a few responses lumped together (Jim and Burgy take note)

From: RFaussette@aol.com
Date: Thu Mar 20 2003 - 11:36:57 EST

  • Next message: John Burgeson: "Re: a few responses lumped together (Jim and Burgy take note)"

    Answer to Jim and Burgy

    Brothers and sisters,
    Do we need as some do,
     letters of recommendation to you or from you?
    You are our letter, written on our hearts,
     known and read by all,
    shown to be a letter of Christ ministered by us
      written not in ink but by the spirit of the living God
    not on tablets of stone but on tablets that are hearts of flesh.
     Such confidence we have through Christ toward God.
    Not that of ourselves we are qualified
     to take credit for anything as coming from us
    rather our qualification comes from God
    who has indeed qualified us as ministers of a new covenant
    not of letter but of spirit
    for the letter brings death but the spirit brings life.
    II Corinthians 3:1b-6

    The Law was never rejected by Paul. It was written on his heart. For those of
    you who have read my paper, Jesus sought to teach us that what was formerly
    meted out to us by the Temple priests, should be intuitive, written on our
    hearts, therefore ending priestly rule and the need for the corrupt temple
    sacrifical system in Jerusalem, making "learned behavior intuitive." What is
    not explicity embraced or condemned in the NT can be learned from the OT
    rather than using what is not explicity embraced or condemned in the NT as
    "loopholes" which is precisely what was wrong with the written Law.

    Now let's look at what the brother of a past president of yeshiva university
    has to say about the homosexual argument.
    (Maurice Lamm, The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage, Harper & Row 1979):

    I remember reading the account of a gay Jewish couple's "engagement"
    announcement a few years back. The couple described the joyous response of
    the Chavurah gathering, who danced around the couple, singing siman tov,
    mazal tov. "It is natural that we should want to celebrate our friends'
    happiness; why shouldn't we rejoice over the good fortune of two men who
    have found a loving relationship?" The homosexual argument is paraphrased as
    follows in an article by Hershel Matt:

    Granted that marriage in Judaism has always been heterosexual; and granted
    that one of the major purposes of marriage has always been procreation in
    order both to populate the world and to pass on the Covenant way of life. But
    is that the sole purpose and meaning of Jewish marriage? What of the
    legitimacy of sexual pleasure and release - is that not also Jewish? Longterm
    abstinence is no more feasible, bearable, or desirable for homosexuals than
    for heterosexuals. And does not marriage have other purposes as well: the
    fostering of mutual affection, care, trust, sacrifice and support; the
    encouragement and sustenance of growth-intellectual, esthetic, moral and
    spiritual; the sharing of pain and anxiety, the nurturing of joy and hope;
    the overcoming of loneliness -all of these on the basis of an enduring
    commitment of faithfulness? Is not marriage the primary and preferred and,
    indeed, the only fully acceptable context for furthering these purposes? If
    it is Torah-teaching that the fullest possible meaning of personhood is to be
    found in and through marriage, shall we, because we are homosexuals, be
    denied the right to seek such meaning and to develop such personhood? If God,
    in whose image we homosexuals, too, are created, has directly or indirectly
    caused or willed or allowed us to be what we cannot help being-men and women
    unable to function heterosexually-r-an we believe, and can you heterosexuals
    believe, that He wants us to be denied the only possible arrangement whereby
    we can live as deeply a human life as we are capable of? Here precisely is
    the focus of the homosexual argument-The union will bring into being a caring
    and loving relationship. Is the purpose of marriage not also companionship?
    Unlike celibacy and masturbation, this strikes the note of a meaningful
    partnership with another human being.

    "Loving, selfless concern" and "meaningful, personal relationships," the
    great slogans of the now dated "new morality" and the exponents of situation
    ethics, have become the litany of sodomy in our times. Simple logic should
    permit us to use the same criteria for excusing adultery or any other act
    heretofore held to be immoral; and indeed, that is just what has been done,
    and it has received the sanction not only of liberals and humanists, but of
    certain religionists as well. "Love," "fulfillment," "exploitive,"
    "meaningful"-the list itself sounds like a lexicon of emotionally charged
    terms drawn at random from the disparate sources of both Christian and
    psychologically-oriented agnostic circles. Logically, we must ask the next
    question: What moral depravities cannot be excused by the sole criterion of
    "warm, meaningful human relations" or "fulfillment," the newest semantic
    heirs to "love"? Love, fulfillment, and happiness can also be attained in
    incestuous contacts and certainly in polygamous relationships. Is there
    nothing at all left that is "Sinful," "unnatural," or "immoral" if it is
    practiced "between two consenting adults"? According to midrashic teaching,
    the generation of Noah was eradicated by the Flood because it had descended
    to such forms of immorality as the writing of formal marriage contracts for
    sodomy (homosexuality) and buggery (a man-beast relationship), a practice
    prevalent in the Athens of Plato and the Rome of Nero but unheard of in the
    long history of the Jewish people.

    (Note how Lamm accuses the Christians as being a source of legitimation of

    The act of homosexuality is prohibited, but all practicing homosexuals cannot
    be arbitrarily lumped together. The response must be to each individual and
    to his motives. Dr. Judd Marmor delineates four types of homosexual
    activity. "Genuine homosexuality" is based on strong preferential erotic
    feelings for members of the same sex. "Transitory homosexual behavior occurs
    among adolescents who would prefer heterosexual experiences but are denied
    such opportunities because of social, cultural or psychological
    reasons."Situational homosexual exchanges" are characteristic of prisoners,
    soldiers and others who are heterosexual but are denied access to women for
    long periods of time. "Transitory and opportunistic homosexuality" is that of
    delinquent young men who permit themselves to be used by pederasts in order
    to make money or win other favors, although their primary erotic interests
    are exclusively heterosexual. To these may be added, for purposes of our
    analysis, two other types. The first category, that of genuine homosexuals,
    may be said to comprehend two subcategories: those who experience their
    condition as one of duress or uncontrollable passion which they would rid
    themselves of if they could, and those who transform their idiosyneracy into
    an idealogy, i.e., the gay militants who assert the legitimacy and validity
    of homosexuality as an alternative to heterosexuality. The sixth category is
    based on what Dr. Rollo May has called "the new Puritanism," the peculiarly
    modern notion that one must experience all sexual pleasures, whether or not
    one feels inclined to them, as if the failure to taste every cup passed at
    the sumptuous banquet of carnal life means that one has not truly lived. Thus
    we have transitory homosexual behavior not of adolescents, but of adults who
    feel that they must "try everything" at least once in their lives. Clearly,
    genuine homosexuality experienced under duress (Hebrew: ones) most obviously
    lends itself to being termed pathological, especially where dysfunction
    appears in other aspects of the personality. Opportunistic homosexuality,
    ideological homosexuality, and transitory adult homosexuality are at the
    other end of the spectrum and appear more reprehensible. As for the
    intermediate categories, while they cannot be called illnesses, they do have
    a greater claim on our sympathy.... Hence there are types of homosexuality
    that do not warrant any special consideration, because the notion of ones or
    duress (i.e., disease) in no way applies. Where the category of mental
    illness does apply, the act itself remains toevah (an abomination), but the
    fact of illness lays upon us the obligation of pastoral compassion,
    psychological understanding, and social concern. In this sense, homosexuality
    is no different from any other anti-halakhic act, where it is legitimate to
    distinguish between the objective act itself, including its ethical and moral
    consequences, and the mentality and inner development of the person who
    perpetrates the act. For instance, if a man murders in a cold and calculating
    fashion for reasons of profit, the act is criminal and the transgressor is
    criminal. If, however, a psychotic murders, the transgressor is diseased
    rather than criminal, but the objective act itself remains a criminal act.
    The courts may therefore treat the perpetrator of the crime as they would a
    patient, with all the concomitant compassion and concern for therapy, without
    condoning the act as being morally neutral. To use halakhic terminology, the
    objective crime remains a maaseh averah [a violative action], whereas the
    person who transgresses is considered innocent on the grounds of ones. In
    such cases, the transgressor is spared the full legal consequences of his
    culpable act, although the degree to which he may be held responsible varies
    from case to case. The response to the homosexual must contain a number of
    ingredients: intelligence, compassion, personal strength, and an abiding
    loyalty and commitment to Jewish belief and Jewish history.

    Note that Lamm expresses "an abiding loyalty and commitment to Jewish belief
    and Jewish history." Where is the same among Christians?
    Note also that there is a Jewish (aka religious argument) and a homosexual
    (non-religious argument). Note also that orthodox Jewry does not accept the
    homosexual argument.
    In my paper I describe for you where in genesis there is evidence for
    eugenics culminating in 20th century disparities in IQ testing that
    demonstrate Ashkenazi Jewry has the highest mean IQ in the world. (Paul
    Johnson, The History of the Jews, Kevin Macdonald, A People that shall Dwell
    alone, Hernsteinn and Murray, The Bell Curve). These religious people reject
    homosexuality and also have some of the highest birth rates in the world.
    Many of these Eastern European Jews form the very settlement population that
    refuses to leave Palestinian territory. Their refusal is the nexus of tension
    in the Middle East. They also have powerful communities in New York such as
    New Square that bloc-vote (as their communities are theocracies) to elect
    politicians as they did for Hilary Clinton. Chuck Schumer was elected by
    Brooklyn Jews and Wall Street. Schumer champions abortion and unrestricted
    immigration ( he held a press conference with Carol Maloney on a case of
    infibulation to morally justify unrestricted immigration which later turned
    out to be bogus). All of these behaviors supported by Schumer and Clinton
    favor the orthodox breeding communities over indigenous Americans because
    "niche theory in ecology predicts that a peripatetic group religiously
    committed to a reproductive strategy of quantity and quality birthing is
    necessarily expansionist and covetous of the elite niches of any host
    civilization with which it interacts."'

    The suggestion that homosexuals assist their affinals (genetically related
    kin) as some sort of justification for homosexuality and a repudiation of the
    fact that homosexuals do not procreate, was made without a reference, and
    does not stand. It does stand however, if we are talking about Jewish
    homosexuals. If the IQ stats are true, and Jews on average are potentially
    smarter than the rest of us, we can understand how Jewish homosexuals can be
    seen to be supporting their orthodox affinals. All Jews are descended from
    orthodox communities. If the Jewish homosexuals rise to the top of the
    homosexual movements (virtually all the organized
    homosexual/feminist/abortion movements are championed by secular Jews: e.g.
    gloria steinem), encourage homosexuality and this decreases our birth rates,
    and unweaves our social fabric (I live in NYC - homosexuals create a cohesive
    insular culture organized against Christianity's sexual mores - they are
    deliberately targeting their own birth religion in many cases) while at the
    same time orthodox Jewry remains isolated in their own ghettos (get is a
    hebrew word - Jews aren't put in ghettos - They create them to remain
    separated from us) then the segregated Jewish communities remain free from
    the damage (their birth rates remain high - their families cohesive) while
    Jewish secular (affinals) homosexuals encourage our "Canaanite" behavior that
    eventually "spews us out of the land." Isn't the high immigration justified
    by our low birth rates - how often have you heard it said we have to import
    people to keep our country going? abortion, birth control, feminism and
    homosexuality have taken their toll since the '60s.
    It is now thought by many archeologists that the Jews did not take Canaan in
    a rapid military campaign but over time as the Canaanites violated levitical
    law and were "spewed out of the land" eventually to be displaced.

    The remark about the sterile castes being compared to human behavior - let's
    compare. Haplodiploidy in the genus Hymenoptera to which the eusocial bees,
    ants and wasps belong produce STERILE CASTES that assist the breeders. They
    are born sterile and their function is predetermined as in any caste. The
    Temple sacrificial system is a caste system. It determines who is to have
    what function in society, indeed even who is to be accepted in society.
    Remember Jesus healing and returning the healed to the community? Hinduism is
    also a caste system. We often say the Hindu caste system is evil, but the
    Judaic system is most probably an offshoot by way of Zoroastrianism. How can
    you compare eusocial insects with human beings unless you also accept
    predetermined human function and establish a caste system - which is
    essentially SLAVERY? Did you really think about the comparison you were

    I for my part, will not ridicule the lack of scientific or religious
    knowledge displayed by those who would sarcastically characterize my
    comments. Perhaps now that I have elucidated my position at length there may
    come a glimmer of understanding. I will pray for that.

    The argument for homosexuality is a homosexual argument as Maurice Lamm has
    perfectly described it. It is not nor can it ever be a religious argument.
    You either embrace religion or you don't. To the extent you embrace religion,
    your survival and yes even your hegemony (as can be seen in those orthodox
    communities in Palestinian territory) are assured. Consider the IQs, and the
    enormous influence of orthodox Jewry and then consider America at war with
    itself and the disestablishment of the mainstream churches currently underway.

    Consider the final words of the Old Covenant:
     Be careful not to make a covenant with the natives of the land against which
    you are going, or they will prove a snare in your midst. No: you shall
    demolish their altars, smash their sacred pillars and cut down their sacred
    poles. Exodus 34 (10-14)

    religion evolved to ensure our survival. abandon religion and be "consumed by
    fire" a Biblical term for death and extinction.

    If you haven't read Wilson's Darwin Cathedral, go to the bookstore and just
    read the section on what John Calvin did for the people of Geneva and then
    consider that we have abandoned that kind of religious dedication and
    consider the implications.

    He who has eyes to see - let him see. If he has ears to hear - let him hear.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Mar 20 2003 - 11:37:28 EST