|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
watchergirl
Shipmate
# 5071
|
Posted
helluvanengineer, I am interested in your re-imagining of Romans 14. I have felt for a long while that this passage was relevant to my sexuality, in terms of how I shouldn't force my opinions on others in a way that would lead them into sin (through condemning me). However, it's hardly easy to avoid the subject. Let's say, for example, that we were applying Romans 14 to drinking alcohol. It's easy for me avoid drinking in the presence of people who believe it's wrong. However, I'm not sure the passage works so well with homosexuality, as much as I want to follow Paul's advice. If I'm seeing someone, how can I avoid people knowing about it? I can't lie to them or pretend to be straight - that caused me a great deal of pain in the past, and the people involved could feel betrayed if they found out. I can stay as quiet about it as I can with those who think it's wrong, and for the moment, that's what I do. It's not possible for the subject to be avoided entirely, however.
Furthermore, this is not as easy as the choice of whether one eats meat offered to idols (or drinks alcohol) or not. This is who I am and it's very hard to avoid. Those who condemn it tend to condemn me as a person at the same time - not always, but often. That's what I want to campaign against. So I struggle with the issue of whether I should speak out for the rights of LGB people or not. I still don't know. I just know that God's heart is for justice - this is referred to far, far more in the Bible than sexual sin is - and that He loves those on the margins of society who are rejected by others. That thought reminds me that this is a different issue, as well as making me think that this is more about who I am than what I do.
[ 05. November 2003, 20:07: Message edited by: watchergirl ]
--------------------
Let there be peace on earth
And let it begin with me
Posts: 96 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Helluvanengineer - may I offer the customary hostly welcome to our Ship.
I'm sure you will already have read the Ship's 10 Commandments (see left) and will have noted the Guidelines at the entrance to each Board.
Welcome aboard and have fun!
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
And that sex wasn't about man-man, man-woman, or woman-woman, but about--as this post said--the penetrator and the penetrated. Wasn't there some study done on the Greek terms malakoi and arsenokoitai which suggested that the first referred to those who submit to homosexuals while the second refers to the homosexuals themselves. Wouldn't that be consistent with the ancient concept of 'penetrator and penetrated'?
I think you're missing something here. The Roman and Greek categories of penetrator and penetrated are not analogous to modern homosexuality.
They refer to a hierarchical model of sex in which one party - the adult male citizen is more or less privileged to go about penetrating who he jolly well pleases, so long as he isn't penetrated in return. The objects of his attentions can be male or female so long as they are an inferior and not married to or the sole property of another adult male citizen. In Rome the exception to this was freeborn youths, in Greece having it away with freeborn youths was positively encouraged.
To equate terms reflecting this 'free adult male citizen gets to nail anything beneath him in the social hierarchy that moves' mentality with modern gay people in equal, monogamous and loving relationships is like equating 'publicans' in the New Testament with people who work in tax offices today. It's simply an anachronistic mistake.
Louise
--------------------
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
|
|
Paul Careau
Shipmate
# 2904
|
Posted
It would seem, when all is said and done, that the conservative interpretation of Christianity sees the answer for gay and lesbian Christians as being “transformation in Christ”. This boils down to, for the most part, learning to live a celibate life or, potentially, having one’s orientation transformed to be able to have a fulfilling heterosexual relationship.
This then would be the answer would it?
And in the UK it is suggested that an organisation such as True Freedom Trust offers that path.
I have had a look at the testimonies on the TfT website. Interesting to note NOT ONE single testimony speaks of being transformed from being gay/lesbian/bisexual to being heterosexual. Not one. Hardly a surprise really as such a radical change in sexual orientation is probably impossible in 95%+ cases, even where such change is desperately desired.
For the most part the TfT gays and lesbians “struggle” with their “sinful desires” and try to live celibate lives. The following comments are typical…
quote:
“my sexual orientation did not change; I still was not then, nor am I now, ‘normal’.
And that’s what I wish I could be: normal. I’ve tried to change, tried to become heterosexual, tried just about everything to do so! Counselling, therapy, prayer, healing – you name it. But for all my trying, all I’ve managed to do is control the behavioural manifestations of my sexual orientation.”
quote:
“I do not believe being a practising lesbian is in accordance with His word and it is up to me not to feed that appetite. I don’t know whether I will ever lose my desire for other women”
Perhaps, more concerning are comments of this nature…
quote:
“I wouldn't begin to compare the anguish of this life to what is ahead; there really is no comparison. There is a day coming when the aching will be gone and I will finally rest in God.”
The ANGUISH of this life? Anguish? Suffering? Pain? The testimonies speak of these things – depression, struggle, suicidal thoughts etc.
This is what God wants for people is it? This is what God has to offer is it?
Endless anguish and struggle… Transform your life! (and experience a lifetime of anguish and struggle). That’s not a very positive or life-affirming message is it? ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
An over obsession with the literal/legalistic meanings of specific texts in Scripture surely leads to the danger of people basing their spirituality on “dead letters” rather than “living spirit”. Is that not ultimately the real problem that is revealed here? Is Christianity is being transformed from a religion into something fairly impersonal that relies too much on an ultimately rather dry and unfeeling exercise in the academic study of literal meanings of ancient texts? ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Bye for now. Paul.
Posts: 92 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Careau:
Is Christianity is being transformed from a religion into something fairly impersonal that relies too much on an ultimately rather dry and unfeeling exercise in the academic study of literal meanings of ancient texts?
Not on my watch. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
helluvanengineer
Apprentice
# 5136
|
Posted
Very passionate responses. However, you've still not addressed my question:
Assuming that homosexual unions and sexual relations as we know them today are approved by God, how do Christian homosexuals and advocates of the morality of homosexuality deal with Christians who take a more literal approach to passages which appear to condemn the practice? IOW, how do you take the 'high road' as it were, and act in love toward your weaker brother who believes that homosexuality is not only wrong for him, but for everybody?
Posts: 16 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Spouse
Ship's Pedant
# 3353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by helluvanengineer:
IOW, how do you take the 'high road' as it were, and act in love toward your weaker brother who believes that homosexuality is not only wrong for him, but for everybody?
That's an odd, and leading, question isn't it?
I've been following the latest discussions on this thread and have to admit that I am not sure exactly how I should interpret the scriptural references. Partly because of my upbringing as a GLE, 'hating the sin and loving the sinner' and all that, which I now see is a rubbish argument. Pity now that it was pretty much all I could say 15 years ago when a Christian friend left her husband for another woman, and felt too uncomfortable to stay in my church. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Presuming that your reference to the 'weaker brother' is in the sense what Paul wrote surely you can substitute many things for the word homosexuality? And it's not even clear whether that term means the same to you as it does to me! I know people in my church (and my family) that would have problems with the term 'alcohol', or 'infant baptism'.
To use another cliché, my initial response would be 'to agree to disagree'. Politely, but clearly, point out that their view (of whatever) is not mine. In Love™ of course. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Try to have a thought of your own, thinking is so important. - Blackadder
Posts: 1814 | From: Here, there & everywhere | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by helluvanengineer:
Very passionate responses. However, you've still not addressed my question:
Assuming that homosexual unions and sexual relations as we know them today are approved by God, how do Christian homosexuals and advocates of the morality of homosexuality deal with Christians who take a more literal approach to passages which appear to condemn the practice? IOW, how do you take the 'high road' as it were, and act in love toward your weaker brother who believes that homosexuality is not only wrong for him, but for everybody?
The same way meat eaters react to avowed vegetarians, or someone who likes a beer or two reacts to someone who condemns alcohol as evil - with tolerance and compassion.
Just as I can eat meat or drink a beer without affecting their belief, so anyone else can have whichever sexual orientation they want without it affecting anyone else.
Or are you saying that by their very existence the GLB crowd forces such literalists into the sin of condemnation? If so maybe you need to ask where the responsibility for their judgmentalism lies?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
passages which appear to condemn the practice?
The key word here is appear. I disagree that the Bible condemns homosexuality because the words used do not mean homosexual relationships and the terms which most closely mirror the idea of homosexual relationship are not used. If that arguement fails to convince,as it has in your case, one can still argue that homosexuality is hardly a major thrust of scripture since it is mentioned so seldom.
[ 06. November 2003, 16:14: Message edited by: Papio ]
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rowen
Shipmate
# 1194
|
Posted
I pasted this link pages ago, but I am repeating it in view of the scripture questions. I found it most enlightening.
What the Bible does/doesn't say about homosexuality.
--------------------
"May I live this day… compassionate of heart" (John O’Donoghue)...
Posts: 4897 | From: Somewhere cold in Victoria, Australia | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
Let me see if I can't explain why Progressive Christians reject a taboo on homosexuality.
Try, sorry that it's taken a few days to get back to you after your pm, telling me that you were taking this discussion to Dead Horses.
quote:
1. The Christian taboo on homosexual behavior was not as universal in the early church as was previously believed (see the works of John Boswell).
I'm sorry but I don't think that Boswell came anywhere near to proving his case. The late Alan Bray makes more modest claims that antecedents to modern same sex blessings may or may not have involved the blessing of those involved in same-sex intercourse. But Boswell exagerates his case, relying on arguments from silence, and surprisingly ignoring historical context and reading back into history some very modern assumptions. Here is one review of Boswell, published in an admittedly conservative journal:
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9411/articles/darling.html
quote:
2. Homosexuality is natural(found in animals), so therefore it must be part of God's plan as revealed in the laws of nature.
I have never considered the case from the point of view of animals, so can't really comment. I can't see how this affects God's intentions for humanity, which is the basis on which the conservative case is built, since those are obviously very different. But the debate on nature vs nurture is still very much undecided.
quote:
3. The words “malkoi” and “arsenokoietes” did not and do not refer to consensual same-sex relationships (the words for that were erastes and eromenos). Malkoi could mean “criminally cowardly” or “criminally negligent” as well as “a man who prostitutes himself or acts like a prostitute”. An “arsenokoietes” was apparently a bawd or customer for a male prostitute, or a rapist. Pagan philosophers condemned “malkoi” and “arsenokoietes” in lists very similar to the one in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
This is the least persuasisive example of revisionism, in my view. It is based on special pleading that ignores the fact that St Paul as a first century Jew undoubtedly regarded all same sex intercourse as wrong. The term arsenokoitai in 1 Cointhians is related to Rom 1:27. Here Paul refers to sexual interecourse of 'males with males' (arenes en arsesin) he seems to have in mind arsenokoitai. The fact that Paul excludes all unrepentant participants under the term porneia (and don't forget that Paul was immediately addressing the immorality of a Church that had tolerated incest) reinforces "our supposition that a responsible hermentuetic today should understand the combination of malakoi and arsenokoitai, in the broadest possible sense, as violators of the model of marriage put forward in Genesis 1-2 specifically, a union between a man and a woman". Thus writes Gagnon in his comprehensive survey of the biblical texts (The Bible and Homosexual Practice, Abingdon Press, 2001).
I'm sorry to go on but the conservative view is not based on a handful of verses in the Old and New Testaments, but on the integrity of the Bible in pointing to marriage, gender complementarity and all that is implied in Genesis 1 and 2. The New Testament verses which refer to homosexuality explicitly can only be understand in the light of this consistent bias in the Bible, in which all references to homosexual intercourse are negative, in which marriage is held up as the ideal and furthermore, the model for Christ's relationship to his Church. Even those few verses explicitly mentioning homosexuality do so in a context with explicit allusions to the creator and his creation. This is a matter of the Bible's integrity and the kind of approach that aims a scattergun at various verses does not do justice to this integrity. Scholars like Wink recognise that the bible is overwhelmingly negative towards homosexual practice and instead discount the bible's testimony on such questions as unimportant to modern debate. That position has far more value, because at least it is honest.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Wasteland
Apprentice
# 4700
|
Posted
Gagnon is no less biased in his own way than Boswell. Gagnon's translation/intepretation of Paul seeks a black and white answer & deliberately tries to exclude other possibilities that are in reality just as likely as what Gagnon suggests.
I would certainly challenge Gagnon's interpretation of Malakoi and Arsenokoietes.
The term “Malakoi” specifically was used to refer to effeminacy rather than homosexuality per se. There was no one term for homosexuality, the Greeks had many different terms and phrases that described different “types” of people whose behaviour may or may not have included homosexuality.
Therefore “Malakoi” is a word that is like “Yuppie” – i.e. it describes a cameo image of a person. In the case of Yuppie the word describes a young man, working in the city, earning a stack loan of cash, wine bar frequenting, red-striped shirt and braces, always on a mobile, arrogant, brash etc. Yuppie does not “mean” any single one of those elements of the description – it does not (for example) mean “someone who goes to wine bars”. Malakoi is a similar word. It means someone who is effeminate, weak, cowardly, promiscuous (verging on sex obsessed), passively homosexual, consumed by lust. The Greeks used the word loosely in a variety of different situations (but always negatively). Polybius uses it to describe a clearly heterosexual man who was guilty of fawning/grovelling behaviour towards the Roman Senators. The fawning/grovelling behaviour was labelled “Malakos”. Aristophanes uses it mainly to describe general effeminacy, weakness and implied homosexuality – he talks of boys who are “too Malakos to hold their own shields”. Sometimes homosexual men are described specifically as NOT being Malakos. Plato has his characters in symposium discuss this behaviour, there is a homosexual couple present, one of the other characters makes it clear that neither of these two can be described in these terms.
As far as I can tell Malakos usually meant – an effeminate, highly promiscuous homosexual. So, if you are Gay or Lesbian & you’ve ever been to G-A-Y in Soho & witnessed the uber-camp put-on acts of some of its more exotic, flirtatious and no doubt promiscuous customers – that’s was what “Malakoi” means.
“Arsenokoietes” is harder to interpret because there are no other examples of this particular word being used in classical literature. It is probably Corinthian slang from the first century AD. As such it is unlikely we will ever know exactly what it means. We can tell what it means from its literal translation – “male shagger”.
The Conservative Evangelical position is based on the Greek translation of the Levitical prohibition on homosexuality. The assumption being that Paul copied/mimicked this phrase. The implication that this is then paired with Malakoi to describe an active and a passive partner in a gay relationship. However, this is not entirely adequate as we know that “Malakoi” to the Greeks was NOT automatically applicable to a gay male relationship – i.e. two gay men could be together and neither were necessarily considered Malakoi. However, “male shagger” may nevertheless simply mean “a man who has sex with men” and therefore arguably apply to all gay men.
However, this is an assumption, there are other possibilities that are equally plausible. Whilst the word “Arsenokoietes” does not appear elsewhere in Greek/Koine literature a variant of this phrase does appear…. as ancient graffiti!
Some Greek stories speak of particularly promiscuous gay men frequenting grave yards for anonymous sex with men. Sometimes these may have been prostitutes but essentially the behaviour would approximate to what we would now call “cruising” or “cottaging”. In such a graveyard we find graffiti saying things like “I want to shag a male” – this has obvious similarities with “male shagger”.
It is therefore possible that “Arsenokoietes” actually means something like “cottager” or “gay cruiser” or both.
So it is quite possible that Paul’s comments in Corinthians and Timothy related to a prohibition on particular aspects of gay male behaviour – i.e. promiscuous male homosexuals, cottagers and gay cruisers.
--------------------
but there is no water...
Posts: 27 | From: The wilderness | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Wasteland
Apprentice
# 4700
|
Posted
And another thing...
Whilst the conservative evangelical case does indeed draw attention to the idea that views on human sexuality in the Bible do not stand alone but are rather part of a larger theme that encompasses the nature of gender and of marriage.
I would agree with this analysis. Paul’s views (for example) on human sexuality clearly inter-relate and are co-dependant on his views on gender and on appropriate gender roles. Evidence for this litters Paul’s letters.
However, Paul’s views on gender and sexuality can either be taken as a package or left as a package. What many conservative evangelicals do, however, is to pick and choose from them in an a la carte fashion.
Paul’s views on gender are patently misogynistic. This partly explains his specific alarm at MALE effeminacy (which probably represents the main source of his negative attitudes to homosexuality. His views on gender roles clearly place women in the home, preclude women from the Priesthood, command women to remain silent in church, demand that women defer to their husbands in matters of theology etc.
I have never understood how any evangelical could possibly condemn homosexuality on the one hand and, at the same time, reject Paul’s misogynistic attitudes to the role of women on the other. The two are co-dependent and form the building blocks of his particular outlook on appropriate gender roles and behaviour.
I have never seen any Evangelicals adequately explain away this glaring example of “picking and choosing”. Nor do I expect to ever see it because ultimately this is the point at which their arguments are weakest. It sounds very much like “we demand a literal and honest reading of scripture….(except when it doesn’t suit US).” ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
but there is no water...
Posts: 27 | From: The wilderness | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Can someone please explain why Gen 1-2 has anything to do with this issue? If God had created Adam and Steve, then we wouldn't be here but I don't see your point?
Or is that your point?
The "natural cause" arguement means that infertile people shouldn't have sex and makes celibacy as unatural as gay/lesbian sex supposedly is, in certain hate-filled world views.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Sorry to double - The Wasteland ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Sounds to me that the Bible condemns loose sexuality rather than gay sexuality. I also have no dount at all that Paul's sexist leanings were part of his personal horror at the idea a gay couple since, presumably, one of the partners would have (in Paul's unenlightened and wrong view) to be playing the part of a woman.
Interesting that lesbians are not mentioned, except in one verse which seems to be referring to temple prostitutes.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve G
Shipmate
# 65
|
Posted
The relevance of Genesis 1-2 is that many people see it as laying down what might be called God's blueprint for sex - namely heterosexual sex in a heterosexual marriage.
Two of the people who seem to have seen it this way were Jesus (in Matthew 19v5 he quotes Gen. 2v24) and Paul (in Ephesians 5v31 he quotes the same verse).
Posts: 168 | From: Exeter | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
helluvanengineer
Apprentice
# 5136
|
Posted
So basically, Jesus' teaching on sex is: "If you're straight, you need to get married, don't even think about having sex with anyone else. You need to stay in your marriage. The only way you can get a divorce is if your spouse cheats on you. If you divorce and marry another for any other reason, that's adultery. And if you're gay, well, whatever, I don't care. Moses said something about homosexual relations being abominable, but he was just a prudish wind-bag."
And Paul's teaching is: "men are just better than women, period. I hate that men even have to condescend to getting married, but since so many of them can't seem to go a week without boning something, I guess a woman is better than a farm animal. But don't let me ever catch you men taking it from another man. You guys are supposed to be better than that. Getting screwed is woman's work."
Yeah, that sounds like the true spirit of the Holy Scriptures.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Y'know, I'm a theology student and this:
quote:
And Paul's teaching is: "men are just better than women, period. I hate that men even have to condescend to getting married, but since so many of them can't seem to go a week without boning something, I guess a woman is better than a farm animal. But don't let me ever catch you men taking it from another man. You guys are supposed to be better than that. Getting screwed is woman's work."
strikes me as summing up the words of St. Paul to an admirable degree. I think that is more or less exactly what he said.
And who said God didn't care about gay/lebian relationships? God wants faithful, loving and committed relationships although he realises that some relationships can't work so S/He allows divorce for "marital unfaithfulness" (whatever that is).
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
also, I forgot to add that the Levitical and other Mosiac texts are not relavent in any way, shape or form to this issue since Christ has already fulfilled the Mosiac law, freeing us from it's demands. I am not saying we have no rules to live by or there is no such thing as morality. I am saying that Mosiac law has been fulfilled for us.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
also, I forgot to add that the Levitical and other Mosiac texts are not relavent in any way, shape or form to this issue since Christ has already fulfilled the Mosiac law, freeing us from it's demands. I am not saying we have no rules to live by or there is no such thing as morality. I am saying that Mosiac law has been fulfilled for us.
Anyway, we're not Jews and its a tricky business working out which of the laws are covenant & which (if any) meant to be global.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Wasteland
Apprentice
# 4700
|
Posted
quote:
And Paul's teaching is: "men are just better than women, period. I hate that men even have to condescend to getting married, but since so many of them can't seem to go a week without boning something, I guess a woman is better than a farm animal. But don't let me ever catch you men taking it from another man. You guys are supposed to be better than that. Getting screwed is woman's work."
Yes actually. That is Paul’s teaching in a nutshell.
Paul was a Hellenised Jew and therefore his views when it comes to sexual ethics and gender roles simply reflect First Century Jewish and Greek cultures. There is nothing unique or remotely inspirational about his opinions on the subject. Indeed, when viewed through our more enlightened modern eyes they are homophobic and misogynistic – exactly the kind of ethical values you’d expect a first century Hellenised Jew to hold. Totally the product of culture.
I would argue that either you accept Paul’s Misogyny AND his Homophobia or you reject them BOTH as transient cultural values. To accept the homophobia and reject the misogyny is rank hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty in extremis.
--------------------
but there is no water...
Posts: 27 | From: The wilderness | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Try
Shipmate
# 4951
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wasteland:
quote:
And Paul's teaching is: "men are just better than women, period. I hate that men even have to condescend to getting married, but since so many of them can't seem to go a week without boning something, I guess a woman is better than a farm animal. But don't let me ever catch you men taking it from another man. You guys are supposed to be better than that. Getting screwed is woman's work."
Yes actually. That is Paul’s teaching in a nutshell.
Paul was a Hellenised Jew and therefore his views when it comes to sexual ethics and gender roles simply reflect First Century Jewish and Greek cultures. There is nothing unique or remotely inspirational about his opinions on the subject. Indeed, when viewed through our more enlightened modern eyes they are homophobic and misogynistic – exactly the kind of ethical values you’d expect a first century Hellenised Jew to hold. Totally the product of culture.
In defense of Paul:
Paul's views on the subject of women were quite progressive for his day. He ordained them as deacons, after all (in his era the distinction between a deacon and a priest hadn't developed), and one of his apostles was a woman, Junia.
Besides, most of the verses about women submitting are in the pastoral epistles, which probably weren't written by Paul.
Paul's views on homosexuality are harder to place, partly because the Jews and the Greeks had no notion of homosexuality as it exists today (that is to say a total preference for one's own sex).
The Jews felt that all homosexuality was unclean- that's what the word translated as "abomination" in Leviticus and Duteronomy literally means, though abomination does more to convey the depths of loathing Jews felt towards anything unclean. However, by Jesus' time, many of the provisions of the Law had become a dead letter. The Pharisees, Sadducees, Maccabees, and other such groups were trying to restore the full application of the law, which is why they were so incensed when God endorsed what they saw as contemporary laxness.
The Greeks had a different view- they were fine with male/male eros, provided that certain rules were followed. There had to be an active partner, and a passive one, and the active partner had to be somehow the superior of the passive one. Frequently, the active partner was superior because the passive one was a slave or prostitute. Such a slave or prostitute was referred to as a malkoi, and Paul places them among the sinners, as did most philosophers. Malkoi could also be used as a term of abuse against men who were "whoreish", or cowardly without being actual prostitutes. Arsenokoites seems to be a term coined by someone to describe people who somehow benefited by the activites of the malkoi, but we aren't sure. It does appear outside the Bible, but only in other "sin-lists" similar to the one Paul wrote. However, there was also another sort of male/male eros, one where the active partner lovingly courted the passive one, and where the relationship was not always consummated. The beloved was usually younger then the lover, but not always- one of Plato's dialogues features Socrates gently but firmly rebuffing a suitor. This sort of relationship was generally approved of by Greek society- making it a sin would have called for an explanation that Paul doesn't give. He never uses the words that describe the partners in such a relationship (Erastes and Eumios[sp?]) either.
The men that acted as moral authorities in both societies seem to have been unaware of lesbianism.
The real Pauline epistles are older then the Gospels, and contain many good things that I would not wish to throw away. Paul was a sincerely pious man who faced an impending schism between Jewish and Gentile Christians and tried to hold the two together while remaining true to his own beliefs. He's an example for us all.
--------------------
“I’m so glad to be a translator in the 20th century. They only burn Bibles now, not the translators!” - the Rev. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Posts: 852 | From: Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
In defense of Paul:
Paul's views on the subject of women were quite progressive for his day. He ordained them as deacons, after all (in his era the distinction between a deacon and a priest hadn't developed), and one of his apostles was a woman, Junia.
Besides, most of the verses about women submitting are in the pastoral epistles, which probably weren't written by Paul.
Paul's views on homosexuality are harder to place, partly because the Jews and the Greeks had no notion of homosexuality as it exists today (that is to say a total preference for one's own sex).
etc
Try, I'm not clear on whether after the colon of your post this is a quote? If so, could you specify who you are quoting?
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Try
Shipmate
# 4951
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew Carey:
Try, I'm not clear on whether after the colon of your post this is a quote? If so, could you specify who you are quoting?
I'm not qouteing anyone. I got the information from various sources on the 'net. I think I've given links to most of them allready.
--------------------
“I’m so glad to be a translator in the 20th century. They only burn Bibles now, not the translators!” - the Rev. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Posts: 852 | From: Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
Paul's views on the subject of women were quite progressive for his day. He ordained them as deacons, after all (in his era the distinction between a deacon and a priest hadn't developed), and one of his apostles was a woman, Junia.
Besides, most of the verses about women submitting are in the pastoral epistles, which probably weren't written by Paul.
Paul's views on homosexuality are harder to place, partly because the Jews and the Greeks had no notion of homosexuality as it exists today (that is to say a total preference for one's own sex).
[Tongue only partly in cheek]
Paul's progressive views on women notwithstanding, I don't think it's unfair to say that the Jews and the Greeks of that era had no notion of women as we exist today.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Louise said:
quote:
They refer to a hierarchical model of sex in which one party - the adult male citizen is more or less privileged to go about penetrating who he jolly well pleases, so long as he isn't penetrated in return. The objects of his attentions can be male or female so long as they are an inferior and not married to or the sole property of another adult male citizen. In Rome the exception to this was freeborn youths, in Greece having it away with freeborn youths was positively encouraged.
To equate terms reflecting this 'free adult male citizen gets to nail anything beneath him in the social hierarchy that moves' mentality with modern gay people in equal, monogamous and loving relationships is like equating 'publicans' in the New Testament with people who work in tax offices today. It's simply an anachronistic mistake.
Well-put and absolutely right.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wasteland:
Paul was a Hellenised Jew and therefore his views when it comes to sexual ethics and gender roles simply reflect First Century Jewish and Greek cultures.
What, other than the New Testament and comments on it, do you actually know about the mores of "First Century Jewish and Greek cultures"?
Bearing in mind that 90% of what we see in writing about ancient Greek attitudes is from one city - Athens - centuries before the time of Christ.
And most of what we see about Jewish culture at the time is a confused mixture of post-fall Rabbinic Judaism with half-digested snippets from the partriarchal period, often leavened with a little sentimental guff based on 19th century Palestinian (or even Beduin) culture.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek.*
Resident alien
# 3207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve G:
The relevance of Genesis 1-2 is that many people see it as laying down what might be called God's blueprint for sex - namely heterosexual sex in a heterosexual marriage.
Two of the people who seem to have seen it this way were Jesus (in Matthew 19v5 he quotes Gen. 2v24) and Paul (in Ephesians 5v31 he quotes the same verse).
Is that the reason why, when in Genesis 2:24 we read that the man was "cleave" {dabaq) to his wife, we treat it as the foundation of the idea of complimentarity?
Posts: 702 | From: Hot-on-us, TX | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve G:
The relevance of Genesis 1-2 is that many people see it as laying down what might be called God's blueprint for sex - namely heterosexual sex in a heterosexual marriage.
So singleness is as sinful as a long-term homosexual relationship, because it doesn't conform to God's blueprint?
I can live with that.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
This thread may be interested in two articles which appeard in this week's Church of England newspaper. Both are sympathetic to those advocating a change in the Church's teaching.
The first is by Rev. Richard Thomas, communications director of Oxford Diocese. Overall it's not a bad article, but he overstates his case on several occasions, with too many appeals to anthropology for me.
He builds part of his argument on Jesus's words in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:27-28). In due course I'm going to post a more general bible study on these verses in Kerygmania.
The second is by Derek Rawcliffe, the retired Bishop of Glasgow. This is the poorer of the two articles. He caricatures those with whom he disagrees as "biblical fundamentalists". ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
I thought Rawcliffe's article was rather good, actually. It seems to me that he is characterizing as fundamentalists those who claim to be faithful to the letter of Scripture in all things, including inter alia the issue of homosexuality. What he seems to me to be saying is that there are issues on which such people do compromise their literalism - the instance he gives is of the requirement that a girl be married to her rapist.
I take from this that his argument is with people whose objection to homosexuality derives solely from what they take to be an infallibly-inspired proposition in the Bible. There are other grounds of Christian opposition to homosexuality, e.g. 'rational' (I italicize only to indicate that this is debatable) views about what constitutes 'normal' or 'natural' sexual conduct.
My perception (open to correction) is that a great many people whose opposition is based on a very conservative reading of the Bible don't entertain such other arguments as 'supplementary'. The presence of a proposition that [God holds that] homosexuality is wrong in the Bible is sufficient for them, they would claim. Rawcliffe is arguing that there are instances where they don't treat the Bible in this way. These are the people Rawcliffe characterizes as fundamentalists, not opponents of Christian practising homosexuality per se.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
psyduck said:
I thought Rawcliffe's article was rather good, actually.
My problem with Derek Rawcliffe’s article is the caricaturing of the Pentateuch in the formation of Christian theology and morality. Parts are certainly difficult for Christians to understand, including Dt 22:28ff. I believe that parts of Africa still maintain the custom that a raped woman should marry her attacker, but that thought is now quite offensive to us in the West. I don’t know if it is enforced within any African church.
Notwithstanding the difficulty of some passages, I challenge anyone to read Leviticus chapters 18-20 and not come away thinking that large parts of it are obviously still relevant today. For a start, Lev 19:18 is immediately familiar, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself”. This part of Leviticus was important to Jesus, so we can’t simply ignore it either.
In Lev chapters 18-20 there is a concern for women’s rights, especially during menstruation, and children’s rights in an era of enforced prostitution and child sacrifice. There is a concern for the rights of the poor and the sojourner - the unemployed and immigrants in the language of today The reference to mediums is still relevant.
How do we as Christians, and not Jews, read Leviticus, and indeed the whole Pentateuch? Historically Christians have placed the Pentateuchal laws into three categories: civil, ceremonial and moral.
In Lev chapters 18-20, civil laws would include the references to fruit trees (19:23-25), and the particular killing method of food animals implied in Lev 19:26.
Ceremonial laws could include the references to hair and beard styles (19:27-28), as well as that old favourite, mixed materials in clothing (19:19). These could be cultural items which distinguished Israel from its neighbours. Ceremonial law also includes particular Jewish religious observances (e.g. sacrificial peace offerings 19:5-8).
Finally there is the moral law. Lev chapters 18-20 mention theft, deceit, dishonesty, injustice, false witness, fraudulent weights and measures, as well as all sorts of sexual immorality (and here the OT is not squeamish). Underlying these is the repeated refrain, “You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy”.
All are agreed that that the ceremonial and civil laws of the OT do not apply in the era of the Church. However, the moral law endures. Otherwise how else would we know what sin was, and what it was that Jesus Christ was calling us to repent from? The difficulty comes in establishing what was civil and ceremonial (and hence no longer applicable), and what is moral (and hence eternally abiding).
I accept that Derek Rawcliffe had limited space in his short article, but the caricature comes in when he does not discuss how much of the Pentateuchal message would be affirmed today, even by some in the secular world. Child sacrifice, anyone? He simply parodies the work of Christian theology in establishing which parts of the Pentateuch are relevant today in the era of the church.
He does not do justice to either the wide moral range of the Pentateuch, or the extent to which much of it is in fact reinforced and repeated in other biblical contexts. The Levitical concerns with justice and fair measures are themes picked up by many of the prophets and also feature in the wisdom literature, as well as the NT.
Also, there is a further caricature in that no informed commentator is building a sexual morality on the Pentateuch alone. That’s why we have the rest of the OT and the NT, and indeed all the other knowledge upon which moral theology can call, including the philosophy of natural law which is particularly important to RC’s.
Lev chapters 18-20 are full of calls to avoid sexual immorality, and so is the NT, in language (1 Corinthians 6:9) that echoes the Greek Septuagint wording of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. At that point we are well and truly back onto the subject of this thread. Derek Rawcliffe simply dismisses the premises on which St. Paul builds his argument, taking pride in some incorrect psychology as he does so.
As an Anglican, I am personally open to what tradition and reason have to say on this subject, as well as insights from all other disciplines. This is where I personally part company from those who are more strictly sola scriptura, a phrase in any case now divorced from what it originally meant to the 16th century reformers.
Derek Rawcliffe’s specific Pentateuchal example falls down particularly. The requirement of Dt 22:28ff are certainly not reinforced elsewhere in the OT or in the NT. No-one in the West is calling for this law to be observed, and it is simply not a subject of contention for any of us. In short, it is a complete red herring, useful only for embarrassing some people with a possibly naïve and literalistic approach to scripture and theology.
That is why I consider that Derek Rawcliffe’s article is caricaturing me and people who think like me. The “biblical fundamentalists” he is fighting may exist somewhere, but I have yet to meet them. I suspect that they are made of straw.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dorothea
Goodwife and low church mystic
# 4398
|
Posted
Faithful Sheepdog wrote:
quote:
I believe that parts of Africa still maintain the custom that a raped woman should marry her attacker, but that thought is now quite offensive to us in the West.
Actually it is incredibly offensive to any woman who's been raped.
J
Posts: 1581 | From: Notlob City Limits | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
All are agreed that that the ceremonial and civil laws of the OT do not apply in the era of the Church. However, the moral law endures.
No, not "all" are agreed. Judaism would be certainly confused as to how or why anyone would divide Torah up this way. The division becomes explicit at the Reformation, but there really is no logic to it. For Judaism, the whole Torah is law - so-called "ceremonial" laws are as much to do with telling who God is and what he is like as any of the moral laws. "Moral" laws and rules about cultic purity are intertwined. And there is nothing to help us determine whether the anti-gay rules fall into the "moral" category as opposed to the "vivil" or "purity" category other than our determination to make them so.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
Finally there is the moral law. Lev chapters 18-20 mention theft, deceit, dishonesty, injustice, false witness, fraudulent weights and measures, as well as all sorts of sexual immorality (and here the OT is not squeamish). Underlying these is the repeated refrain, “You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy”.
but its not so neatly clear cut as that, really. when you say "all sorts of sexual immorality", are you including the prohibition for a man sleeping with his wife if she is having her period or if she has had it but not been purified? and if not, why not? its in there with the rest. it has always seemed to me that the bit about not lying with a man as with a woman is prohibition specifically against anal sex, and is as much a purity issue as the menstral uncleanliness rules. if one applies today, than so should the other, and if one doesn't, than neither should.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle
Shipmate
# 4792
|
Posted
To me it seems that guidelines for living (if you see the Bible in that way) proceed from the nature of God. God is holy and enjoins his creation to be holy. He wants us to put him first, and he also tells us to love our neighbour. It seems to me (not believing that the Bible was dictated word by word by God), that the laws handed down by Moses and elaborated on to creat the 613 laws were designed, at that point in time, culturally, spiritally and socially, to embody that society's best endeavour to honour those principles.
This helps to explain, perhaps, why certain rules (such as the girl marrying her rapist) which might have been enlightened in the times in which they were framed - are no longer seen that way by us. They would no longer represent our best endeavour to honour God's will. In other words, laws made by and for humans can only ever be a human response to God's will for us. They do not in themselves define God's will - which,I would argue, by the nature and complexity of God, remains largely outside our comprehension.
This is not to say don't study the laws, don't examine them for what they can teach us about God, and about ourselves. But,I don't think we should assume that they are immutable (not even some, which seem to be regarded as more immutable than others).
--------------------
where am I going... and why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 318 | From: Kent, UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Wasteland
Apprentice
# 4700
|
Posted
quote:
Lev chapters 18-20 are full of calls to avoid sexual immorality, and so is the NT, in language (1 Corinthians 6:9) that echoes the Greek Septuagint wording of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
A tenuous claim - pure speculation in fact. It is dishonest to present it as if it is the most likely explanation behind Paul's choice of wording in 1 Corinthians. The wording in 1 Corinthians 6:9 bares a closer relationship to Corinthian grafitti of the period which appears to relate to cottaging/cruising behaviour in public graveyards.
Not withstanding. It is clear that there is no consistent and objective rule regarding which bits of Biblical laws are considered "moral" and which are considered "ceremonial" or "civil". There is also considerable wooliness in drawing a line between "timeless moral imperatives" on the one hand and "customs of the time" on the other.
An objective and honest reading of much of the OT and NT shows a very clear view of women as subordinate to men in matters of religion, business and politics. There is certainly no real case for women Priests based on what is essentially a very long tradition of male spiritual leadership that runs through ancient Israelite and early Christian cultures.
Now, there are (I am sure) a number of Evangelicals who doubtless would agree and would continue to argue the "womans place is in the home" card. But for the most part, I think the majority of Evangelicals have ditched this attitude some time ago.
It would seem very clear to me therefore that, if they are willing to sweep Biblical teachings on gender roles under the carpet then why make a big song and dance about ditching homophobia? Same issue surely. Paul's views on gender and sexuality are quite clearly inter-related and inter-dependent.
I can't see how Evangelicals can possibly reconcile such blatent hypocrisy. Applying, as they do, such obviously different principles to their reading of the Bible. I can only assume that these people are deeply homophobic and simply use the Bible to justify their own unpleasant prejudices.
--------------------
but there is no water...
Posts: 27 | From: The wilderness | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I want to take issue with the words "homophobic" and "prejudice."
Homophobia cannot simply be translated as the "fear of / against men" of course. I suppose the basic idea is that humans tend to hate what they fear, (the unknown, the unaccustomed, the strange). Although there is some truth in this as far as it explains some hatred of gay people or their behaviours I don't think it comes close to describing these antagonisms in their depth and range.
We have talked about disgust here before but I want to raise the question again but this time as to whether or not fear alone exhausts the notion of disgust. A deeply personal and physical act between two people is something which carries for most of us a huge emotional investment. We can therefore emote in the face of other such behaviours not within our experience or understanding at a very deep and strong level of distaste.
Often, when homophobia is discussed this dimension is ignored. It doesn't help people who are locked into the disgust and loathing reaction to ignore it. I'm not sure how one deals with that .... perhaps by showing how deep love between two persons of the same gender can be a holy thing. It seems that if we can get that sorted out intimacy will resolve itself. I tend to think that women are better able to handle this than men in our culture. I'm not sure.
As to "prejudice" ... this is to make a pre-judgement based on external criteria alone. As an explanation of anti-gay attitudes this seems a very shallow and unhelpful definition or description.
[Edited to fix typo, enabling removal of subsequent post]
[ 19. November 2003, 15:49: Message edited by: TonyK ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
...Judaism would be certainly confused as to how or why anyone would divide Torah up this way. ... For Judaism, the whole Torah is law ...
Reform Judaism clearly takes a different stance on Leviticus - the
Pittsburgh Platform includes the distinction:
quote:
3. We recognize in the Mosaic legislation a system of training the Jewish people for its mission during its national life in Palestine, and today we accept as binding only its moral laws, and maintain only such ceremonies as elevate and sanctify our lives, but reject al such as are not adapted to the views and habits of modern civilization.
4. We hold that all such Mosaic and rabbinical laws as regulate diet, priestly purity, and dress originated in ages and under the influence of ideas entirely foreign to our present mental and spiritual state. They fail to impress the modern Jew with a spirit of priestly holiness; their observance in our days is apt rather to obstruct than to further modern spiritual elevation.
(I commend the whole statement to your attention, it's quite Anglican in places!)
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
We have talked about disgust here before but I want to raise the question again but this time as to whether or not fear alone exhausts the notion of disgust.
Why should it be relevant?
That one person is disgusted by another's sex practices is their problem. They don't have to watch.
Anyway, of what you say is true then one would expect, for example, homosexual pornography to be disgusting to heterosexual men (men, because its men we're talking about here, not women). I doubt if that is the case in general. It certainly isn't disgusting to me, it's arousing, but significantly less arousing than heterosexual pornography. I supexct that is the normal reaction.
That would lead me to also suspect that the other stereotype about the strength of homophobia (I agree with you that it is an unfortunate word - "fear of sameness") is more likely to be true, or likely to be true more often.
It's not disgust with homosexuality that makes some people hate it, it is attraction to it, causing them to be worried that they themselves are homosexual. This of course might be accentuated if they take on the contemporary view of homosexuality as an either/or thing, an identity rather than a behaviour, because to someone who believes that then to be attracted to their own sex woudl mean "being gay" and having to give up attraction to the other sex.
Anyway, disgust of this kind is learned behaviour, socially constructed. (Well, except for disgust at a few chemicals, but I don't think you are saying that gay sweat smells worse?) So even if heterosexual men were generally disgusted by homosexual behaviour, as you seem to believe, they would have developed that habit from somewhere. Its not innate.
Oh, and Leviticus has nothing to do with the reasons Gene Robinson should not be a bishop - it's the Epistle to Timothy that counts.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wasteland:
There is certainly no real case for women Priests based on what is essentially a very long tradition of male spiritual leadership that runs through ancient Israelite and early Christian cultures.
Now, there are (I am sure) a number of Evangelicals who doubtless would agree and would continue to argue the "womans place is in the home" card. But for the most part, I think the majority of Evangelicals have ditched this attitude some time ago.
It would seem very clear to me therefore that, if they are willing to sweep Biblical teachings on gender roles under the carpet then why make a big song and dance about ditching homophobia? Same issue surely. Paul's views on gender and sexuality are quite clearly inter-related and inter-dependent.
I can't see how Evangelicals can possibly reconcile such blatent hypocrisy.
Bollocks doubled.
1) Christian presbyters aren't "leaders" they are elders. Or at least that's what most evangelicals believe and its evangelical supporters of women priests you are calling hypocrites.
2) Anyway there are enough women leaders in the Bible - you only need one to make the point, so Deborah will do - to allow fundamentalists and evangelicals to think that God sometimes appoints women to leadership. In whcih case the question is not "should women be leaders?" but "is this woman one of those women who is appointed ot be a leader?". Very different.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Er, Ken: quote:
Christian presbyters aren't "leaders" they are elders.
H. von Campenhausen, possibly following Dibelius, suggested that there were two basic constitutions for New Testament churches, the Pauline, like Philippi, with Episkopoi (sic, pl.!) and Diakonoi, and the non- or pre-Pauline Jewish-Christian, based on the synagogue, with government by a board of Presbuteroi, or Elders. In this sense, even the etymology - presbuteros=old man=leader of the community suggests leadership, albeit conjoint leadership, of the community.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Ken
Your arguments are plausible but the "attraction / repulsion" explanation is just as speculative as my ramblings. For your explanation to be definitive we should have to show that all "homophobes" had these inner conflicts. It may be true for some but how can we avoid the knock down zero-argument that "you're in denial?" This rejoinder is often condescending, even insulting ... and often, simply false.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
...
Anyway, of [sic] what you say is true then one would expect, for example, homosexual pornography to be disgusting to heterosexual men (men, because its men we're talking about here, not women). I doubt if that is the case in general. It certainly isn't disgusting to me, it's arousing, but significantly less arousing than heterosexual pornography. I supexct that is the normal reaction.
...
It's not disgust with homosexuality that makes some people hate it, it is attraction to it, causing them to be worried that they themselves are homosexual. This of course might be accentuated if they take on the contemporary view of homosexuality as an either/or thing, an identity rather than a behaviour, because to someone who believes that then to be attracted to their own sex woudl mean "being gay" and having to give up attraction to the other sex.
...
So many things to say ... I'll try to articulate a few of them.
First, this post is so full of personal generalizations, it is difficult to counter them.
Second, just because you don't think homosexual pornography is offensive, please don't even suggest that most men agree with you.
Third, just because you have some homosexual feelings, do not say that is the reason others are against homosexuality.
Fourth, you said a homosexual attraction leads some to hate homosexuality. Perhaps, but there are other reasons for many of us.
Fifth, the "contemporary view" of homosexuality as an identity rather than a behaviour, in my experience, is the position of those who support homosexuality, not those of us who disagree with it. That is why it is repeatedly said by supporters of homosexuality, on these boards and elsewhere, that it is wrong to try to try to change homosexual into heterosexuals.
Sixth, you suggest that it is either disgust or latent homosexual feelings that are the only two reasons for being against homosexual behaviour. I would suggest there are others - many of which have been detailed on this and other threads.
To summarize, speak for yourself.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
So many things to say ... I'll try to articulate a few of them.
[...]
Third, just because you have some homosexual feelings, do not say that is the reason others are against homosexuality.
Did I say that? I can't see where.
quote:
Fourth, you said a homosexual attraction leads some to hate homosexuality. Perhaps, but there are other reasons for many of us.
Did I say that? I can't see where.
quote:
Fifth, the "contemporary view" of homosexuality as an identity rather than a behaviour, in my experience, is the position of those who support homosexuality, not those of us who disagree with it. That is why it is repeatedly said by supporters of homosexuality, on these boards and elsewhere, that it is wrong to try to try to change homosexual into heterosexuals.
First thing you wrote that engages with enything I wrote.
I know what you mean byt I think you are wrong at least in the specific cases that have been in the news recently.
If the people who "disagree" (an odd choice of word that) with homosexuality look on it as behaviour rather than identity, why the fuss about Jeffrey John?
quote:
Sixth, you suggest that it is either disgust or latent homosexual feelings that are the only two reasons for being against homosexual behaviour.
No I didn't, I was arguing against FG's point that it was all down to disgust and suggesting that the stereotype (I used the word) was perhaps more likely.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
how can we avoid the knock down zero-argument that "you're in denial?" This rejoinder is often condescending, even insulting ... and often, simply false.
And not one I would be likley to use.
I wrote a rant about it in response to a thread on the SHip but it got long so I put it on
my own website
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
Well that is how I read your comments:
I said: Third, just because you have some homosexual feelings, do not say that is the reason others are against homosexuality.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Did I say that? I can't see where.
Refering to homosexual pornography, you said quote:
It certainly isn't disgusting to me, it's arousing,
I said: Fourth, you said a homosexual attraction leads some to hate homosexuality. Perhaps, but there are other reasons for many of us.
quote:
Did I say that? I can't see where.
You said: quote:
It's not disgust with homosexuality that makes some people hate it, it is attraction to it,
I thought your words were quite plain.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
