Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
bump
-------------------- Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Somewhere, but not on this thread, ... possibly not on SOF, only months ago, I'd been sceptical of the proposition that the centurion and his servant were gay lovers.
Not out of latent homophobia, out of being allergic to projection of any kind, but not any more.
-------------------- Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I am skeptical simply because it takes so much -work- to tease out even the possibility. This is the kind of work that no one of sense would ever put into anything in daily life. Occam's razor rules.
-------------------- Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Brenda Clough: I am skeptical simply because it takes so much -work- to tease out even the possibility. This is the kind of work that no one of sense would ever put into anything in daily life. Occam's razor rules.
I don't know, Brenda. I came to faith quite late (23), having been brought up Buddhist, and I read classics. The first time I read the Gospels (in Greek, gloat, gloat) that seemed to me a very likely and natural interpretation, if not the likeliest. It's certainly not any of the more frequent words for 'orderlies,' it's not military, and you would not call anyone dear or honoured (entimos) a 'boy'. Perfectly plausible reading, though not conclusive, but then again, what interpretation is?
-------------------- Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
Moreover, I would also note that Luke used “doulos” where Matthew used the word “pais.” Since it is generally agreed that he wrote for Gentile readers, he may very well have seen the ambiguousness or salaciousness of the term (in his eyes) and corrected it.
-------------------- Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Martin60: Somewhere, but not on this thread, ... possibly not on SOF, only months ago, I'd been sceptical of the proposition that the centurion and his servant were gay lovers.
Not out of latent homophobia, out of being allergic to projection of any kind, but not any more.
Nah, his arguments don't wash. Sure enough, Roman military could not marry whilst serving in the army, by imperial decree... but most (to use an anachronism) 'gay' men in the ancient world were also married. Bi-sexuality was the assumption. And this centurion was most probably not in active service anymore as the whole scene is set in Galilee, which was not occupied, so he had settled down.
-------------------- Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Duhhhh. Om confused. Apart from generally. If Luke, a gentile writing for gentiles, deliberately used a neutral term and the first of your three posts apparently agrees with the proposition, then your piercingly scholarly disagreement with the link is on his reasoning, but not his conclusion?
-------------------- Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Martin--
quote: Originally posted by Martin60: Somewhere, but not on this thread, ... possibly not on SOF, only months ago, I'd been sceptical of the proposition that the centurion and his servant were gay lovers.
Not out of latent homophobia, out of being allergic to projection of any kind, but not any more.
Wow! I'd never heard of this. Thanks for the link.
-------------------- Blessed Gator, pray for us! --"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon") --"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Martin60: Duhhhh. Om confused. Apart from generally. If Luke, a gentile writing for gentiles, deliberately used a neutral term and the first of your three posts apparently agrees with the proposition, then your piercingly scholarly disagreement with the link is on his reasoning, but not his conclusion?
Not sure I understand but yes, his conclusion seems plausible but definitely not certain. Some of the arguments he uses to get there however don't convince me at all. And I think it possible that Luke may have seen the ambiguity of Matthew's term and 'corrected' it. The conservative counter-argument that the sick man was the centurion's biological child is equally poor, it seems to me. Though it cannot be refuted (who the hell could know?), it's difficult to see why Luke turns him into a slave, unless you believe that he never set eyes on Matthew's Gospel. [ 08. December 2016, 07:42: Message edited by: Joesaphat ]
-------------------- Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Golden Key: Martin--
quote: Originally posted by Martin60: Somewhere, but not on this thread, ... possibly not on SOF, only months ago, I'd been sceptical of the proposition that the centurion and his servant were gay lovers.
Not out of latent homophobia, out of being allergic to projection of any kind, but not any more.
Wow! I'd never heard of this. Thanks for the link.
quote: the anti-gay side cannot prove their contention that the centurion and his pais-servant, were not same sex lovers. It is equally impossible to prove to everyone’s satisfaction, that this was a gay centurion and his pais-beloved-gay lover.
Stopped reading there...
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
Call me a skeptic - but if a particular interpretation of a writing analysed to varying extents for nearly 2000 years has only gained any sense of currency in the last century or less, maybe the interpretation is a reflection of the reader rather than the writer.
Trust me, I'd love that passage to be a slam dunk to challenge bible-bashers with. I'm not getting it though
-------------------- .
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Goldfish Stew: Call me a skeptic - but if a particular interpretation of a writing analysed to varying extents for nearly 2000 years has only gained any sense of currency in the last century or less, maybe the interpretation is a reflection of the reader rather than the writer.
Trust me, I'd love that passage to be a slam dunk to challenge bible-bashers with. I'm not getting it though
Truly? Like the notion that death did not after all enter the world because of human sin? That women need not be forbidden to teach? That slavery is a grievous evil and slaves should not virtuously remain in their position? That there aren't seven heavens corresponding to the seven planetary spheres? that demons do not cause illnesses or exorcism cure anything? The list would be very long, Oh, and that the Jews are not a 'synagogue of Satan.' [ 08. December 2016, 11:34: Message edited by: Joesaphat ]
-------------------- Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Joesaphat the writer of the article themselves admits it doesn't prove things either way. This looks like a classic case of reading our current cultural bugbears back into the text. Arguments on the basis of one word in one passage are hazardous at best.
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Eutychus: Joesaphat the writer of the article themselves admits it doesn't prove things either way. This looks like a classic case of reading our current cultural bugbears back into the text. Arguments on the basis of one word in one passage are hazardous at best.
I agree, actually, but just because it's a contemporary bugbear does not rule out its presence in a text either.
-------------------- Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'm sorry, but that just smacks of desperation all the more. It sounds like the plea made on a Kerygmania thread that the disciples must have believed in a pre-tribulation secret rapture after which everyone else is Left Behind, they just didn't get around to mentioning it. [ 08. December 2016, 12:45: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Joesaphat: quote: Originally posted by Goldfish Stew: Call me a skeptic - but if a particular interpretation of a writing analysed to varying extents for nearly 2000 years has only gained any sense of currency in the last century or less, maybe the interpretation is a reflection of the reader rather than the writer.
Trust me, I'd love that passage to be a slam dunk to challenge bible-bashers with. I'm not getting it though
Truly? Like the notion that death did not after all enter the world because of human sin? That women need not be forbidden to teach? That slavery is a grievous evil and slaves should not virtuously remain in their position? That there aren't seven heavens corresponding to the seven planetary spheres? that demons do not cause illnesses or exorcism cure anything? The list would be very long, Oh, and that the Jews are not a 'synagogue of Satan.'
That's another dead horse. Or corral of dead horses.
But to answer your question in the hopes of closing it off - all of those examples are things that caused me consternation (and no small amount thereof) in my Christian days. Not needing to rely on the accuracy or continuity of the bible or the faith has been rather liberating. And for me, more intellectually honest than continually revising tenets of a long established stream of faith but claiming continuity with that.
In my case, it became like a McDs franchise holder who had a menu with something resembling a Big Mac and something akin to a Quarter Pounder, but also a sub, a flame grilled whopper, Colonel burger and a pepperoni pizza on the menu. Sort of anyway.
Which is to say, I don't put a lot of weight on the bible, so don't need to hang my hat on imaginative analysis of a single word.
-------------------- .
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Eutychus: I'm sorry, but that just smacks of desperation all the more. It sounds like the plea made on a Kerygmania thread that the disciples must have believed in a pre-tribulation secret rapture after which everyone else is Left Behind, they just didn't get around to mentioning it.
Yes, that is silly. The fact that same-sex erotic acts were rampant in the Roman armies, however, is quite well attested in many other documents of the time, whether or not their morality now bothers the church. I cannot see why pious Jews would not at least have entertained the possibility. Philo and a few others certainly suspected the Gentiles of it as a matter of course. I'm definitely not suggesting this reading of the text is conclusive, merely that it's possible. Our Christian tradition has lost sight of many Jewish elements in the NT once it became estranged from Jewish thought; the recent scholarship on Paul on justification comes to mind. [ 08. December 2016, 15:29: Message edited by: Joesaphat ]
-------------------- Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Granted; but it's still an argument from silence, or virtual silence.
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Eutychus: Granted; but it's still an argument from silence, or virtual silence.
which appears t be a time-honoured Christian tradition. ISTM, all one needs is an observation of the world as it is and Jesus' message to discredit any notion of homosexuality as "wrong".
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I haven't expressed an opinion on the underlying topic here, just on the quality of the argument being brought to bear (or lack of it).
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
The relationship in question seems to be between a powerful Roman soldier and his servant. I imagine servants had pretty lowly status and little power at that time. Where homosexual sex was practiced in Rome it was often between a more powerful man and a younger man.
If there was a sexual relationship here I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea that Jesus thought it was OK - not because it was homosexual but because it sounds quite prone to an abuse.
-------------------- mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Except that Jesus seems impressed by the centurion's concern for his servant, and that concern does not seem to show a tendency for abuse, in that particular man's relationship - whatever it was.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Penny S: Except that Jesus seems impressed by the centurion's concern for his servant, and that concern does not seem to show a tendency for abuse, in that particular man's relationship - whatever it was.
And heterosexual marriage was hardly better at the time.
-------------------- Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Joesaphat: quote: Originally posted by Penny S: Except that Jesus seems impressed by the centurion's concern for his servant, and that concern does not seem to show a tendency for abuse, in that particular man's relationship - whatever it was.
And heterosexual marriage was hardly better at the time.
Plus... the slavery dynamic too.
I'm fairly well persuaded. Given that:
a) Marriage was forbidden for soldiers at that time. b) Sexual relationships were often a reflection of a power dynamic, and the centurion was in a position of power. c) Homosexual sex was acceptable and normal for Romans (so long as the physical act reflected the power dynamic). In fact, it was a mentor's 'duty' to put his seed into a younger man as part of his maturing process.
On the balance of it, it's pretty likely that the centurion had a sexual relationship with the slave. It doesn't hang on the word 'pais', but it's another clue.
Of course, you stopped reading the article, Eutychus, but as a result, I think you missed the point of this:
quote: the anti-gay side cannot prove their contention that the centurion and his pais-servant, were not same sex lovers. It is equally impossible to prove to everyone’s satisfaction, that this was a gay centurion and his pais-beloved-gay lover.
The point is that when someone uses a euphemism, they're all but saying the thing they're alluding to. But by not saying it, they're retaining the ability to deny it. Hence the above. What the article is arguing is that, to contemporary readers, the language used would have had clear connotations that we miss now.
I'm not any kind of expert on the language, and it would be interesting to know more, but on the balance, I think that it's likelier that the sexual relationship was there than not.
Of course, theologically, I don't think it means a whole lot, other than Jesus is inclusive and open to the 'other'. If you use the passage to justify homosexuality, then you can equally use it to justify slavery.
-------------------- "Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hmmm. The Lucan account shows that the (rich, retired? or he just didn't live where he worked?) Centurion was a pro-semite. The local Jews rated him. All in all it looks like a diminishing minority proposition that he and his servant were male lovers. So we're left with the trajectory from then to now. It would be nice to think that everyone, including Jesus, was just being discreet nonetheless. Everything had the appearance of local tradition, but they weren't daft.
-------------------- Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Joesaphat: That there aren't seven heavens corresponding to the seven planetary spheres?
Where is THAT in the bible?
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Penny S: Except that Jesus seems impressed by the centurion's concern for his servant, and that concern does not seem to show a tendency for abuse, in that particular man's relationship - whatever it was.
A pimp expressing concern for a prostitute's health wouldn't reassure me of the absence of an abusive element to the relationship. I don't see anything in the passage to indicate Jesus was impressed with anything besides the centurion's faith.
It is true that heterosexual marriage was hardly an institution prone to equality in those days (and some would argue even now). Nevertheless I think the heterosexual equivalent would probably have been a concubine rather than a wife. (That is assuming the relationship was sexual).
-------------------- mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
By the way I searched and found that the centurion/servant story is started on 4 previous occasions, although on the first and last of these there was little specific follow up discussion.
ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on 06 July, 2003
whitebait (# 7740) on 05 November, 2004
Luke (# 306) on 10 September, 2005
TubaMirum (# 8282) on 08 August, 2006
The argument about it being possible to infer justification of slavery as much as justification of homosexuality from the story has been made before as well.
It's hard to say much new on this thread.
-------------------- mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by goperryrevs: Of course, you stopped reading the article, Eutychus, but as a result, I think you missed the point of this:
quote: the anti-gay side cannot prove their contention that the centurion and his pais-servant, were not same sex lovers. It is equally impossible to prove to everyone’s satisfaction, that this was a gay centurion and his pais-beloved-gay lover.
The point is that when someone uses a euphemism, they're all but saying the thing they're alluding to. But by not saying it, they're retaining the ability to deny it. Hence the above. What the article is arguing is that, to contemporary readers, the language used would have had clear connotations that we miss now.
Perhaps, but I still think one is on shaky ground when one's preferred outcome miraculously matches one's assumptions about what a supposed euphemism might have meant to the initial audience.
Would you apply the same standards of evidence to the arguments about authenteo in 1 Timothy 2 "clearly" meaning (a woman) "to take authority over" (a man) to the first hearers? I somehow doubt it.
quote: theologically, I don't think it means a whole lot, other than Jesus is inclusive and open to the 'other'. If you use the passage to justify homosexuality, then you can equally use it to justify slavery.
And therein lies an interesting dilemma. Hooray for inclusiveness, but how far (for any of us, whatever our views on these or other issues) does one get before inclusiveness runs up against a compulsion to urge a change in lifestyle?
quote: Originally posted by mdijon: ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on 06 July, 2003
A poster from whom I learned lifechangingly much and who is among those I miss the most. [ 10. December 2016, 07:31: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Eutychus: Would you apply the same standards of evidence to the arguments about authenteo in 1 Timothy 2 "clearly" meaning (a woman) "to take authority over" (a man) to the first hearers? I somehow doubt it.
Probably not... Essentially I'd want a language historian to explain exactly how that word was used and how its use evolved over time. With authenteo, as far as I remember (willing to be corrected here), its etymology is pretty uncertain, with early meanings encompassing the idea of usurping or overthrowing, but there's not a lot of evidence as to what it actually meant at the time Paul used it. With pais, it's a more common word, so we do know a lot more about how it was used. It just also seems that it had a wide semantic range, which makes the colloquial euphemistic use harder to nail down. So they're not totally equivalent. Both are tricky to define for sure, but for different reasons. And pais was most definitely used to refer to a junior sexual partner - it's just that it was also used to refer to other things. We can't ask the people who heard it what the 'obvious' meaning was, hence the detective work.
And the time it was used matters a lot. A linguist in 2000 years trying to figure out the meaning of a sentence with the word 'queer' in would need to nail down exactly when it was written, as even a decade error could make all the difference.
-------------------- "Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I have a book on my shelves that attempts to deal with authenteo pretty much as you suggest and that concludes, unequivocally, that it is compelling evidence for women not to preach.
I ended up rejecting this argument because I decided it was just too contrived from a single use of the word in the NT.
It seems to me that arguing Jesus was in favour of homosexual relations on the basis of this word and how it is used in this passage is about as flimsy.
Personally, I think the argument that Jesus said nothing about such relations either way is a better one than this (although I can hear lilbuddha saying "I told you so" from the other side of the Atlantic). [ 12. December 2016, 05:32: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Eutychus: It seems to me that arguing Jesus was in favour of homosexual relations on the basis of this word and how it is used in this passage is about as flimsy.
Personally, I think the argument that Jesus said nothing about such relations either way is a better one than this (although I can hear lilbuddha saying "I told you so" from the other side of the Atlantic).
Oh, I totally agree with all that. When I said I was persuaded, it was just on the single point that the centurion was probably in a sexual relationship with his slave.
As for Jesus, yeah, I think the issue was simply just not really on his radar as a big deal. He was super strong on condemning the sins of hypocrisy, greed and injustice. But when it came to sexual sins he was much more patient and forgiving (eg the woman caught in adultery). In terms of whether homosexuality should fall into the category of 'sexual sin', that's tangential to this. I happen to think not. But either way, the lesson we can learn from this is to be open and inclusive to the other, whether we think they're a sinner or not.
-------------------- "Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Keep in mind that in that period slaves had no rights. Specifically they had no rights to their bodies or any product of them. Everybody slept with their slaves. That's what they're there for. Lend them to your dinner guests, perfectly OK! You could also sell the slave's children, after you had begotten them, as slaves. You could cut off their hair and sell it to wig makers. You could lend them to houses of prostitution and keep the money. This is the Roman Empire, folks. I am certain that everyone in Galilee knew about all this. It happened all around them on a daily basis. No one may have detailed the centurion/servant relationship, because it was SOP (standard operating procedure), too vanilla to discuss.
-------------------- Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Sure, Brenda. I was thinking the same. It's not so much hanging a whole load of theology on the word 'pais', but more an inferring from a bunch of clues, historical/cultural & textual.
Parallel to this passage, I find the Acts 8 passage about Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch interesting. It's off the tangent of this thread a little, but it does suggest that Jesus' pattern of being welcoming to the 'other', however strange and alien they seem to you was continued by the apostles. AFAIUI, despite being an ambassador: as a eunuch and a distant foreigner, he'd have gotten some cultural wariness and prejudice from most Jews at the time*. But Philip doesn't seem to have those scruples.
* And, or course, despite his interest in the Jewish scriptures, he'd have been stuck in the outer courts of the temple when he visited Jerusalem.
-------------------- "Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
I'm slightly confused by the logic here that if this passage can be used to justify homosexuality then it can also be used to justify slavery.
Considering slavery, it's agreed that if you just look at the passages in the bible that directly refer to it then there is no argument made against it. The argument against if consists of looking at the general principles of justice in the bible, and deciding that literal biblical morality can be improved upon.
So an argument for acceptance of homosexuality based on this passage is theoretically vulnerable to an argument that the general principles of the bible can be used to condemn homosexuality even if the literal text supports it. However, I've never heard such an argument; the arguments against homosexuality always rely on the claim that it's explicitly condemned. People looking at general principles tend to conclude that homosexuality is compatible with christianity. This is why lots of people feel that homosexuality is compatible with christianity even without relying on this passage.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Proof texting is stupid, it can be used to support or attack almost anything. Understanding the Bible through Jesus' message is the best, though not problem free, method.
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
For me I have to qualify that with the trajectory of the message.
-------------------- Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: quote: Originally posted by Joesaphat: That there aren't seven heavens corresponding to the seven planetary spheres?
Where is THAT in the bible?
Your copy must have lost the fold out sky map.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Palimpsest: Your copy must have lost the fold out sky map.
This is what I get for using Amazon Marketplace. When they said it didn't have all the original materials, I just thought they meant the CD of the Gospel of John being read by Athanasius was missing.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
As long as it has Paul's letters to the Lesbians.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Hell's bells. That's missing too! That's between Carpathians and Albigensians, right?
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
No, they were between Paul and the lesbians.
-------------------- mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mdijon: No, they were between Paul and the lesbians.
Should we add a rimshot to this or is the double puntendre a bit OTT?
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by lilBuddha: quote: Originally posted by mdijon: No, they were between Paul and the lesbians.
Should we add a rimshot to this or is the double puntendre a bit OTT?
Both. It's a good line.
ETA: "Paul and the Lesbians" would make a great name for a praise band. [ 28. December 2016, 16:09: Message edited by: mousethief ]
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Good line for icing on a cake as well. [ 29. December 2016, 03:46: Message edited by: mdijon ]
-------------------- mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Only if we can watch
-------------------- Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by rolyn: Only if we can watch
The lesbians next door got me a Rolex for Christmas. I don't get it. They asked me what I wanted and I told them.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
bumping up for housekeeping reasons
-------------------- Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|