From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the Bible: Refutations (Long)
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:14:20 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Rice University (yes, *that* Rice!)

In article <wNgEr*bY0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <Bu69np.F58@rice.edu>, Patrick L Humphrey writes:
>
>> In article <RraDr*fX0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>> >In article <1685513A1C.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>, Joseph L. Lockett writes:
>> >
>> >several deliberate misinterpretations of the Bible and outright falsehoods.
>> 
>> Mighty nice of you to take them out and prevent folks from deciding for
>> themselves...
>> 
>> >> I have read ALL of John 8.  I see the story of Jesus and the adulteress,
>> >
>> >You obviously didn't understand it.
>> 
>> In other words, he doesn't agree with your opinion, and by default, you're
>> right...
>
>In other words, YOU don't agree with my opinion, so you try to twist my words.

I'm not twisting your words -- they're right up above, see?  No, I don't agree
with your opinion -- and your own words are the best refutation I've seen.
(That saves me a *lot* of work.)

>> >> prick.  Actually, I think a fair-sized group of Biblical scholars figure
>> >> the man was gay himself, and repressed it in himself and others all his
>> >> life.  No wonder he's so retentive it's amusing.
>> >
>> >The group of warped, so-called scholars who would agree with that statement is
>> >both small and irrelevant.
>> 
>> How would you know, if you never bother with listening to them?  
>
>I've heard that garbage before.  It all starts at the same place.  "Scholar" thinks
>"I don't like that, it must be translated wrong."  Then he goes looking for a
>manuscript (no matter how bad) that he can twist into the result he wants by
>changing a syllable here or there...  Once the process is complete, he gleefully
>proclaims to the world that there was a translation error in the KJV...

Okay, so you answer with something that has nothing to do with what I 
asked -- that's no surprise.  Answer the question, if you can -- how would
you know, if you can't be bothered to listen to them in the first place?

>> >> Elizabethan English of his beloved King James (who was himself gay, by
>> >> the way, according to many interpretations):
>> >
>> >King James was absolutely abominable.  However, he did NOT do the translation,
>> >it was simply named after him because the translation was commissioned during
>> >his reign.
>> 
>> Well, I'd suspect James spoke pretty much the same English as the
>> Elizabethans, seeing as he wasn't that far removed from them -- all of 30
>> years.  I'd also suspect the translators would have some fairly strong
>> incentives to *not* come up with translations with which the monarch
>> disagreed.
>
>As I posted before, if what you say is true, then the KJV would have endorsed
>homosexuality and fornication.  It condemns both.  Therefore, you are obviously
>wrong.

Well, I saw no claims by you that James was a supporter of "homosexuality and
fornication", which I take as *any* sex you don't approve of.  What that has
to do with what I said is a mystery, but then again, that could be said of
the reasoning process you've shown in this thread so far...

>> >Since you are deliberately perverting the Scriptures, there is little point in
>> >specifically rebutting each point of your ridiculous diatribe.
>> 
>> Well, since you seem to feel it necessary to protect us from all of those
>> horrible things -- for our own good, doubtless -- by deliberately deleting
>> them, thus making it impossible for the rest of us to form our own
>> conclusions about what Joseph had to say --- I'd say you're doing a pretty
>> good job of rebutting your own ridiculous diatribe.  
>
>Cute, you call me a censor for not quoting the entire article.  Well, that has
>already been posted.  There is no need for me to repost that stuff.

Why?  Did it ever occur to you that maybe no one saw it?  Are we just to take
your word for it without question?  I think you deleted it because you didn't
want anyone using it to pick your argument apart, myself.

>Try to remember something here.  He started this thread with his ridiculous
>claim that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality.  Then, he admitted that it
>did, but claimed that it was all because one word was translated wrong.  Then,
>he claimed that Paul was a repressed homosexual who wanted to repress the other
>homosexuals.  This ridiculous claim was solely based upon the fact that Paul wrote
>adamantly against homosexuality.  By that logic, anyone who is against homosexuality,
>must be gay (obviously untrue.)  All of this stuff about Paul is totally irrelevant
>since Paul's epistles are almost universally accepted as part of the Bible.  He made
>no claim to the contrary, he simply made unjustified accusations about Paul.  He
>claimed that since he didn't like Paul's writings, that they didn't count.  From
>what he wrote, he evidently doesn't like most of the Bible.  (He eliminated all
>the Old Testament and half of the New Testament.)  I suspect that if we pinned him
>down further, he wouldn't like much of what Jesus said either.

I suspect that if you were pinned down, you'd be pretty ignorant of what
Jesus said in the first place...that seems to be a basic requirement of 
fundies these days.


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
                  COUGARS     TIGERS     RAVENS     HUSKIES
  OILERS     OWLS             *Any questions?*              ROCKETS     ASTROS