Re: I Am Homophobic

Well, I don't know offhand just what to cite in support of the 
assertions that "the Bible" supports slavery, child abuse, etc., but 
(with the exception of the mixed fiber bit), I recall that it does, at 
least implicitly.  For example, slaves are acknowledged and proper 
treatment called for, but nowhere does "the Old Testament" expressly 
command the abolition of slavery -- a glaring oversight, I would think.  
Not sure about child abuse other than the general violence of the 
writings, and the "spare the rod" stuff. The genocide stuff is more 
explicit, with God commanding his people to commit it and take the 
land.  "The Old Testament" is a crazy, dark, and terrible world.

On a more important point, while it is tempting to say that Judaism, 
Christianity, and Islam are determined by their respective religious 
texts, not by any "experts,"  it is critical to recognize two points 
that seem to undermine that assertion.

First, all of the texts (in fact all texts) require interpretation, and 
even if one decides to rely on no "expert," one then sets up oneself as 
the "expert" and the "authority."  Ultimately, as Alan Watts pointed 
out, there is NO transcendental authority, because all must be 
interpreted and *accepted* as "authoritative" by each individual.  Each 
believer makes or unmakes his/her god and truth.

An important corollary to this seems to be that, with this "god-given" 
power and limitation, as well as the keen tools of rationality similarly 
bestowed upon us, we must judge contenders to the "god" job by their 
works.  Christ himself supposedly said this, "by their fruits shall ye 
know them."  This seems the essence and the essentiality of the "not 
befitting" test that Kendall referred to earlier in this thread.  By 
even the most generous application of this test, the god of the "Old 
Testament" is at best a schizophrenic, if well meaning, bastard -- and 
the god, if any, of the current world is the same (see in this context 
Jack Miles' GOD: A Biography, he's also got a new one CHRIST.... hey, 
he's a Jesuit, he can get away with it ;-)

Second, the supposedly authoritative texts of the religions are 
*themselves* assertions by self-anointed experts, not wholly unlike OBL 
or Pat Robertson.  Moreover, as Kendall pointed out earlier, the 
selection of which sub-parts and doctrines were part of the religion (at 
least for the Jud-Christ "Bible") was yet another layer of "expert" 
fiddling.

Where is one left but to come to his/her own decisions or adopt the most 
attractive amongst the experts' mumblings?

:-)


On Saturday, December 8, 2001, at 06:01  PM, benjamin a graffam wrote:

>
> 	when making statements about the Bible I believe it is important 
> to cite
> where in the Bible it says things like supporting slavery, child abuse,
> and banning mixed fiber clothing, etc and to put things into context.
> some people may have a differnet understanding of what they read,
> otherwise if the passage is not cited by either party an argument based
> solely on personal feelings could occur.  the danger in this is as 
> humans
> is that iron sharpens iron.  consequently not citing passages can be a
> hinderence to dialogue, that is many times when exchange is done mostly
> on an emotional level the volume in our voice increases but we are not
> necessarily heard or understood any better.    A good example of this is
> the treatment of Islam by the mainstreem media.  they keep insisting 
> that
> Islam is a religion of peace, have many 'experts' on TV who support this
> notion, but I do not hear them quoting the Koran to support this idea.
> For all i know Osama could very well be putting what he reads in the
> Koran in proper context, that is, his interpretations are appropiate
> based on the text.  in a way the mainsteam media is preventing dialogue
> by making statements and using 'experts' to back them up, rather then 
> use
> the Koran which is the basis for Islam.  last i checked the bible is the
> basis for  Judaism and Christianity, and The Koran is the basis for
> Islam.  'experts' are not the basis for any religion that i am aware 
> even
> exists.   peace. ben.
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2001 18:34:53 -0800 "damien" <[email protected]> writes:
>> The Bible also supports slavery, child abuse and bans mixed-fiber
>> clothing.
>>
>> http://www.specialrighteousness.org/scripture.html
>>
>> http://www.bettybowers.com
>>
>> Damien
>>   -----Original Message-----
>>   From: bonobos-admin-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]
>> [mailto:bonobos-admin-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]]On
>> Behalf Of Jason & Kim Antley
>>   Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 12:03 PM
>>   To: bonobos-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]
>>   Subject: [Bonobos] I Am Homophobic
>>
>>
>>   What the writer of this article seems to misunderstand is, there
>> are
>> "rights and wrongs" in our society.  The "rights and wrongs" in our
>> society
>> are clearly defined in the Bible, the holy writing that the founding
>> fathers
>> of our country clung to for dear life.  In the Bible, homosexuality
>> is
>> severely condemned.  In Romans chapter 1, it is called the sin that
>> signifies a person has reached the bottom of the "perversity
>> barrel."  We as
>> Americans are to be kind to, and as a Judeo-Christian nation, we are
>> to love
>> the sinner.  In the same vein of responsibility, we are to hate this
>> sin of
>> perversity and teach our kids holiness, not tolerance.  Heterosexism
>> is
>> biblical.  In short, we are to love the sinner yet hate the sin,
>> showing
>> mercy and kindness to all, lest we ourselves be shown cruelty and
>> judgment
>> by others in our time of failure.
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
> _______________________________________________
> Bonobos maillist  -  Bonobos-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]
> http://monkeyfist.com/mailman/listinfo/bonobos