From: JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics,rice.galor
Subject: Re: Bible, Homosexuality, Translations, etc.
Date: 3 Sep 92 05:33:33 GMT
Organization: Rice University

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.
 
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.
 
>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
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).
 
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.
 
Jesus says to love your fellow man.  Isn't that what homosexual men do
better than all us straight guys?  (BIG smiley here....)
 
>Oh, hogwash.  It is very easy to understand the KJV English with a few minor
>notes in the margins which explain certain drastic changes in meaning.  Most
>changes are obvious from the context.  The KJV is best because all the newer
>translations I've read try to "adjust" the translation to suit their views.
 
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....
 
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. :-)
 
Joseph L. Lockett
jlock00@ricevm1.rice.edu
 
Rice doesn't speak for me, and I don't speak for Rice. At least, not here.