From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics,rice.galor
Subject: Re: Bible, Homosexuality, Translations, etc.
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1992 06:28:49 GMT
 <C2QBr*ZV0@caleb.UUCP> <168577E0.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <168577E0.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>, Joseph L. Lockett writes:

> In article <C2QBr*ZV0@caleb.UUCP>
> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>  
> >Why should I bother?  You reject the Old Testament.  You reject most of the New
> >Testament (Paul wrote much of it.)  So, why should I bother digging up the quotes
> >for you?  You've already rejected them before I quote them.  I doubt that you know
> >it better than I, but even if you do, I have one BIG advantage over you.  I believe
> >it.  You obviously don't.
>  
> Actually, Jim, I agree very much with the part about 'love your neighbor as
> yourself', though I seem to violate it right and left in my rhetoric. :-)
> Yes, Paul wrote the Epistles, which make up a large portion of the Bible,
> and I reject many of them.  I think Paul was a convincing orator, a fine
> organizer, possibly a very kind man.  But I don't think we can treat some
> of the things he says as divinely inspired to hold true for the ages.

Only because you don't like what he wrote.  That is not a very solid foundation
for you to build on.

> Jesus, now.  There was a fine philosopher.  And NOWHERE that I can recall
> does he condemn homosexuality.  Instead he preaches a doctrine of love,
> tolerance, mutual respect and forbearance, that we would all do well to
> emulate.  I'm not doing well at turning the other cheek here, though I'm
> often better in person.  But I think if people followed Jesus' OWN words,
> rather than those of some of his zealous followers and misinterpreters,
> then perhaps we'd all be a lot happier and more open-minded.

Wrong.  Jesus was NEVER open-minded.  He never said a single word about "mutual
respect" or "tolerance."  He did say:

"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.



Jesus was NOT a philosopher.  He was the Son of God.  If you deny that, then you
must admit that he was either crazy or a liar.  He said:

"I am the way, the truth, and the life;  no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
John 14:6

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!

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.  For God sent not
his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might
be saved.  He that believeth on him is not condemned;  but he that believeth not
is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten
Son of God."
John 3:16-18

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.

"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved
darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.  For everyone that doeth
evil hateth the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.  But he that doeth truth
cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in
God."
John 3:19-21

This is why some try to pervert the Bible as you do.  They hate the light it shines
upon them.



> >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.
>  
> 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
> the Pauline Epistles nor the Old Testament Jewish Law (Leviticus, etc.)
> can possibly be considered relevant unless you intend to turn our government
> into a narrow-minded patriarchy, sans hamburgers, cotton-poly T-shirts,
> or much of any scientific progress (tongue somewhat in cheek here).

More nonsense.  The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality.  You simply don't like
that fact.  Therefore, you make up excuses about it.  Why don't you simply admit
that you don't believe the Bible or Jesus?

> You are welcome to attempt to rebut my earlier post.  Anything to offer
> besides Romans, Leviticus, or the mysterious John Ch8 of Mr. Troth?  We
> have seen all of them go down in flames before the obvious irrelevancy
> of textually nearby quotes.

Romans and Leviticus are still in the Bible.  You didn't rebut anything.  Nor did
anything "go down in flames."  You simply made up nonsense and played the
pseudo-intellectual games that you play.

> Jesus says to love your fellow man.  Isn't that what homosexual men do
> better than all us straight guys?  (BIG smiley here....)

If you loved Jesus, you wouldn't be here perverting His commandment like that.
In fact, if you had any respect at all for Him, you wouldn't have written what
you have.



> Uh, Jim?  Gosh, sorry to burst your bubble, but you don't honestly think
> that King James' translators didn't have their own sets of biases, do you?
> I mean, their biases perhaps agree more with yours than with mine, but if
> you want the original meaning of the Bible, I suggest you go learn Hebrew,
> Aramaic, and Koine Greek.  ANY translation is going to be biased, so unless
> you read several and contrast and compare, you are unlikely to get the
> real story.  At least, that's what *I* used to do prior to doing Readings
> on Sunday morning....

Bias should not have anything to do with translation.  I believe that the KJV
translators respected the scriptures enough that they did not deliberately
change the translation.  The new translators have "taken it upon themselves"
to "adjust" things here and there.  As I said before, the NIV is the worst
about doing that.

> You are merely demonstrating that you are comfortable within your existing
> prejudices, and don't wish to see them disturbed by actual thought.  A sad
> thing, if you ask me. :-)

You are the one who doesn't wish to be disturbed by actual thought.  Instead
of trying to deny and pervert what the Bible says, you should simply admit
that you don't believe it.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp