|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Ancient attitudes toward homosexuality
|
caesar
Apprentice
# 16497
|
Posted
Rom. 1:21-27. By what criteria do we determine that homosexuality is natural and right or unnatural and wrong (i.e., moral or immoral). This life-style has a long history, reaching to antiquity. Ancient Jewry condemned it --- but is that cultural perspective? Relative to time and place?
There is no philosophical or historical way to denote it as wicked. But let us assume that there is a God, a personal God, Who has revealed His Will to us. Let us assume further that He condemned homosexuality as morally offensive; nay, idolatrous, as some have called it.
Then, "homophobia" has a moral standing, and those who engage in this way of life are immoral; and, as St Paul wrote, they will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. In a word, without revelation,
there can be no moral judgment on homosexuality, and homophobia is right or wrong according to time and place. Change the culture, change the judgment.
[ 29. June 2011, 20:38: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posts: 2 | From: St Louis | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
[Host hat on]
Hi, Caesar! I see you are new. Just to let you know how Kerygmania works, a thread started here needs to focus mainly on Biblical teachings and context, therefore:
If we focus the discussion on Biblical or contemporary-to-Biblical attitudes toward homosexuality, it'll work here. If people start discussing the general rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, it will be moved to Dead Horses, where the topic of the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality can be discussed more freely. (such transfers are not a punishment-- it's just how we roll.)
Please see the board guidelines at the top of the Kerygmania board contents page for more info. Welcome to the Ship-- and you old hats, provide a good example! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Kelly Alves
Kerygmania Host
{I am also changing title to reflect Kerygmania focus.)
[ 29. June 2011, 20:38: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
Regardless of modern opinion on the issue, there's general agreement that the original audience of Romans had a very clear and consistent opinion about this particular issue, and the church has historically stayed in agreement with that opinion.
Part of the genius of postmodern thought is that any particular theological idea can be conveniently separated from the otherwise consistent whole and singled out as morally, culturally, or philosophically "relative", like some unpleasant item on the dinner buffet.
But authentic Christianity requires that believers must maintain some sort of credible and honest continuity with the holistic thought-world of the early church.
How one relates the "then opinion" with the "now opinion" on the issue in question is ultimately between the believer and God, but one has a responsibility to fellow believers to be able to credibly defend that continuity as something guided by the Holy Spirit (on the order of "dining with Gentiles" and "not getting circumcised"), and not just the fickle whims of vanity, which the early church witnessed every day in the surrounding Greco-Roman culture.
(I personally have yet to hear a convincing argument that a reversal of this particular issue counts as a Spirit-led divergence from early church consensus.)
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Kelly: quote:
If we focus the discussion on Biblical or contemporary-to-Biblical attitudes toward homosexuality, it'll work here.
BWSmith: quote:
How one relates the "then opinion" with the "now opinion" on the issue in question is ultimately between the believer and God, but one has a responsibility to fellow believers to be able to credibly defend that continuity as something guided by the Holy Spirit (on the order of "dining with Gentiles" and "not getting circumcised"), and not just the fickle whims of vanity, which the early church witnessed every day in the surrounding Greco-Roman culture.
Neeeeiiiigghh.....urf
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Regardless of modern opinion on the issue, there's general agreement that the original audience of Romans had a very clear and consistent opinion about this particular issue,
Really? Not from what I've read. Its always dangerous to claim 'general agreement' on difficult topics. They are difficult because there is no general agreement. Many have argued that the ancient Roman Christians had exactly the same modern notions of what Paul was referring to as we do today in our Anglo-western, 21st century mindset. I think that kind of transposition of ideas is always a flawed way of looking at history. I suspect Paul and his audience would have had a different understanding of what "shameful lusts" and "shameful acts with other men" would have been a referent for than we would. Exactly how divergent that understanding was from ours is a grey area, but one that we need to be aware of and take into account.
Without a forensic description of what these 'sinners' were getting up to, we can only guess, and interpret as best we can the allusions, insinuations, and metaphorical language that Paul hides the subject behind.
And then we have the decision to make - do we extrapolate in totality from Paul's criticism of the homosexuality that he saw in his time and place (however that looked - which we can't know for certain), and carry it through as a generalisation on all homosexuality? And of course we don't always stop there either, we choose to carry that through to generalise for any 'deviant' sexuality, (as defined by ourselves and our own culture). Is that the appropriate use of this passage? That is certainly not the purpose of Paul's argument - which is only to prove that no one is sinless, and we are not to judge anyone else because however we condemn them we are the same and are also condemnable.
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
I personally have yet to hear a convincing argument that a reversal of this particular issue counts as a Spirit-led divergence from early church consensus.)
What was early Church consensus on this topic? Do you have quotes/evidence to prove there was a consensus?
I suspect not. The early church was divided in opinion and engaged in wrestling with the interpetation of scripture just as we are today. I suspect a unified and dogmatic 'Church Opinion' on this topic probably only came much later.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Host hat on
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves
If we focus the discussion on Biblical or contemporary-to-Biblical attitudes toward homosexuality, it'll work here. If people start discussing the general rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, it will be moved to Dead Horses, where the topic of the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality can be discussed more freely.
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith
Part of the genius of postmodern thought is that any particular theological idea can be conveniently separated from the otherwise consistent whole and singled out as morally, culturally, or philosophically "relative", like some unpleasant item on the dinner buffet.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk
Its always dangerous to claim 'general agreement' on difficult topics. They are difficult because there is no general agreement. Many have argued that the ancient Roman Christians had exactly the same modern notions of what Paul was referring to as we do today in our Anglo-western, 21st century mindset. I think that kind of transposition of ideas is always a flawed way of looking at history.
Kelly made a host post about the Kerygmania guidelines. Neither BWSmith's post nor Hawk's conform to those guidelines.
We will be happy to move the thread to Dead Horses if you like.
Host hat off
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
From past discussions, I understand that one difficulty with reaching a firm conclusion on some of the NT passages relates to the idiosyncratic Greek used in some of the passages--specifically the term "arsenokoitēs" in 1 Corinthians. This is the first documented usage of this word, and is used rather than the already existing term "androkoitēs", meaning male homosexual.
With the OT, much comes down to how one approaches the Law, and what of it still applies to Christians post-Incarnation, and what lesson one takes from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah--even within the OT, there are statements that contradict the meaning that they were destroyed for "sodomy"--Ezekiel says the sin of Sodom was inhospitably.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
caesar seems to want to know:
By what criteria do we determine that homosexuality is natural
Indeed, what is natural? Bernadette J. Brooten in her book Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism examines in detail what was "natural" in Paul's time and place. Gender asymmetry based on female subordination is no longer natural in our time and place, though it certainly was in Paul's. We no longer accord Pauline subordination of women as authoritative.
In Paul's time and place, sex was natural as long as it was penetrative, the social superior penetrating of the social inferior.
With circumcision, diet, celibacy, and divorce, Paul acknowledges the frank teaching of the tradition. And then he says, "I teach something different."
We, too, need not fudge the frank language of Rom. 1:26-27. We can acknowledge that Paul teaches an asymmetric gender subordination and a disdaining of homosexual relations as unnatural. But, then we can say (as we certainly do with gender subordinationism), we teach something different: Rom. 1:26-27 is not authoritative regarding homosexual relations.
Or so the reasoning goes. You can check out the table of contents here to see the broad arc of her argument.
[ 30. June 2011, 20:32: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
This thread will fit much better in Dead Horses.
Hold your hats.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by caesar:
Ancient Jewry condemned it --- but is that cultural perspective? Relative to time and place?
I've seen several people argue exactly that point - that ancient JEWRY condemned it. And that in Romans Chapter 1 Paul plays up their condemnation of others before turning around to them in Chapter 2 and saying 'you who condemn others, you're not so hot either'.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Now that we've landed like a cow-flop in Dead Horses, please strike the Kerygmaniacally conciliatory, "Or so the reasoning goes" from my earlier post.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
Ah well.. I tried.
Anyway...
I've also heard that same interpretation of the first portion of Romans--Paul saying "don't think you're off scott free!"
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
Here's Verse 28 et seq:
"Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them"
So, whilst we're condemning homosexuals to an eternal death, Paul was including gossips, boasters and people who disobey their parents in the list of those deserving death too.
I continue to find it odd that some Christians spend endless years and decades focusing on condemning those of us in the LGBT community, whilst kind of forgetting all the rest of the 'condemned' category (which includes themselves, unless they are Saints indeed).
Do not judge, someone said. Think it was Jesus. Jesus never said a single word on this topic, which is odd if it's one of the only things we ever seem to focus on.
Whether the attitude to homosexuality is ancient or not, it's still used as a great big stick to beat a lot of people with - people who are quietly minding their own business in committed loving relationships with their partner. I still like to think that God has bigger problems to worry about.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
I continue to find it odd that some Christians spend endless years and decades focusing on condemning those of us in the LGBT community, whilst kind of forgetting all the rest of the 'condemned' category (which includes themselves, unless they are Saints indeed).
I think a big part of the answer to this is that the other sins condemned are not in dispute: pretty much everyone accepts that they are indeed sinful and always has.
In contrast, it is preodminantly in (relatively) recent years some voices have been calling for a recognition that homosexual acts are not sins after all.
That, I think, is the difference right there. It's not just that huge swathes of "conservative" Christians are hypocrites (undoubtedly true)because they think other people's sins are worse than theirs - it's that they are arguing with people who claim that homosexual sins are not to be considered sins any more at all.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
... That, I think, is the difference right there. It's not just that huge swathes of "conservative" Christians are hypocrites (undoubtedly true)because they think other people's sins are worse than theirs - it's that they are arguing with people who claim that homosexual sins are not to be considered sins any more at all.
The arguments against divorce, usury, gluttony and gossip having clearly been lost, it's on to the homos. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
You mean Christians no longer think that these things are wrong? Really?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
You mean Christians no longer think that these things are wrong? Really?
They're certainly not campaigning quite as vigorously on those matters, are they? OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Well, that's my point. They don't have to - because the wrongness of those things is not in dispute.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Show me the Christsian political campaigns to make divorce illegal, to lower credit card rates, to force people to lose weight, and to shut down TMZ. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
I'm not sure we're getting each other here. My point is that if Chritians tend not to be campaigning against certain sins it may be because those sins are not disputed as sins in the first place. The rightness of homosexual sexual unions IS in dispute - for the first time in Christian . That may explain why that is being contested - the battle is happening right now to decide if it is even a sin at all.
Incidentally, there have been campains against some of the things you mention: the Catholic Church campaigned against the legalisation of divorce in Malta recently, for example. Again, the rightness of divorce is being actively disputed right now, which may be why it is being actively opposed by many catholics.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
I continue to find it odd that some Christians spend endless years and decades focusing on condemning those of us in the LGBT community, whilst kind of forgetting all the rest of the 'condemned' category (which includes themselves, unless they are Saints indeed).
I think a big part of the answer to this is that the other sins condemned are not in dispute: pretty much everyone accepts that they are indeed sinful and always has.
In contrast, it is preodminantly in (relatively) recent years some voices have been calling for a recognition that homosexual acts are not sins after all.
That, I think, is the difference right there. It's not just that huge swathes of "conservative" Christians are hypocrites (undoubtedly true)because they think other people's sins are worse than theirs - it's that they are arguing with people who claim that homosexual sins are not to be considered sins any more at all.
I've never gone so far as to say there are no homosexual sins.
There's homosexual rape, homosexual pedophilia, homosexual ritualistic orgies dedicated to false gods...
It's an interesting question whether there's such a thing as homosexual adultery, though. Only about 10 countries have sorted that one out conclusively.
The problem isn't thinking that there are homosexual sins. The problem is in thinking that the word 'homosexual' is the important one.
For instance, I honestly cannot understand how so many people can read about Sodom and Gomorrah and think that the gender of a proposed rape victim is the important part of the story.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I'm not sure we're getting each other here. My point is that if Chritians tend not to be campaigning against certain sins it may be because those sins are not disputed as sins in the first place. The rightness of homosexual sexual unions IS in dispute - for the first time in Christian . That may explain why that is being contested - the battle is happening right now to decide if it is even a sin at all.
Not sure if you're being intentionally disingenuous or not understanding the question. Are you saying that Christians in general consider divorce, gluttony, usury, et al to be sins?
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
You mean Christians no longer think that these things are wrong? Really?
Compared to the focus on what a small historically persecuted minority may or may not have been doing, then yes, these much more widely-applicable accusations of naughtiness do get very little airplay. And yes, that does look bad. Especially when you consider that the sexual sin which gets the most horrified response from St Paul - marrying one's father's former wife - has been quietly made legal in this country and many others and if there was a cheep out of the churches, it must have been very muted.
The thing is, that this issue is the current battlefield for the argument about authority. In the 16th century it was scripture versus scripture plus tradition and it crystallised around issues like Eucharistic theology, vernacular bible reading, Papal supremacy etc. Now it's about traditional forms of authority versus experience, scholarly enquiry and reason: 'Does what we have learned about human biology, sexuality and the sufferings and innocence of those who don't belong to the traditionally privileged categories trump scriptural/traditional injunctions to preach and do things harmful to those people?'
To shore up traditional forms of authority, a lot of otherwise nice and intelligent people find it necessary to throw gay people under a bus, (so to speak). By now there are so many Out gay people, that unless you've really hardened their heart and shut your eyes, you personally know partnered gay people and know that they and their partners are innocent and harmless. But to admit that means for many people either a radical re-interpretation of faith or casting doubt on the authority upon which belief is accepted. That is why it's such a big deal.
L.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Here's some Canadian stats - sorry, couldn't find matching years quickly:
2002: 70,155 couples had a divorce finalized
2005: 97,254 abortions were performed
Numbers in the same ballpark, really. Where are the pro-stick-it-out campaigners? The poster boards with gory post-divorce photos? (Could it have something to do with the fact that men and women get divorces, but only women have abortions? That's a ride on another pony, but I don't think it's a coincidence that the rights of women and LBGQTs are the target of the more vigorous assaults.) OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
You mean Christians no longer think that these things are wrong? Really?
Christians do not think usury is wrong. If you think they do, you haven't been following the news for the last few years. A whole bunch of people at banks and mortgage companies committed acts of usury, and loads of people think that the homeowners are to blame. Only very tepid attempts have been made to create laws and regulations to prevent the same thing from happening again -- and the attempts have had nothing to do with the belief that usury is a sin. Because Christians don't believe that it is.
Gluttony is considered sinful only if you're fat. If you're thin, it's not a problem. If you're fat, it's not the gluttony that's a problem. It's the obesity. Obesity is icky. But gluttony is, at worst, bad manners.
Gossip is different. It's fun. Do you remember the Gossip Girls on the old show, Hee Haw?
quote:
Now, we're not ones to go 'round spreadin' rumors.
Why, really we're just not the gossipy kind!
No, you'll never hear one of us repeating gossip,
So you'd better be sure and listen close the first time!
Does that sound like the writers, or the audience, thought the Gossip Girls were wicked? That what they were doing was evil? Nope. Gossip is just something we all do. We even sanctify it and call it "prayer requests."
People are not barred from communion because they sold a house, financed it themselves, and charged the buyer interest. They are not disowned by their parents because they eat too many sweets. They are not ostracized because they are gossips.
I don't see any evidence anywhere that Christians consider usury, gluttony, or gossip to be sins at all, much less the sort of sins that put you at risk of eternal damnation. I just don't see it.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
You mean Christians no longer think that these things are wrong? Really?
Christians do not think usury is wrong. If you think they do, you haven't been following the news for the last few years. A whole bunch of people at banks and mortgage companies committed acts of usury, and loads of people think that the homeowners are to blame. Only very tepid attempts have been made to create laws and regulations to prevent the same thing from happening again -- and the attempts have had nothing to do with the belief that usury is a sin. Because Christians don't believe that it is.
You don't even have to go there. "Usury" in the Bible meant any lending of money at interest - any level of interest, that is. See this article, "The Bible Condemned Usurers, Too", for more about that. Excerpt:
quote:
The Bible condemns usury in no uncertain terms. In the Book of Exodus God says “if you lend money to my people, to the poor among you. you shall not exact interest from them” (22: 25). The fifteenth Psalm says that those who lend at interest may not abide in the Lord's tent or dwell on his holy hill (1-5). Ezekiel compares usury to adultery, robbery, idolatry, and bribery, and asks whether he who “takes advanced or accrued interest; shall he then live? He shall not. He. shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.” (18: 10-13; see also Deut. 23:19, Lev. 25: 35-37, Neh. 5: 7-10, Jer. 15:10, Ezek. 22: 12, and Luke 6:35)
The Biblical case against usury does not stand alone. Plato and Aristotle condemned the practice, as did Aristophanes, Cato, Seneca, and Plutarch. So did Saints Anselm, Augustine, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, Jerome, and Ambrose, citing both Scripture and natural law. Numerous church councils and synods forbade usury: for instance, at the Third Council of Lateran (1179 C.E.), Pope Alexander III declared that both the Old and New Testaments condemn it and that violators should be excommunicated. Subsequent popes repeated these sanctions. In 1745, in the encyclical Vix Pervenit, Benedict XIV pronounced that “any gain which exceeds the amount the creditor gave is illicit and usurious.” Protestant opponents of usury included Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, and Urlich Zwingli. Nor is this condemnation unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition: the Qur'an condemns usury as well (2: 275, 3: 130). In short, the case against usury, like the case against homosexuality, appears to have strong biblical, philosophical, patristic, ecclesiastical, and theological grounds.
And here's C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity:
quote:
Now another point. There is one bit of advice given to us by the ancient heathen Greeks, and by the Jews in the Old Testament, and by the great Christian teachers of the Middle Ages, which the modern economic system has completely disobeyed. All these people told us not to lend money at interest: and lending money at interest-what we call investment-is the basis of our whole system. Now it may not absolutely follow that we are wrong. Some people say that when Moses and Aristotle and the Christians agreed in forbidding interest (or "usury" as they called it), they could not foresee the joint stock company, and were only dunking of the private moneylender, and that, therefore, we need not bother about what they said. That is a question I cannot decide on. I am not an economist and I simply do not know whether the investment system is responsible for the state we are in or not This is where we want the Christian economist But I should not have been honest if I had not told you that three great civilisations had agreed (or so it seems at first sight) in condemning the very thing on which we have based our whole life.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Yes and it was held to be wrong right up to the Reformation. John Calvin was first to permit usury for Christians and then only on very limited conditions. You could lend and borrow to finance business but personal usury such as mortgages was out.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Let's see what our list is so far. quote:
Circumcision, diet, celibacy, divorce, lending money [thanks, John!], slavery [has anybody mentioned slavery, yet?], women in the church, childhood discipline...
What am I leaving out?
On what else has the Church said, Tradition appears to teach the one thing, but we, based on Tradition and guided by the Holy Spirit, teach something else.
[ 02. July 2011, 14:09: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
I think one of the problems with the idea that the Bible condemns usury, is that it makes a complete pig's ear of how we're supposed to interpret the parable of the talents.
There are three "servants" who borrow money from their "master". All three of them pay it back. However, only two of them pay it back with interest. One of them only returns the original capital. Guess which ones are considered exemplars? Yep - it's not the one who pays no interest. Funnily enough, the ethics of the "master" who lent the money in the first place is never questioned.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
I think one of the problems with the idea that the Bible condemns usury, is that it makes a complete pig's ear of how we're supposed to interpret the parable of the talents.
There are three "servants" who borrow money from their "master". All three of them pay it back. However, only two of them pay it back with interest. One of them only returns the original capital. Guess which ones are considered exemplars? Yep - it's not the one who pays no interest. Funnily enough, the ethics of the "master" who lent the money in the first place is never questioned.
Indeed - then again, who says that one has to take the parable literally and therefore say that it is about money?
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Indeed - then again, who says that one has to take the parable literally and therefore say that it is about money?
And who says that one has to take the laws about usury literally?
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
They don't borrow money. Borrow money assumes that they asked for it, they are put in charge of money, by their boss, just as in many companies managers are given a budget and entrusted to spend it. They are accountable for that money and they aren't free to keep the profits above the interest rate. They are financial managers for the ruler and they might well be his slaves. They can't make money for themselves from that money.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Indeed - then again, who says that one has to take the parable literally and therefore say that it is about money?
And who says that one has to take the laws about usury literally?
Nothing. But it's a fact that Christians (and Jews and Muslims) did, until very recently. Whether they were right or wrong to do so is beside the point here. The point is that Chesterbelloc asserted that Christians don't make a fuss about usury because we all still believe it's a sin, and that Christians make a fuss about homosexuality because its sinfulness is up for debate. But Christians don't make a fuss about usury, because they don't believe it's a sin, in spite of what the Bible and almost 2000 years of tradition say about it.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Funnily enough, the ethics of the "master" who lent the money in the first place is never questioned.
In the parable of the dishonest steward, a man who cancels the debts of his master's debtors when he's given notice of his dismissal is commended.
In the parable of the unjust judge, God is likened to a judge who only awards judgement to the widow because he realises she won't give up pestering him until he does so.
Parables that compare God or Christians to people behaving badly aren't uncommon. You can't claim that a certain course of behaviour isn't immoral just because it's used as an exemplar in one way or another in a parable.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Christians do not think usury is wrong. If you think they do, you haven't been following the news for the last few years. ... Gluttony is considered sinful only if you're fat. If you're thin, it's not a problem. If you're fat, it's not the gluttony that's a problem. It's the obesity. Obesity is icky. But gluttony is, at worst, bad manners.
Gossip is different. It's fun. Do you remember the Gossip Girls on the old show, Hee Haw?
quote:
Now, we're not ones to go 'round spreadin' rumors.
Why, really we're just not the gossipy kind!
No, you'll never hear one of us repeating gossip,
So you'd better be sure and listen close the first time!
Does that sound like the writers, or the audience, thought the Gossip Girls were wicked? That what they were doing was evil? Nope. Gossip is just something we all do. We even sanctify it and call it "prayer requests."
People are not barred from communion because they sold a house, financed it themselves, and charged the buyer interest. They are not disowned by their parents because they eat too many sweets. They are not ostracized because they are gossips.
I don't see any evidence anywhere that Christians consider usury, gluttony, or gossip to be sins at all, much less the sort of sins that put you at risk of eternal damnation. I just don't see it.
You're very right about larger society, but I wouldn't say most people today are Christian. And those within the church are often ill-taught.
But I consider all those things to be sin (usury seems the more sinful the higher the interest rate). Maybe because of the specific context and culture I live in, where you see the bad effects of all three very clearly.
I've had occasion this week to repent of gluttony and gossip. And as for usury, I'm afraid that there is no way for me to avoid it except by refusing to make personal loans to anyone that involve interest. Which we don't. (not that we've much occasion lately) But the vice is so built into our world that it's basically impossible to avoid it unless you go entirely off the grid.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
Reasonable amount of research recently showing that some forms of gossip serve a very useful social purpose in strengthening a group, protecting it against real risks, sharing information, preventing people 'putting their foot in it' with someone in a difficult situation, etc. Negative gossip designed to hurt someone isn't a good thing, of course. But like everything else, it depends how we define the word, I think.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Of course, the ancient Greeks thought bugger all about homosexual practices.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Gee D: quote:
Of course, the ancient Greeks thought bugger all about homosexual practices.
They most certainly did not. It would have been considered the height of bad manners to have sex with another man's slave unless specifically invited to do so, for example.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Indeed - then again, who says that one has to take the parable literally and therefore say that it is about money?
And who says that one has to take the laws about usury literally?
Nothing. But it's a fact that Christians (and Jews and Muslims) did, until very recently. Whether they were right or wrong to do so is beside the point here. The point is that Chesterbelloc asserted that Christians don't make a fuss about usury because we all still believe it's a sin, and that Christians make a fuss about homosexuality because its sinfulness is up for debate. But Christians don't make a fuss about usury, because they don't believe it's a sin, in spite of what the Bible and almost 2000 years of tradition say about it.
I wish we still spoke about usury. It would be a counter-cultural witness, highly relevant to the current crisis in capitalism.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
... And as for usury ... the vice is so built into our world that it's basically impossible to avoid it unless you go entirely off the grid.
Let us take it for granted that no Christian would ever be forced to marry a person of the same sex, or have a abortion (except in China). And yet Christians participate in usury practically every day if they want to be part of the economy. Why aren't they vigorously protesting that? The only reasonable explanation is that it IS all about other people's sins. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'm not sure I understand what you mean "it is all about other people's sins." Do you mean that usury really doesn't bother anybody (like me, for instance)? It DOES bother me, and yes, I'm not vigorously protesting it. I suppose that makes me complicit. But I've had to learn long ago that I can't fight every battle, and the one assigned to me has to do with local immigrant rights and needs. I suspect the battle against usury would be best led by a Christian wealthy enough to actually have assets in the marketplace, and to stand to lose by an anti-usury stand. If someone like me popped up and started squeaking about it in the media, everybody would roll their eyes and say "it only bothers you because you're not getting a slice of the pie." Total dismissal.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
I'm sorry that we seem to have got hung up on the specific issue of usury here.
Siegrfied asked: "Are you saying that Christians in general consider divorce, gluttony, usury, et al to be sins?" I can't speak for Christians in general, but the Catholic Church certainly teaches that these things are sinful. A breach of the marriage vows by abandonment, adultery, seeking diorce as a means of escaping marriage commitments, re-marriage after divorce (without an annulment), etc; and usury considered as an expoitation of people by charging extortionate and crippling interest on loans are certainly condemned as sinful. Gluttony is one of the deadly sins.
So, yes: these things are still pretty much considered sins by Catholic without dispute.
My point all along on this thread has been to try partially to explain amber's observation that these "traditional" sins are given less emphasis in contemporary Christain "campaigns" around homosexual marriage issues by suggesting one (to me obvious) factor: the comparative novelty of suggesting there is no sin as such attached to homosexual sex. It's a comparatively new (and poliitcally urgent) threat to traditional Christian sexual ethics, which is happening right now. That's all.
[ 03. July 2011, 18:21: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Gee D: quote:
Of course, the ancient Greeks thought bugger all about homosexual practices.
They most certainly did not. It would have been considered the height of bad manners to have sex with another man's slave unless specifically invited to do so, for example.
Jane, you may have missed the pun in my post - perhaps local idiom wher you are is quite different.
As to your second sentence - an invitation to dinner and to bugger the second indoor slave at the same time? Fortunately, no-one seems to have taken any account of the slave's thoughts about it.
[ 03. July 2011, 22:54: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Gee D: quote:
Jane, you may have missed the pun in my post - perhaps local idiom where you are is quite different.
Might be (I notice you're in Australia) but I was also making a Pune or play on words; I 'got' the 'bugger all' = 'didn't think anything of it' but chose (deliberately) to interpret it as 'thought it was OK to bugger anyone' in order to make my point. Which was that the ancient Greeks might not have viewed homosexual sex the same way as we do, but there were still rules about who you could have sex with and making use of someone else's property without asking was Just Not On.
They may not have had the same rules, but they still had rules. Their rules about slaves seem outrageous to us. Our rules about allowing women to hold property and vote would seem outrageous to them. For example.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
... It's a comparatively new (and poliitcally urgent) threat to traditional Christian sexual ethics, which is happening right now. That's all.
How? How is what non-Christians do a threat to Christians' ethics? Traditional ethics remain unchanged. Christians who wish to live their lives according to those ethics have the freedom to continue to do so. Don't believe in gay marriage? Don't have one.
The "threat" is that the our culture no longer automatically defaults to the Christian position on moral or ethical issues. Deal. OliviaG
PS And I agree with leo. A prophetic challenge to our economic system would help a lot more people than battle against gay CIVIL MARRIAGE is hurting.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I'm sorry that we seem to have got hung up on the specific issue of usury here.
Siegrfied asked: "Are you saying that Christians in general consider divorce, gluttony, usury, et al to be sins?" I can't speak for Christians in general, but the Catholic Church certainly teaches that these things are sinful. A breach of the marriage vows by abandonment, adultery, seeking diorce as a means of escaping marriage commitments, re-marriage after divorce (without an annulment), etc; and usury considered as an expoitation of people by charging extortionate and crippling interest on loans are certainly condemned as sinful. Gluttony is one of the deadly sins.
So, yes: these things are still pretty much considered sins by Catholic without dispute.
If that is the case, why is it that you have posted several comments about homosexuality and next to nothing about these other sins?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
.... And yet Christians participate in usury practically every day if they want to be part of the economy. ...
There are Christian loan sharks? I'd be surprised to find Christians on the lending end of exorbitant interest rates, or even on the borrowing end.
Is it about others' sins? No. But there aren't a lot of threads about many of the other ones. There are few people who argue that they are not sins, therefore the discussions fizzle quickly.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If that is the case, why is it that you have posted several comments about homosexuality and next to nothing about these other sins?
For any bloody favour, leo: BECAUSE THESE SINS ARE NOT DISPUTED.
I don't find myself having to defend the Church's teaching on financial exploitation, avarice, gluttony and tramp-burning often here - because, as sharkshooter has also just pointed out, almost nobody thinks these things are not sins. We pretty much all take that for granted and condemn them when we see them.
But plenty other Christians and many more non-Chistians explicitly are disputing whether there is anything wrong with consensual homosexual genital sex acts and therefore with solemnising gay partnerships as marriage.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
