Re: Reproduction from homosexuality...

From: Michael Roberts (
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 16:24:25 EST

  • Next message: "Re: An interesting essay for evangelicals"


    I f I can put it tactfully, you need to read theBible with more care and respect as it is God's Word.I am very disturbed at what you write as it is a travesty of the Bible. I can think of no principles of biblical interpretation from Fundamentalist to Liberal which would justify your comments. Please do not misuse the Bible

      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 5:27 PM
      Subject: Re: Reproduction from homosexuality...

      In a message dated 1/19/03 12:16:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, writes:

        I wrote
    >>... Genesis 1-2. However, reproduction is not mentioned until
    >>chapter 3; companionship is the reason given in chapter 2. <<

        Rich replied: >Yes, but can't you make an inference?<

        Reviewing Genesis, I was wrong to claim that reproduction is not
        mentioned before chapter 3, as there is the command to be fruitful
        and multiply in chapter 1. However, humans are given additional
        responsibilities, and the emphasis is on them. Reproduction is a
        responsibility, but not the chief one.

      No, God promises Abram that his children will multiply and fill the earth. It is God's promise to Abraham that reproduction of Abraham' seed will be His responsibility as long as Abraham is obedient. Reproduction is ALWAYS the chief responsibility. If it hadn't been, you and I might never have been born to discuss the issue.

        Rich; >The absolute basis of Abraham's covenant with God was the
        avoidance of infanticide (sacrificing to Moloch) which decreased
        births. I suggest that is why anything that decreased births in the
        view of the patriarchs was morally wrong. <

        No, the absolute basis of Abrahamís covenant with God was Godís grace
        in offering it to Abraham. Abrahamís part in carrying out the
        covenant included circumcision and obedience.

      You can't mix metaphors. The absolute basis of Abraham's convenant was God's promise to multiply Abraham's descendants. God only needed abraham to be willing to give up his son, but not to do it.Your allusion to 'grace' is rhetorical and amorphous, does not address the issue and is unacceptable as a logical response to the passages in the Bible as I've simply read them.

        I presume that you are using decreased birth broadly to include
        survival, as killing children does not directly decrease birth rate.
        However, even increasing the birth rate itself is not seen as
        inherently good for the patriarchs. All polygamy that receives any
        discussion (we are not told anything about Keturah) causes problems.
        Abrahamís attempt to increase his birth rate through Hagar is wrong,
        Esauís first two wives have no recorded positive features, and
        Jacobís polygamy produces constant rivalry. If God really put a
        premium on birth rate, would He have started His people with an
        elderly infertile couple?

      Babies were sacrificed to moloch rather than aborted so the difference between birth rate and infant mortality as you define it is a specious one, though I do note it.

      You can't mix the story of Abraham with the story of Jacob and Esau. Abraham's story mandates quantity birthing. The allegory of Jacob and Esau carried 3 generations mandates quality birthing. Look to see why Esau's wives have no positive feautures. He has married a Canaanite woman first and it is only after causing the displeasure of his parents that he marries a Hebrew woman. He has also carelessly sold his birthright to Jacob. It is Esau himself who is not pleasing to God, his wives are just examples of more of his bad decisions.

        Rich: >If you read Herodotus, the character of ancient war was
        genetic. When you lost, your finest males were castrated or murdered
        and your finest females were put in concubinage. The effect of such
        policies is to decrease quantity and quality births in the conquered.

        However, the character of Israelite war was supposed to be religious.
        The criteria for judgment, both within and outside Israel, were
        theological views and moral actions, not intelligence or physical

      You are here presenting an argument from arrogance. All religions in the 5th-6th centuries were supposed to be 'religious.' So what's special about Judaism?
      When I say homosexuality is unacceptable because it reduces birth rates, do liberals say, Christianity's supposed to be 'religious.' No they say Christianity is intolerant and homophobic. Using the same criteria, the character of Isaelite war was of the same character as war in general in those times for populations that were prolific and expansionist. Note that Judaism is supposed to be religious and I have to take thhat seriously while Christianity is intolerant and homophobic and in another thread I have to accept that for Christianity. Why do Christians defend Judaism before defending Christianity?

        Rich: >forgive the =3D20s. I copied and pasted from Word: <
        Such garbling also depends on the sending and receiving email
        programs, as well as the server. I often paste from Word but have
        not noticed the same problem. Hopefully I have correctly edited them
        out; however, some punctuation marks were also affected, and I am not
        entirely certain about the exact reading of your comment on religious
        parties in Israel.

        Rich: >... Central to God's covenant with Abraham is this fact that
        Abraham and his descendants will no longer practice infanticide.<

        Is there any evidence that they used to do so? Certainly later
        Canaanite, Ammonite, and apostate Israelite practices involved
        sacrificing children, but was it actually a practice in Ur or Haran?
        The point of the call to sacrifice Isaac is total commitment to God.
        Human sacrifice is indeed rejected in the Law, but it does not seem
        to have represented a serious threat to population size at any point.
        The large-scale human sacrifices that I know of (Aztecs, etc.) were
        generally prisoners. Thus, human sacrifice can have a eugenic
        function, and rejecting it is not necessarily an example of greater
        evolutionary success.

      Yes, there is evidence. Look up Moloch in your concordance and then find the relevant passages in the Bible.
      Human sacrifice, eunuchs, concubinage of conquered women, murder of the finest of the conquered males - ethnic insularity, all have eugenic effects, all.

        Rich: >The effect on Jewish history is dramatic because a prolific
        population is necessarily expansionist. When Abraham first arrives in
        the Philistine town of Gerar, Abimelech its king welcomes him but
        years later Abrahamís son Isaac, now a grown man with children of his
        own, is no longer welcome in Gerar. Why the reversal? Abrahamís
        descendants are greatly multiplying. The Bible tells us Isaac sowed
        seed in that land, and that year he reaped a hundredfold. Isaacís
        household has grown so rapidly (and presumably seized so many local
        niches from the indigenous people) the displaced and alarmed
        Philistines envy him.<

        The Philistines under a previous Abimelech (possibly a title rather
        than a family name) and Abraham had their conflicts too. Isaac only
        had two children and is thus not a convincing poster child for
        multiplying. In both cases, it is the amount of possessions
        (especially livestock), rather than the immediate family size, that
        led to the conflict, with the additional factor of cowardly
        dishonesty. The efforts by Abraham and Isaac to protect themselves
        at risk to their wives could have appeared to be the safest way to
        survive and reproduce later, but these efforts are condemned as
        dishonest and faithless.

      Isaac sowed seed in that land, and that year he reaped a hundredfold. That's Scripture. You want to argue with it. Fine. I just read it.

        Rich: > 4-500 years later, the reproductive success of the Jewish
        people causes conflict with the Egyptians who notice that the
        Israelites are fruitful and prolific; they increase in numbers and
        become very powerful, so that the country is overrun by
        them...Religious parties make up about 25% of the Israeli electorate
        (Shahak & Mezvinsky 1999,8) - a percentage that is sure to increase
        because of their high fertility. <

        However, this often includes converts. Again, the emphasis is not on
        evolutionary merit, but theological merit. In the case of living in
        Egypt, probably a large component of miscellaneous slaves joined
        them, initially due to social factors (cf. the mixing of all those
        labeled as colored in past segregated societies) and then for the
        opportunity to escape.

      This has nothing to do with converts. Read the very beginning of Exodus. Then provide your counter evidence. Your evidence is lacking.

            Dr. David Campbell
            Old Seashells
            University of Alabama
            Biodiversity & Systematics
            Dept. Biological Sciences
            Box 870345
            Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA

        That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
        Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
        Droitgate Spa

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 20 2003 - 18:05:45 EST