From dabeck at iupui.edu Mon Sep 8 13:14:00 2003 From: dabeck at iupui.edu (David Alan Beck) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 12:14:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: [percy-l] Langer Message-ID: A few weeks ago someone (Karey?) brought up the issue of Langer "dropping the ball." Some probably already know this, but Elie brings up the topic (briefly). He writes: "Her [Langer] synthesis of science and humanism was what he [Percy] had sought in his reading. But her invocation of "need" made him suspicious, for the scientists who had trained him held that there are finally only two human needs: survival and propagation of the species. Why does humanity "need" symbols? What are they "key" to? 'She picked up the key and dropped it,' he later explained. 'She didn't do anything with it, she didn't use the key to unlock anything." (227-8) Elie writes some more about Langer but not much. I don't know if this helps, but I just read this section this weekend and thought of the discussion. (BTW, I'm another listmember who gives this book a thumbs up. It is excellent (although it seems Percy doesn't get as much attention as the other three--Merton, O'Connor and Day).) David Beck From karey at charter.net Sat Sep 20 22:39:30 2003 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 22:39:30 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] homosexuality, redux Message-ID: <000f01c37fe9$95df4210$0301000a@AFAC955012> For those still interested, in spite of (or because of) our inconclusive and unresolved conversations on the topic, here's a book considered one of the definitive works on the subject -- by Daniel Helminiak, a Roman Catholic priest who teaches at West Georgia College -- "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" -- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/ref=dp_sr_00/103-269822 7-4831043 Amazon link to the book also lets you read part of introduction ("look inside") and shows comments on the book at end. KP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karey at charter.net Sat Sep 20 22:41:48 2003 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 22:41:48 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] homosexuality, redux References: <000f01c37fe9$95df4210$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: <002201c37fe9$e7ada410$0301000a@AFAC955012> Here's the same book, but with some reader comments at this link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/188636009X/qid=1064111538/sr=1 -1/ref=sr_1_1/103-2698227-4831043?v=glance&s=books KP ----- Original Message ----- From: Karey L. Perkins To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 10:39 PM Subject: [percy-l] homosexuality, redux For those still interested, in spite of (or because of) our inconclusive and unresolved conversations on the topic, here's a book considered one of the definitive works on the subject -- by Daniel Helminiak, a Roman Catholic priest who teaches at West Georgia College -- "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" -- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/ref=dp_sr_00/103-269822 7-4831043 Amazon link to the book also lets you read part of introduction ("look inside") and shows comments on the book at end. KP ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nyger at gmx.de Sun Sep 21 20:17:05 2003 From: nyger at gmx.de (Benedikt) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 02:17:05 +0200 Subject: [percy-l] homosexuality, redux In-Reply-To: <002201c37fe9$e7ada410$0301000a@AFAC955012> References: <000f01c37fe9$95df4210$0301000a@AFAC955012> <002201c37fe9$e7ada410$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: <126187556552.20030922021705@gmx.de> Hello Karey, from a short look it seems to me that there are no new arguments. But the author misses the point. As the pope pointed out in his wednesday catechesis in the beginning of the 80s the doctrine of sexuality is built upon the narration of the creation and Matthew 19 as well. And the author doesn't refer to this passages. So it's not really an overview about the scripture and the issue of homo-sexuality. -- cu, Benedikt mailto:nyger at gmx.de From kfw at ntelos.net Sun Sep 21 21:46:28 2003 From: kfw at ntelos.net (Ken Wilson) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:46:28 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] homosexuality, redux References: <000f01c37fe9$95df4210$0301000a@AFAC955012><002201c37fe9$e7ada410$0301000a@AFAC955012> <126187556552.20030922021705@gmx.de> Message-ID: <008c01c380ab$5c2b4b50$814591d1@servant> I'm not completely sure what to think of homosexuality, but in the few pages available online this author makes a couple of statements that won't wash. "There is no reason to believe that homosexuality in itself is in any way unhealthy." Technically I suppose that's true, but anal sex is unhealthy, and the promiscuity that many gays today describe as an essential part of their sexual nature is physically very dangerous, as we know, and is condemned in the Scripture. As for the argument that because "God creates us," homosexuality must be God-given, we recognize that handicaps -- physical, mental and emotional -- are not in that sense God-given. Genesis tells us that creation has been radically altered by human sin. and that's a basic tenet of Christian theology. I'm very skeptical too of claims that Christianity smiled on same-sex relations until recently. Others scholars take issue with that, to say the least. But at least Helminiak is treating homosexuality through the lens of Scripture. Many Christian defenders of homosexuality try to sidestep the Biblical passages by talking about "love" and "tolerance" and "inclusion." As a friend of mine said recently, just after he told me he planned on leaving the Episcopal Church -- "I love gays just like I love anyone else." Love and tolerance and inclusion don't preclude calling sin "sin." Ken From dabeck at iupui.edu Sun Sep 21 22:28:41 2003 From: dabeck at iupui.edu (David Alan Beck) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:28:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: [percy-l] homosexuality, redux In-Reply-To: <008c01c380ab$5c2b4b50$814591d1@servant> Message-ID: Ken writes: > As for the argument that because "God creates us," homosexuality must be > God-given, we recognize that handicaps -- physical, mental and emotional -- > are not in that sense God-given. Genesis tells us that creation has been > radically altered by human sin. and that's a basic tenet of Christian > theology. I'm very skeptical too of claims that Christianity smiled on > same-sex relations until recently. Others scholars take issue with that, to > say the least. The "God created us that way, so it is ok" argument is a dangerous one. Because as Ken states, creation IS altered by original sin. Thus, if one has a sexual preference for, say, children, then it's ok (granted, children are unable to give consent). While that doesn't mean the person has to act on it (and shouldn't), he can easily argue that the desire is "God-given" and isn't wrong. Some may say that I'm presenting a slippery slope argument, but just because an argument is fallacious, doesn't mean that it is untrue. For example, some argued (fallaciously) that if we permit a woman to abort her child (due to incest or rape), we open the door for abortion as a way of birth control (and that is what happened--last I heard was that 96% of abortions had nothing to do with incest or rape). The case that homosexuality was ok in Church history was ok until now is, of course, ridiculous. Boswell's final work discredited him as a historian and scholar. He allowed his agenda (of promoting homosexuality) to get in the way of his scholarship. His "findings" were panned even by the most secular reviewers. To say that the Byzantine Empire (the Orthodox Church) "blessed" same-sex unions is a joke. The Byzantines were "intolerant" of homosexual behavior. Those who practiced homosexuality were excommunicated and condemned by the Church. Unfortunately, Boswell, before dying of AIDS, went out on a note of disrespect within the academic community, because he gave his agenda priority over historical truth. One can argue whether homosexuality is a "sin" or not. But no one can make an argument that homosexuality was approved by the historical Church. It just wasn't and still isn't by those who hold on to Church tradition. I'm not a patristic expert, but I have read enough of the ancient writings of the Church Fathers to know what used to be so obvious is now being called into question. For the revisionists, they should at least say that Church tradition is nothing but intolerant and narrow-minded. Then they could argue that we should start over, but they can't argue that we need to "re-visit" the early church, because--believe me--they don't want to be there. -David On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Ken Wilson wrote: > I'm not completely sure what to think of homosexuality, but in the few pages > available online this author makes a couple of statements that won't wash. > > "There is no reason to believe that homosexuality in itself is in any way > unhealthy." > > Technically I suppose that's true, but anal sex is unhealthy, and the > promiscuity that many gays today describe as an essential part of their > sexual nature is physically very dangerous, as we know, and is condemned in > the Scripture. > > As for the argument that because "God creates us," homosexuality must be > God-given, we recognize that handicaps -- physical, mental and emotional -- > are not in that sense God-given. Genesis tells us that creation has been > radically altered by human sin. and that's a basic tenet of Christian > theology. I'm very skeptical too of claims that Christianity smiled on > same-sex relations until recently. Others scholars take issue with that, to > say the least. > > But at least Helminiak is treating homosexuality through the lens of > Scripture. Many Christian defenders of homosexuality try to sidestep the > Biblical passages by talking about "love" and "tolerance" and "inclusion." > As a friend of mine said recently, just after he told me he planned on > leaving the Episcopal Church -- "I love gays just like I love anyone else." > Love and tolerance and inclusion don't preclude calling sin "sin." > > Ken > > > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > David Beck From tcole at adobe.com Sun Sep 21 22:56:25 2003 From: tcole at adobe.com (Tim Cole) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 19:56:25 -0700 Subject: [percy-l] homosexuality, redux In-Reply-To: <126187556552.20030922021705@gmx.de> Message-ID: <000501c380b5$1cd03970$0a0110ac@TCOLET40> Helmeniak's book draws on the varied and sometimes contradictory arguments of Boswell, Countryman and others. It's definitive in that it's a handy, one volume compendium of contemporary, revisionist arguments. This revisionism a projection of 20th century values upon the Biblical passages in question (the lense through which Helmeniak and those he quotes view Scripture). The exegesis comes across as highly agenda driven and strains credulity past the breaking point. As mentioned, the work of Boswell and the others have been widely discredited by other academics. Try "Homosexuality" by James De Young for a politely argued, systematic refutation of the arguments above that draws on both Jewish and Christian historical interpretations as well as other ancient literature. In addition to the Biblical proscriptions, De Young also develops the line of thought mentioned below where the affirmations of marriage and family in Genesis and elsewhere are an important context for understanding the proscriptions of homosexuality. From armstron at ohiou.edu Mon Sep 22 15:49:54 2003 From: armstron at ohiou.edu (Ken Armstrong) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 15:49:54 -0400 Subject: Fallacious but true? Re: Re[2]: [percy-l] homosexuality, redux In-Reply-To: References: <008c01c380ab$5c2b4b50$814591d1@servant> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030922153011.0171d0c8@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> At 09:28 PM 9/21/2003 -0500, you wrote: > Some may say that I'm presenting a slippery slope argument, but just >because an argument is fallacious, doesn't mean that it is untrue. For >example, some argued (fallaciously) that if we permit a woman to abort her >child (due to incest or rape), we open the door for abortion as a way of >birth control (and that is what happened--last I heard was that 96% of >abortions had nothing to do with incest or rape). David, Though I get farther and farther away from my grad school philosophy minor, I'm sure hoping that if an argument (not it's conclusion) is fallacious, it is not "true." Off the top of my head, I can't speak to the example you give because I don't know what made the original argument fallacious. But it seems to me that if the argument is faulty (any argument), it is not a good argument. It doesn't stand. Period. If the conclusion, illogic of the argument notwithstanding, is true, it is true because it is the legitimate conclusion to a different, if unstated, good argument. Emotionally charged issues, I think, attract bad arguments. Which is not to imply anything except the necessity for caution in analyzing them, as ends never justify means, etc. Ken A From dabeck at iupui.edu Mon Sep 22 18:23:58 2003 From: dabeck at iupui.edu (David Alan Beck) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:23:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: Fallacious but true? Re: Re[2]: [percy-l] homosexuality, redux In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030922153011.0171d0c8@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> Message-ID: Ken, I agree. What I was referring to was how you could have a valid argument (i.e. deduction) and it can be false. "All cows are purple; Elsie is a cow; ergo, Elsie is purple." As far as the slipper slope reference, I was just pointing out that someone can argue that if A happens B will follow and not have a "valid" argument, but it still can be true (or, better yet, turn out to be true--i.e. the abortion argument). Most of my postings are written too hastily and lack clarity. My fault. -David On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Ken Armstrong wrote: > At 09:28 PM 9/21/2003 -0500, you wrote: > > > Some may say that I'm presenting a slippery slope argument, but just > >because an argument is fallacious, doesn't mean that it is untrue. For > >example, some argued (fallaciously) that if we permit a woman to abort her > >child (due to incest or rape), we open the door for abortion as a way of > >birth control (and that is what happened--last I heard was that 96% of > >abortions had nothing to do with incest or rape). > > David, > > Though I get farther and farther away from my grad school philosophy > minor, I'm sure hoping that if an argument (not it's conclusion) is > fallacious, it is not "true." Off the top of my head, I can't speak to > the example you give because I don't know what made the original argument > fallacious. But it seems to me that if the argument is faulty (any > argument), it is not a good argument. It doesn't stand. Period. If the > conclusion, illogic of the argument notwithstanding, is true, it is true > because it is the legitimate conclusion to a different, if unstated, good > argument. Emotionally charged issues, I think, attract bad arguments. Which > is not to imply anything except the necessity for caution in analyzing > them, as ends never justify means, etc. > > Ken A > > > > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > David Beck From PARLINS at culver.org Wed Sep 24 13:14:06 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:14:06 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] homosexuality, redux Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070592A3@exchangeserver.culver.org> Karey, Thanks for the reference. If I have time I'll see about getting around to reading it. It's always a good idea to know what's being said on such matters. But, really, this text and texts like it are of very little consequence when viewed against the backdrop of the authoritative Tradition of the Church, which is and always has been unambiguously clear about the immorality of homosexual acts. Who cares what anyone else is saying about the scriptures? What authority do they have? None. Theologian or not, in the end, they have no credibility apart from the teaching body of the Church. Morover, on it's own, the Bible has absolutely no authoritative credibility apart from this authoritative tradition. On its own, it's a useless text. No, worse. On it's own its a dangerous text, and anyone can use it to forward just about any kind of hogwash they want. Form the back cover commentary: "The Bible has been used to justify slavery, inquisitions, apartheid, and the subjugation of women" Now, one can certainly argue that the teaching body of the Church is full of crap and not divinely guided (even a lot of priests make this argument), but that won't nullify her God-given role as the only credible authority on scriptural matters. Whether one agrees with the Catholic Church or not, she is the only the authority on scripture. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Karey L. Perkins [mailto:karey at charter.net] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 9:42 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] homosexuality, redux Here's the same book, but with some reader comments at this link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/188636009X/qid=1064111538/sr=1 -1/ref=sr_1_1/103-2698227-4831043?v=glance &s=books KP ----- Original Message ----- From: Karey L. Perkins To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 10:39 PM Subject: [percy-l] homosexuality, redux For those still interested, in spite of (or because of) our inconclusive and unresolved conversations on the topic, here's a book considered one of the definitive works on the subject -- by Daniel Helminiak, a Roman Catholic priest who teaches at West Georgia College -- "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" -- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/ref=dp_sr_00/103-269822 7-4831043 Amazon link to the book also lets you read part of introduction ("look inside") and shows comments on the book at end. KP _____ -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From BMclaughlin at nazarene.org Mon Sep 29 16:21:13 2003 From: BMclaughlin at nazarene.org (Bryon McLaughlin) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:21:13 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] homosexuality, redux Message-ID: <4133E594CA60F949AF3A60D24785261416F25A@nazhq015.nazarene.org> Steve: I guess you don't truck with the "priesthood of all believers"-a Protestant tenant, when it comes to interpreting Scripture. Bryon McLaughlin -----Original Message----- From: Parlin, Steven [mailto:PARLINS at culver.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 12:14 PM To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion' Subject: RE: [percy-l] homosexuality, redux Karey, Thanks for the reference. If I have time I'll see about getting around to reading it. It's always a good idea to know what's being said on such matters. But, really, this text and texts like it are of very little consequence when viewed against the backdrop of the authoritative Tradition of the Church, which is and always has been unambiguously clear about the immorality of homosexual acts. Who cares what anyone else is saying about the scriptures? What authority do they have? None. Theologian or not, in the end, they have no credibility apart from the teaching body of the Church. Morover, on it's own, the Bible has absolutely no authoritative credibility apart from this authoritative tradition. On its own, it's a useless text. No, worse. On it's own its a dangerous text, and anyone can use it to forward just about any kind of hogwash they want. Form the back cover commentary: "The Bible has been used to justify slavery, inquisitions, apartheid, and the subjugation of women" Now, one can certainly argue that the teaching body of the Church is full of crap and not divinely guided (even a lot of priests make this argument), but that won't nullify her God-given role as the only credible authority on scriptural matters. Whether one agrees with the Catholic Church or not, she is the only the authority on scripture. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Karey L. Perkins [mailto:karey at charter.net] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 9:42 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] homosexuality, redux Here's the same book, but with some reader comments at this link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/188636009X/qid=1064111538/ sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-2698227-4831043?v=glance&s=books KP ----- Original Message ----- From: Karey L. Perkins To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 10:39 PM Subject: [percy-l] homosexuality, redux For those still interested, in spite of (or because of) our inconclusive and unresolved conversations on the topic, here's a book considered one of the definitive works on the subject -- by Daniel Helminiak, a Roman Catholic priest who teaches at West Georgia College -- "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" -- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/ref=dp_sr_00/103-26 98227-4831043 Amazon link to the book also lets you read part of introduction ("look inside") and shows comments on the book at end. KP _____ -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Mon Sep 29 20:59:54 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 19:59:54 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] homosexuality, redux Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070592CB@exchangeserver.culver.org> Bryon: It's not about what I personally truck with, or anyone else for that matter. My opinion on the matter is also of no consequence. Whether I hold with the idea or not does little to change it's truth. That's what I was getting at. It's not about individuals and their individual interpretations. Moreover, priesthood, either by sacremental ordination or by the inheritance of baptism, has nothing whatever to do with interpreting scripture. No priest (ordained or otherwise), either of the East or the West has authority to independently interpret scripture. It's no coincidence that the unprecedented and exponential fragmentation of Christendom (some 40,000 recognized strains of the faith) began with sola scriptura and the, more or less, concurrent phenomenon of the mass production of bibles due to the invention of the printing press. Protestantism is, among other things, merely the religious expression of an individualism that was unheard of prior to the culture that produced the likes of Chaucer. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Bryon McLaughlin [mailto:BMclaughlin at nazarene.org] Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 3:21 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: RE: [percy-l] homosexuality, redux Steve: I guess you don't truck with the "priesthood of all believers"-a Protestant tenant, when it comes to interpreting Scripture. Bryon McLaughlin -----Original Message----- From: Parlin, Steven [mailto:PARLINS at culver.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 12:14 PM To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion' Subject: RE: [percy-l] homosexuality, redux Karey, Thanks for the reference. If I have time I'll see about getting around to reading it. It's always a good idea to know what's being said on such matters. But, really, this text and texts like it are of very little consequence when viewed against the backdrop of the authoritative Tradition of the Church, which is and always has been unambiguously clear about the immorality of homosexual acts. Who cares what anyone else is saying about the scriptures? What authority do they have? None. Theologian or not, in the end, they have no credibility apart from the teaching body of the Church. Morover, on it's own, the Bible has absolutely no authoritative credibility apart from this authoritative tradition. On its own, it's a useless text. No, worse. On it's own its a dangerous text, and anyone can use it to forward just about any kind of hogwash they want. Form the back cover commentary: "The Bible has been used to justify slavery, inquisitions, apartheid, and the subjugation of women" Now, one can certainly argue that the teaching body of the Church is full of crap and not divinely guided (even a lot of priests make this argument), but that won't nullify her God-given role as the only credible authority on scriptural matters. Whether one agrees with the Catholic Church or not, she is the only the authority on scripture. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Karey L. Perkins [mailto:karey at charter.net] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 9:42 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: Re: [percy-l] homosexuality, redux Here's the same book, but with some reader comments at this link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/188636009X/qid=1064111538/sr=1 -1/ref=sr_1_1/103-2698227-4831043?v=glance &s=books KP ----- Original Message ----- From: Karey L. Perkins To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 10:39 PM Subject: [percy-l] homosexuality, redux For those still interested, in spite of (or because of) our inconclusive and unresolved conversations on the topic, here's a book considered one of the definitive works on the subject -- by Daniel Helminiak, a Roman Catholic priest who teaches at West Georgia College -- "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" -- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/ref=dp_sr_00/103-269822 7-4831043 Amazon link to the book also lets you read part of introduction ("look inside") and shows comments on the book at end. KP _____ -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Tue Sep 30 09:38:38 2003 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 08:38:38 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] homosexuality, redux Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE070592D1@exchangeserver.culver.org> I have had at least one person point out that my copious typos detract from the point I'm tyring to make, but if that's the worst of the commments, I can sleep easy. Nevertheless, I do apologize for the typos. My "free time" is short these days, and with emails, fast and loose is the best I can do. Steve -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: