From: ap290@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ruth M. Hanschka)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Subject: Re: amendment 2
Date: 8 Nov 92 22:13:21 GMT
Reply-To: ap290@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ruth M. Hanschka)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, gtoal@PIZZABOX.DEMON.CO.UK (Graham Toal) says:

>so excuse me if I paraphrase) "thou shalt not lie with a man as with
>a woman, for it is an abomination".  Doesn't that just mean no vaginal

Try no same-sex copulation.  Men don't have vaginas.:-)

>But I'm just stirring.  I do agree that the OT abhors sodomy between
I hadn't noticed.:-)

>men above all else - after all, that paragon of virtue in Sodom would
>rather hand over his daughters to be raped by a mob than let them
>at a couple of men (who for all we know may have looked forward to the
>mob... I mean, if Sodom had such a bad reputation, what were they doing
>hanging around there anyway???)

Maybe they were trying to go home, and it was shorter to go through Sodom
than around it?  I don't think anyone wants to be raped, and having come too
close for comfort, I think I know what I'm talking about.  Rape, that is.
>
>"I think for myself, and find it insulting that you suggest I follow
>the party line" Yeah, right.
>
Precisely - got in one.  If the party line is right, I'll follow it.:-)
You just forgot to ask who's party.  
>
>I've already asked you what your personal rules are about interpreting
>the bible.  You've said in private mail that you take *all* of it, modulo
>some sensible caveats about translation from the Greek.
>
Didn't that one go to the list too?  Maybe not.  And yes, I do accept all of it.

>You've said you take imperatives from God's lips directly to the pens
>of old Hebrew scribes unequivocally.

I said it was the word of God, yes, but it's the Old Covenant, not the new.
Not all of it applies any more.  It's been superceded.  Paul's letter to
Philippi covers a lot of this, including warnings about false teachers who
said you have to convert to Judaism first, and Christianity after that.  It
included circumcision and adherence to the Law.  Paul called those people


>So tell me Ruth, do you cover your head in Church?
>
>Do you refuse to wear garments woven from two kinds of cloths?
>
>You've said in mail that all sex outside marriage is sinful.  I hope
>you haven't *ever* masturbated.  No shades of grey allowed, remember.
>
>Have you ever spoken aloud in the congregation? That's a big no-no too.
>
>There are *dozens* of Gods Instructions in the OT that Christians ignore
>nowadays because they don't consider them "appropriate to the times". If
>you *are* going to pick and choose, try *thinking* about it rather than
>taking the word of God straight from Pat Robertson's lips.  If you're
>*not* going to pick and choose...
>
>      "Give to everyone that asketh thee; and from him that
>      taketh away thy goods ask not again." Luke 6:30
>
>      "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would
>      borrow of thee turn not thou away." Matt.  5:42
>
>      "But love your enemies, and do them good, and lend
>      never despairing; and your reward shall be great, and
>      ye shall be Sons of the Most High: for he is kind
>      toward the unthankful and evil."  Luke 6:35
>
>Care to send me all your money, Ruth?  Moral absolutes, remember.  New
>Testament, straight from the Lips of God.
And taken so far out of context they're screaming.  

>I asked you what *Jesus* has to say about homosexuality.  Nothing. The
>closest you could find was about marriage, right?  To which you added
>that since men can't marry, and sex outside marriage is sinful, then
>sex between men must always be sinful.  A brilliant leap of logic.
>It didn't occur to you that the Christian viewpoint *should* be to legalise
>marriage between men?
And women, Graham.  And women, and the answer is no.  And legalising it has
nothing to do with it.  Go ask a theologian this stuff.
[as I'm quite literally about to be cut off.  as in message dumped.
  D
>Hell, queers have *always* been here.  If it's such a big thing with the
>Church, why the hell didn't Jesus speak out against it explicitly?  Maybe
>it's something to do with references to "the Disciple that Jesus Loved" :-)
>(Hmmm... disciple. Sort of implies discipline, doesn't it.  Got a Christian
>View on BDSM Ruth?  One that isn't inconsistent with the biblical entreaty
>not to beat your wife with a stick no wider than your thumb?)
>
BDSM?  Nope, never tried it, as you very well know.:-)  As for that insinuation
about John, Kooky, it's unworthy and you know it.

>Too damn right it's disgusting, Bayla.  People who think they're fighting
>evil in God's Name are downright fucking dangerous.  Gypsies next, then
>the Jews, right?  That *is* the prescribed order isn't it?  Hitler was a
>Christian par excellance, and I don't see the leaders of the new wave
>of fundie revivalism having any higher moral values.
Ahhh, but am I a revivalist fundie?  Nope, not hardly; the revivalists are
parvenus.:-)  As for Adolph, he MURDERED Christians.  He was a great servant,
of Satan's, that is.  

>In case you think this is just me getting on my high horse because someone
>'pressed my buttons', just look at the title of this thread.  We're
>discussing bigotry, prejudice, and oppression.  *My* people are under

We were supposed to be talking about viewpoints on a piece of legislation.
It's a similar topic, but not the same, and it could have been addressed
without a flamewar.  Bigotry and prejudice are *everyone's* problem.
Yelling won't solve them.

>fire from the State, and the State is being prodded by ever so decent
>upstanding Christian people like Ruth, who in ones and twos are so
>innocuous that even champions of the underdog like you, bayla, are
>leaping to their defence.
>
The decent upstanding Christians you're referring to have to vote their
consciences, Graham.  Would you ask them to do otherwise?  And, most aren't
here to defend themselves, so someone else has to take the other side of the
argument.  It's not fair otherwise.

>OK. To try to defuse this flamewar, I'll be willing to concede that I'm
>arguing against a whole movement and not Ruth in particular.  I really
>would like to hear Ruth say she'd have voted against the Oregon or
>Colorado discriminatory bills though.  It would make it a lot easier for me
>to dissociate her from the provably bigoted movement she's a part of.
>
Sorry, Graham, I can't say that.  I might well choose not to vote on the
issue entirely, though.  That's as close as I can come.  I can't vote for
something which I think is wrong.  On the other hand, I can't vote against
a law that would protect humans from others who think they're better, but
who may in fact be worse.  On that referendum, Graham, I'd probably just
stay home.  That's all I can offer you.
-- 
		###	Ruth Hanschka, the Nethead    ###
			- ap290@cleveland.freenet.edu
	      Where anything can happen, and it usually does
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU