From: gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 18:25:24 GMT

In article <1jp45bINN7ng@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter
Smith) writes:
>gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>> The question is not whether you advocate doing these things, but
>> whether what you do advocate can lead to them, and this question you
>> have failed to address.

>Maybe if you spell it out a little more clearly for me; 1) what is 
>it you see me advocating, and 2) what results do you forsee following 
>from these things? 

I see you advocating the idea that homosexuals are breed apart, who
follow a sinful lifestyle which distinguishes them from ordinary,
decent people.

The consequences I forsee are that homosexuals who believe this will
think less of themselves, leading to unhappiness and self-destructive
behavior.  In the attempt to free themselves from this, I forsee that
they will tend to abandon any attempt at a spiritual life.

I forsee that heterosexuals will tend absorb the idea that here there
is a group of people who are different and evil.  This will tend to
lead to violence and hatred, just as it has with the Jews.

>> why this is *not* a red herring has already been pointed out to you,
>> and again you have failed to respond.  You have given no criterion for
>> distinguishing the ceremonial from the moral in Leviticus.

>I've yet to see anything close to a good reason why it isn't a red
>herring.  Just repeats of "why don't you discriminate against people
>who wear polyster".

This isn't an argument.  To refute and argument, you must argue.  The
above made a point, which you should either counter or concede to be
correct; pretending that no point was made does not help.

>> This is a typical example of the circularity we so often see in such
>> arguments, in fact.  How do we know the prohibition belongs to the
>> "moral" rather than the "ceremonial" law?  

>"Most" Christians can look at a law that prohibits multi-fabric 
>clothing and see that it is ceremonial, and laws about sexual relations 
>and see that they are about morality.  

This is clearly false, since Levitical prohibitions against certain
types of sexual activity *are not* followed by Christians, and
*are not* taught as a requirement my any major denomination.

You have challenged other people as to the degree of knowledge they
possess of Christian doctrine.  This raises the question of just how
much *you* know about the Bible or Christianity--apparently less than
you think you do.

>> The challenge to Walter and
>> whoever else wants to attempt it is to make sense of using Leviticus
>> here without resort to a circular argument.

>What would constitute a non-circular argument to you on this subject? 

A good start would be to define what you mean by "moral" vs
"ceremonial" in a coherent way.  You can't use the idea that
homosexuality is a moral problem to define Levitical pronouncements on
it to be moral, you need to have a standard for what distinguishs a
moral from a ceremonial or cultic pronouncement which does not depend
on traditional notions.  Otherwise, you are using tradition to support
tradition; basically you end up saying it is traditional to believe
tradition.

>As for using Leviticus, that is really a secondary reference; the 
>NT is also pretty clear about sexual immorality. 

I would apply the same standard to Pauline pronouncements: do you
have a clear means of distinguishing those which can be ignored
from those which can't be?

Moreover, as we have just seen, there is a lot of controversy as
to just what Paul said.  And it works the other way, as well--some
scholarly opinion is on the side of the idea that Jesus specifically
forbade gay-bashing rhetoric in Matthew.

>> Which brings up my first point again--why is it OK for conservative
>> Christians to worry about the atmosphere of anti-morality other 
>> people create, but not for those other people to worry about
>> the atmosphere conservative Christians create? 

>Maybe you need to show how Christians create an atmosphere of 
>anti-morality. 

Teaching bigotry creates an atmosphere of anti-morality.



-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton