From: lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
Subject: Re: How many Christian Gods are there?
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 05:55:05 GMT

In article <parsons.717401558@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax) writes:


[...deletions...]

>Oh, how convenient.  I have an entire _book_ about a woman who turns
>down two men to stay with her _mother-in-law_ after her husband dies.

     Humm...perhaps Naomi was an elderly lady, who Ruth thought could
     not take sufficient care of herself (Ruth 1:12), then Ruth ends up
     getting married at the end.  Why read into this story more than is
     there?  The whole book is about caring for the provision of another
     person.   Ruth helps provide for Naomi.  Boaz provides for Ruth.

It has been a while since I have read the entire book of Ruth, so I will
withhold comment on this _for the moment_.  And "elderly" in the time period
we're discussing could have been 35.  As for implications, I thought's that
what we were talking about.  Indeed, all you did was restate exactly what I
had said.

     "Intreat me not to leave you, or to return from following after
     you:  For whither you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will
     lodge.  Your people will be my people, and your life my life: 
     Where you die, I will die, and there will be buried,
     _May_only_death_part_us."

BTW, the last bit may sound a bit familiar.


>I have a good portion of a book of the Bible - and two of the most
>lauded characters in the Bible - that bespeaks in no uncertain terms
>of two men that love each other.  

     Like brothers.

Please read all of I Samuel.  What Jonathan and David had was _considerably_
more than just brotherly love.


>Indeed, in I Samuel 20:41,
>    "And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place
>         toward the South, and fell on his face to the ground, and
>         bowed down three times; and they kissed one another, and
>         wept one with another, until David *GREW LARGE*"
>                                             ^^^^^^^^^^

>These last two words have _never_ been correctly translated
>from the Hebrew, and I've check several translations.  The Hebrew
>word "higdil" means, in this case, sexual excitement.  Is that enough
>of an "implication" for you?

     Not!  Give me a break.  You can think it means that, but it doesn't
     make it so.  Read the KJV or the NIV or any other translation they
     are correct.  David wept more than Jonathan.  Sexual excitement is
     out of place in this passage.  It does not even make sense in this
     context.

I'd prefer to read the Hebrew, thank you.  Your poor greek translators
screwed up every Hebrew name in the OT and gave Moses horns.  I'm trying to
figure out how correctly translating the word is merely "thinking it so." 
You claim that "David wept more than Jonathan," despite the fact that the
Hebrew word for wept does not even _APPEAR_ in the last portion.



>Oh, and BTW, where does the Bible "imply" that consentual homosexuality
>is wrong?  And where does (in the NT) Jesus or God even _suggest_ it?

     Leviticus 18:22, 1 Cor. 6:9, Romans 1:26-28 all condemn
     homosexuality.  As for Jesus, God and the NT...Are you saying that
     if it is in the OT that it no longer applies?  What if God said it
     in the OT but not in the NT?  Did Jesus condemn every specific sin
     man commits?  But to answer your question, God through the
     inspiration of the Holy Spirit condemns it in the aforementioned
     verses.  The moral code of the OT did not suddenly disappear when
     Christ came.  If adultery is still wrong in the NT, you can besure
     homosexuality did not suddenly become OK.

Let's go backwards.  Cor. & Romans condemn a lot of things - some of which we
cannot translate but have labeled homosexuality.  Both seem to indicate a
distaste for prostitution & older men taking advantage of boys - a not too
uncommon practice back then.  NOTHING at all comparable to what goes on
between two consenting adults.  Lev. is a bit more difficult - I'll grant you
that.  Yet there are Jews who eat shellfish & drive on the Sabbath - both
the same level of "to'evah" as homosexuality.  Indeed, one might consider the
latter two to be considerably _higher_, since the Bible goes into a great bit
more detail on these two.  Finally, I don't lie with a man like I'd lie with
a woman, thus the passage doesn't really apply to me.

Also, as for Christians & Lev., I suggest you read Galatians 3:22-26 -
you're basically told to pitch Lev.

>>>But there are some things that God has judged in His Word... The Bible
>>>does not teach tolerance of evil. Read Eph. 6,10-20. Someone said:
>>>'Hate sin, but love the sinner.' This is true Christian tolerance.

>Huh?  You are assuming homosexuality is a sin.  That seems like quite 
>a leap based on incorrectly translated Greek and questionable 
>interpretations of a couple things Paul said.  And if you cannot
>even tolerate me, how can you love me?  Just curious.

     I did some research on the topic of homosexuality and Christianity
     this afternoon.  Few interpreters who are not homosexuals hold the
     view that the translation from the Greek is questionable.  If you
     are homosexual the interpretation is wrong, if you are heterosexual
     the interpretation is correct.  The majority says it is a correct
     interpretation of the Greek.  It is only recently that this has
     even become an issue.  This is just one more attempt by homosexuals
     to attain legitimacy for their sinful acts.

Which interpretation - or translation?  You indicate that only heterosexuals
can interpret the Bible accurately.  Do they taken into account the time in
which the Bible was written?  Do they consider the intentions of Paul? 
You're going have to give us more than "we're right & you're wrong."  I have
pointed out flawed conclusions, lack of historical insight, and blatantly
mistranslated text.  Your parry is "I'm right because I'm right."  You're
right about the "recent" part - it has only been recently that Christians
have begun to actively condemn homosexuality.

Perhaps the translators - and those in power in Christianity - have more to
protect than we do.  We cannot change who we are.  But we _can_ change our
faith.  

BTW, I don't need you to grant me "legitimacy" for my loving relationship. 
And if you only wish to see homosexuality as the "act" - what does that make
heterosexuality?    


-- 
  John 14:6
  ^^^^^^^^^
  ^^^^^^^^^

So I'm to be condemned for being Jewish, too?  Looks like I'm a goner - and
my religion does not even believe in a "hell"!

  |  The Truth is still the Truth      |
  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |

I'm not ignoring anything.  You've told me the Bible _can't_ be mistranslated
because that would ruin your preconceived notions about homosexuality.  It
took centuries for the truth of Galilleo, et al., to be heard, thanks to "The
Church."  It will _NOT_ take that long for us to be heard.

======================================================================
"For I can see that in the midst of death, Life persists; in the
midst of untruth, Truth persists; in the midst of darkness, Light
persists."

"An eye for an eye will blind the world."
                                      Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

"I'm here, I'm queer, get used to it."
                                                             ME!

lazarus@wixer.cactus.org
Michael Lax, 12514 Esplanade St., #B, Austin, TX  78727-4409
512.837.1596 (h), 512.836.9715 (fax)