Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cci-bdc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!cci-bdc!larry From: larry@cci-bdc.UUCP (Larry DeLuca) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: modern Christianity's lack of responses to Boswell Message-ID: <141@cci-bdc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 11-Feb-85 12:05:58 EST Article-I.D.: cci-bdc.141 Posted: Mon Feb 11 12:05:58 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 13-Feb-85 03:23:20 EST References: <4935@fortune.UUCP> <4720@cbscc.UUCP>, <278@bbnccv.UUCP> <4762@cbscc.UUCP> Organization: Computer Consoles, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 161 > > >This is unfortunate, and it serves no one well in the long run. > >Scholarship never advances in a vacuum. I am sure that most people > >who have read the book would like nothing more than to see some > >intelligent responses from the Christian mainstream and the dialogue > >which it would engender. To present evidence against Boswell's own > >and argue it persuasively, is not necessarily to be labelled a > >"homophobe", nor do I think that label would dissuade anyone with a > >serious opinion of the work from presenting it. > > I agree whole heartedly with the first two sentences here, but I have a > very hard time believing the rest of it, based on my own attempt at > dialogue in net.motss. I'm sure you remember that, Steve. Do you > want my perception of that experience? > > You invoke a double standard when you demand that Christians should > lay their biblical beliefs that homosexual practice is immoral on the > table for open discussion while, at the same time, refusing to do so > (even on a non-religious basis) in net.motss. I took my first (and > probably last) plunge into discussion in net.motss by responding to > a fellow who claimed a scientific basis for homosexual behaviour (i.e. > that it is an intrisic part of their nature). I took issue with the > the idea that all homosexuals could claim this as a justification for > their sexual preference. > i think the problem here is a misconception of the purpose of net.motss. its purpose in the first posting (which i was mailed a copy of when i sent a copy of a reply to an article in net.religion.christian) clearly is stated as a forum for the discussion of gay-related issues and NOT for debating the right or wrong of homosexuality... it's much like net.women.only in that respect...sort of a safe haven where people don't have to worry about being attacked for the most part -- maybe what is needed is an equivalent newsgroup -- say net.christian.only? > Then you entered the debate, Steve (as well as others who sent me > hate mail and insulted me in followup articles--you were more reasonable, > however). At first you ignored the substance of my article and dismissed > my argument as being religiously based simply because you knew I was > an evangelical Christian from articles I posted in other newsgroups. > When I took issue with that we exchanged a few articles in discussion. > You entered the discussion claiming not to care whether homosexuality > was intrinsic or nurtured. Yet when I suggested a means for nurturing > based on an established psychological model of reinforcing and negating > filters, you simply ridiculed it; claiming I made the whole thing up. > if you saw my posting to net.religion.christian (and i'm generally not a flaming politically correct faggot championing 'the cause') i think it a good example that people react violently when threatened. i assume you would respond in a similar manner if someone questioned your belief in the church or labelled your sexual preference invalid (or had given you that impression). > It wasn't long before I realized that discussion of the moral issues > connected with homosexuality was very unwelcome in net.motss. When I > tried to bow out of the discusion early, you called me a coward; > claiming I started the discussion and should finish it. I did continue > for another round or two. In response to my last article (Really!) > you indicated that we could continue our discussion "off line" (i.e. > by mail). I sent you mail indicating that I was willing to do this > and asking if you really meant what you said. You changed your mind > because "we don't have much in common". I agree that we probably don't > have much in common with regard to the issue at hand, but that is > the whole impetus for discussion. You ignored my last letter to you, > I think. > > The only thing I could gather from your actions and those of others in > net.motss is that your main desire was to stifle opposing argument in > that newsgroup. You don't put your views of homosexuality on the table > for examination as readily as you expect "Christianoids" to put theirs up. > My impression is that you are for open and serious discussion only as > long it is not on your turf and the "ball" is in your opponent's court. > When you think you have good reason that discussion will advance your > cause, you are all for it. When you are asked to consider your own beliefs > and values about the subject in question, it's a different story. > i think the main reason for wanting to stifle the argument in net.motss is that the entire newsgroup could become too easily filled up by it and people who wanted to discuss other aspects of sexuality or just simply ANYTHING would be driven off the list by a few people whose names would go down in the history of net.flame anyway. a great many of us came from 'good catholic families' and the like, and have all argued the positions in our heads, with our souls, within our families. many of us have talked to our priests and ministers, with mixed results. a great many of us have forsaken religion altogether because it has nothing to offer us, save salvation on its terms. i have a hard time dealing with Christians because despite the fact that i think the majority of them that i have met that have attacked me straight out speak from a position of ignorance (to say the least) they DO believe very sincerely in what they're saying and believe that this is the only way they can help you (and they are concerned for you). it's too bad we can't quell some of the more negative aspects of the Christian movement but preserve this concern for the human condition it seems to instill in the people it touches. > >So, Paul, the ball is squarely in the Church's court. As good as > >are Ron Rizzo's summaries of the book and lectures by Boswell, I > >invite you again to pick up the original, if you intend to address > >its points. It's in most college and religious bookstores (at least > >the liberal Seabury kinds) as well as your public library. The reference > >is: Boswell, John, "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality", > >University of Chicago Press, 1980. > > I agree that the ball is in the Church's court. I'm telling you why I > think it has not been tossed back as quickly as you would like. Looking > through Ron's summaries, I have found enough exegetical errors to satisfy > me personally that Boswell's argument is probably not very sound. Yet > I realize that I'm going to have to peruse the book to see if Boswell > is really making those mistakes. Ron put a convenient disclaimer in his > articles saying that all errors in fact and interpretation belong to > him and not Boswell. So responding to Ron's articles without reading > the book would probably be wasted effort. Yet it will take more time > and effort to do it right. On the other side of the coin, why are so > many gays who champion Boswell, holding up summaries like this as if > they ought to convice Christians that he is right? If the summaries > to not constitute solid argument in themselves (as inferred by Ron's > disclaimer) why are opponents blamed for not responding to them? The > only convincing value the summaries have is that Christians ought to > consider the book; not that they should be convinced that Boswell is > right. Yet Richard Brower and even Ron defintitely seem to be expecting > the latter as well as the former. > i think i know what you're feeling here. do you feel trapped? like someone is trying to trip you up? like someone is trying to shut you up? that's how we've felt for years and years. every time we get into any kind of argument with the church. while i sympathize with your position (having been trapped in corners like it before) i can't help but use it as an opportunity to point out the other side of the coin -- if the facts don't fit the faith, simply ignore them. the problem once again is that the argument at this point will always boil down ultimately to an attack on one group or the other's deep set of beliefs. when any such attack is launched it will be treated as such -- by either side. though this prevents much discussion that might otherwise clear things up, it is unfortunately very much a part of our makeup. > I am not making any promises here to post a detailed examination of > Boswell's argument. (If I do, I'm sure not going to post in in net.motss). > It's bound to be a long drawn out debate in any case. Those kind really > wear me out though they are beneficial to me as a learning experience. > I will look fruther into Boswell's argument just to satisfy myself, > however. I can promise you that. I can't do anything about how other > Christians respond to (or ignore) Boswell. > -- > > Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd it would be nice if you did post your personal findings on Boswell's arguments (if you think you can withstand the flamage). while i may not agree with your views, i would be interested in hearing them. larry... -- uucp: ..mit-eddie!cybvax0!cci-bdc!larry arpa: henrik@mit-mc.ARPA This mind intentionally left blank.