From: John Burgeson (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Mar 20 2003 - 11:53:24 EST
Rich wrote, in part: "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."
It is not what John calvin did FOR the people of Geneva as much as what he
did TO them. Thank God we have (properly) rejected that kind of theocratic
Calvin was a great Bible teacher -- and a miserable excuse for a human
being, as anyone who has read the history of his rule understands. Or ought
>Subject: a few responses lumped together (Jim and Burgy take note)
>Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:36:57 EST
>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
>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
>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
>has to say about the homosexual argument.
>(Maurice Lamm, The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage, Harper & Row 1979):
>THE HOMOSEXUAL ARGUMENT AND A JEWISH RESPONSE
>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
>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.
>is that the sole purpose and meaning of Jewish marriage? What of the
>legitimacy of sexual pleasure and release - is that not also Jewish?
>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
>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
>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
>unable to function heterosexually-r-an we believe, and can you
>believe, that He wants us to be denied the only possible arrangement
>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
>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.
>NORMAM LAMM OFFERS A JEWISH RESPONSE
>"Loving, selfless concern" and "meaningful, personal relationships," the
>great slogans of the now dated "new morality" and the exponents of
>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
>HOW SHALL WE VIEW THE HOMOSEXUAL TODAY?
>The act of homosexuality is prohibited, but all practicing homosexuals
>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
>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
>soldiers and others who are heterosexual but are denied access to women for
>long periods of time. "Transitory and opportunistic homosexuality" is that
>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
>an idealogy, i.e., the gay militants who assert the legitimacy and validity
>of homosexuality as an alternative to heterosexuality. The sixth category
>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.
>we have transitory homosexual behavior not of adolescents, but of adults
>feel that they must "try everything" at least once in their lives. Clearly,
>genuine homosexuality experienced under duress (Hebrew: ones) most
>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
>a greater claim on our sympathy.... Hence there are types of homosexuality
>that do not warrant any special consideration, because the notion of ones
>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,
>is no different from any other anti-halakhic act, where it is legitimate to
>distinguish between the objective act itself, including its ethical and
>consequences, and the mentality and inner development of the person who
>perpetrates the act. For instance, if a man murders in a cold and
>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,
>condoning the act as being morally neutral. To use halakhic terminology,
>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
>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
>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
>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
>alone, Hernsteinn and Murray, The Bell Curve). These religious people
>homosexuality and also have some of the highest birth rates in the world.
>Many of these Eastern European Jews form the very settlement population
>refuses to leave Palestinian territory. Their refusal is the nexus of
>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
>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
>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
>and unweaves our social fabric (I live in NYC - homosexuals create a
>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)
>Jewish secular (affinals) homosexuals encourage our "Canaanite" behavior
>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
>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
>a rapid military campaign but over time as the Canaanites violated
>law and were "spewed out of the land" eventually to be displaced.
>The remark about the sterile castes being compared to human behavior -
>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
>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
>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
>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
>your survival and yes even your hegemony (as can be seen in those orthodox
>communities in Palestinian territory) are assured. Consider the IQs, and
>enormous influence of orthodox Jewry and then consider America at war with
>itself and the disestablishment of the mainstream churches currently
>Consider the final words of the Old Covenant:
> Be careful not to make a covenant with the natives of the land against
>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
>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
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Mar 20 2003 - 11:53:38 EST