Re: the Bible, translation and gays

In article <KYSPj.6063$kt1.2407@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, hedrick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>rtdavide@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 responds to shegeek72 on homo***uality.
>
>Unfortunately shegeek72 uses religioustolerance.org as a source for
>Biblical exegesis. I agree with a few of their positions, but I've
>seen no evidence in any of their web pages of serious attempts at
>exegesis.

This is what I have been saying about their 'exegesis' for quite some time
now.

>Their discussion of ****ea is typical. While promising a discussion of
>the Greek word, they actually discuss primarily uses of "fornication"
>in English.

Which is _so_ far from genuine exegesis, I can _only_ see it as deliberate
fraud.

>Their discussion of Rom 1:26-27 is not credible. It's hard to see how
>any reasonable person can read that without concluding the Paul
>disapproves of all homo***uality.

Ah, but this is why people tamper with the translation of key words in the
passage. If you tamper with them, suddenly you _can_ fool the reasonable
person
into believing he disapproves only of 'prostitution' and the like.

But this illustrates the general trend: in order to fool people, they
raise all
kinds of illegitimate disputes about the meaning of key words, all to
defend
depravity.

> It might be true that he speaks of
>people who were originally hetero***ual and turned to homo***uality.
>However he is speaking of the pagan world as a whole, so he is
>probably not speaking of individuals who changed during their lives,
>but of the long-term effects of mankind falling from original
>sinlessness into idolatry. And since he considers homo***uality to be
>such an obvious evil that it is a punishment for idolatry, it's
>really, really hard to believe that he would think it's perfectly OK
>as long as you start out homo***ual.
>
>I think the only credible arguments about Paul's passages are
>
>* Paul's letters are primarily useful because of the light he casts
>on Jesus' teachings and how they were carried out in the Church.
>His own teachings are not inerrant. There are signs in his letters
>that Paul himself makes this distinction.

But no one should believe this, since this robs Christs own words of
meaning; I
refer to where He calls Paul His "chosen vessel".

>or
>
>* Modern homo***uality is simply a different thing than what he had
>seen.

Much ink has been spilled and many trees have lost their lives to sup****t
_this_
rationalization. But this ignores the putative _reasoning_ behind God's
command
to ban all homo***ual activity. It pretends that the command is not for
our own
greatest good, as are _all_ His commands.

>
>I suspect that almost everyone who defends homo***uality in the modern
>Church in fact accepts the first of these, and possibly also the
>second.

Clearly, they have to do one or the other. They think they are being more
thorough if they do both.

> I probably do too.

That is sad.

> I think it's disingenuous to do the kind of
>pseudo-exegesis that the Toronto Consultants do, appearing to accept
>the authority of the texts and then changing their meaning.

I am so glad you pointed this out. I have been pointing it out too, so
unfortunately, I know from experience that your opinion here will be
largely
ignored.


[snip]
>I am particularly disappointed at the Toronto Consultants because
>their idea of religious tolerance is to reject conservative religion,
>not to find a way to practice mutual respect.

I am not disappointed simply because I knew better than to expect better
from
them. Of _course_ they gave up on "finding a way to practice mutual
respect". It
is impossible for them, since they sacrificed too much on the altar of
fallacy
in sup****t of depravity.

> My idea of a religious
>tolerance site

And your idea is more sensible. But it appears you miss the point. If they
are
willing to sink to such dishonesty in their disingenuous acts you describe
above, why wouldn't they _also_ sink to dishonesty even in the naming of
their
organization? The name "religious _tolerance_ " is a dishonest choice for
their
name. They are not interested in "religious tolerance", they are
interested in
_intolerance_ towards those who insist on more responsible exegesis.

[snip]


-- 
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)