Re: arsenoikoites


First, your accusation of Michael is just as critical an example of naive 
and bigoted name-calling as you label his post (btw, I realize that by 
making that statement I have subjected myself to the same charge--please 
withhold flames).  Second, I may be wrong, but I don't think that the only 
option that Michael gave was that "only homosexuals would defend 
homosexuals."  That was certainly an implied option in what Michael said, 
but it was in no way the only thing he said.  We all want the right to 
speak our mind, but most of us would curtail that right for others 
(especially when "they" disagree with "us").  Shouldn't we pay closer 
attention to what is being said?

For example, you state in your post that "hateful lenses" have been used to 
read the Bible, and you are right.  But that does not then justify an 
equally hateful reading by the offended party!  When ACT-UP disrupts a 
Catholic Church service and pelts a bishop with condoms simply because 
he sees their lifestyle through a different lens, then they (members of the 
homosexual or gay community) are engaging in the very form of hate of which 
they accused him.  Can we label these individuals "heterophobic"?  (By the 
way, please do not throw around the "homophobic" label at others until you 
are sure that they really fear homosexuals.  To disagree with a person's 
lifestyle doesn't necessarily mean that I fear that lifestyle!)  Isn't it 
quite possible that there are those in the gay community that are guilty of 
the sins of homosexism and heterophobia?  Couldn't we all produce anecdotes 
that support "our side" of the issue--i.e., heterosexual people who care 
for and accept homosexual people, homosexual people who care for and love 
heterosexuals--as well as bad examples from the "other" side (see story 
above)?  What does that prove?

Again, you accuse Michael (and, I assume, me) of being afraid of "what 
the Bible really says".  Do you have a corner on that market?  I don't!  I 
have read views on this list that disagree with Boswell's reading of 
_arsenoikoites_, and they seem to me to carry more weight, but I am open to 
more evidence (not assertion!).  Also, might I point out that there are 
those who agree with your view that have espoused a type of "traditional 
prejudice" against those who disagree with them!  Tradition and prejudice
can be found in every camp, does that make the view of others in that camp 
necessarily wrong?  I hope not!  I agree, traditional prejudice does little 
to foster understanding and does a lot to foster hate, but that road runs 
both ways!    

Finally, you seem to think that if some "Christians" act in a decidely 
un-Christian manner, then it must be the fact they have failed to 
understand _arsenoikoites_ or "what the Bible really says" about 
homosexuals.  Could it not be that they have failed to understand what 
Jesus meant when he talked of loving your neighbor more than yourself and 
loving (not hating) your enemies (i.e., those who disagree with you)?  Even 
if Scripture labels homosexuality a sin, that does not mean that 
homosexuals are to be treated worse than other humans (Greg, on this point 
you and I heartily agree!).  On the other hand, it also means that we 
dim-witted conservatives that happen to think that Scripture does label 
homosexuality as a sin deserve to be treated with love by our more enlightened 
siblings.  Yes, Greg, God's message does indeed change minds by spreading 
the truth, but that doesn't mean that some of us are better than others (even 
if more truth has been spread to us).  After all, let's not forget that 
paranoia is not restricted to certain groups.  We all need to repent!

Leo Percer