word about "mutual
> >respect" or "tolerance."  He did say:
>  
> A surprise to me.  What ever happened to meek lambish loving-kindness?

If you actually read his words, you wouldn't be so surprised.

> >"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:  I am not come to
> >destroy, but to fulfill.  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass,
> >one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
> >Matthew 5:17-18
> >
> >Those are not the words of someone trying to repeal the Old Testament.
>  
> My friend, you have just hung yourself by your own rhetorical testicles.
> Fine, I quoted exact 'jots and tittles', and you've claimed they're
> 'perversions'.  You are insulting your own Holy Book.  NOW who is
> 'perverted'?  What of the Leviticus I QUOTED, not made up.  What of the
> Pauline Epistles?  Or maybe you don't read those parts in your daily rites?

No, I haven't.  You are attempting to change the subject.  The subject is YOUR
ridiculous claim.

> Handy, isn't it, to have a selective memory?  Or maybe you just don't have

I've noticed you have used yours quite a bit...

> enough brain to hold the whole thing....

If you had some brainpower, you wouldn't have made the statement in the first
place.

> >Note that he did NOT say that His "philosophy" is the path to the Father.  He said
> >that HE was the path to the Father!
>  
> Gosh, Jim, did anybody ever teach you about metaphor, way back in whatever

Yes, I know about metaphors.  He wasn't using one at the time.

> misbegotten low-brow education you received?  As far as I know, from having
> been a Christian for many years, we are to follow Jesus' writings, or, by
> way of METAPHOR (since he doesn't show up physically any more to lead Essene
> campouts and barbeque ventures....) 'follow him'.  And if we follow his
> writings, we are following his philosophy.  Sorry, your knee-jerk must have
> gotten in the way of your seeing the screen....

No, no, no.  THAT is where you missed the boat.  Christians don't follow Christ's
WRITINGS, they follow CHRIST.  He is alive today.  If you knew Christ, you would
know this.  Christianity is NOT a Philosophy!  It is a person.  That person is
Christ.

> >Jesus said this.  There is no "tolerance" here.  There is no "philosophy" here.
> >Jesus said that he is the Son of God.  You either believe him, or you are already
> >condemned.
>  
> Well, there is no philosophy where YOU are, that's for sure.  Now, how about
> that self-same passage in John, Ch 8 we were arguing about, where Jesus meets
> the adulteress.  He keeps the crowd from stoning her, then tells her to go
> and sin no more.  Pardon me, but isn't that rather tolerant of him?  After
> all, by Old Testament Law she should have been stoned to death.  Didn't you
> say Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not to replace it?

The Old Testament law required TWO witnesses.  There were ZERO witnesses left.
In any case, it is the prerogative of God to forgive sins.  You seem to ignore
the fact that he told her to "sin no more."  That indicates that adultery is
still a sin.

> >This is why some try to pervert the Bible as you do.  They hate the light it shines
> >upon them.
>  
> Beg pardon, but my interpretation is a damn sight more illuminating than
> yours.  I have quoted specific, relevant, actual passages from the Bible,
> and you're attacking me on generalities.  Might make a good Baptist sermon,
> but a woefully poor piece of rhetoric.

Try again.  I am still waiting for you to prove your original statement.  You
can't.  That is why you keep changing the subject.

> >> >You are deliberately lying when you claim that the Bible condones homosexuality.
> >> >You already know it condemns it in no uncertain terms.  That is why you keep
> >> >trying to fend off the obvious rebuttals before they happen.
>  
> I never said the Bible CONDONES homosexuality.  I merely said that I didn't
> see satisfactory evidence that it CONDEMNS it.  As for fending off rebuttals
> before they happen, isn't that a mark of good argument?  No wonder you don't
> recognize it.
>  
> >> As my post to Mr. Troth demonstrated, I find significant flaws in the
> >                                          ^^^^ - you mean "invent"
> >> portions of the Bible he chose to exemplify divine homophobia.  Neither
>  
> Um, Mr. Pritchett, are you claiming I wrote the Bible?  I fed you actual
> quotes.  I certainly didn't write the Bible -- I would have done a better
> job.... :-)

No, you did NOT quote actual quotes that say what you claim they say.

> >More nonsense.  The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality.  You simply don't like
> >that fact.  Therefore, you make up excuses about it.                           t
>  
> All right, dammit.  WHERE does it condemn homosexuality?  Or tell us WHY
> it is legitimate to believe only the relevant passages Jim Troth quoted
> from Romans and Leviticus, and not the other passages I provided.  Give
> us an argument, not this vapid, inane tripe.

Why?  You've already admitted that you won't believe it?  You are supposed to be
an "expert", why can't you look them up yourself?  You don't need the quotes.
You've already admitted that you know they are there.  Why can't you just
admit that your claim was wrong?


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton