|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by phudfan:
...But, and I know it's hypothetical, what if the Bible didn't mention the subject? What would your opinion on the issue be then?
Sorry, I don't do hypotheticals.
However, in general terms, if the Bible is silent on a particular issue, general Biblical principals should provide adequate guidelines.
--------------------
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
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by phudfan:
Why do so many heterosexual people get so wound up about people who are homosexual and how they live their lives?
...If your answer is no, then why is it right and fair to discriminate against a person because of their sexuality? None of these things are chosen - they are things that are determined by factors that are beyond our control. I just don't get it. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
And I'd like some answers that don't include the words 'Bible', 'so', and 'says'. I'd rather you were honest.....
This seems very odd to me Phudfan. On the one hand, you seem to doubt that conviction based on the Bible can be a genuine motive for opinions - and yet you yourself I think in the past have been conservative on this issue (so do you now think that before you were just a homophobe and now you are one of the enlightened ones). Furthermore, you seem to think that deriving an argument from the Bible is a cloak of dishonesty.
You don't seem to take into account that there are huge varieties even among conservatives on the question of civil rights. I, for example, believe that civil partnerships of those who share their lives, including homosexual couples should be allowed to be registered so that inheritance rights, pensions etc can be more readily recognised by the state and the private sector. On the other hand, with regard to the rights of children it might be right under certain circumstances to have a broad bias in favour of the demonstrably more stable relationship of marriage.
Your journey away from conservatism seems to have more than its fair share of anger towards your previous views.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
You don't seem to take into account that there are huge varieties even among conservatives on the question of civil rights. I, for example, believe that civil partnerships of those who share their lives, including homosexual couples should be allowed to be registered so that inheritance rights, pensions etc can be more readily recognised by the state and the private sector.
Indeed, if the battle over same-sex marriage is really all about legal rights, we might well ask why we don't see the same groups up in arms over all types of "nontraditional families." Why are they not fighting for the rights of anyone to join up together and call it a legal family?
It seems like the same-sex-marriage lobby is arguing that instead of the rigid standard of one-man-one-woman marriage, we should have that rigid standard along with another rigid standard of one-man-one-man or one-woman-one-woman. But why must we have any standards at all, then? Why can't polygamists, and communal groups, and anyone else be joined together in the eyes of the state?
It's especially ironic because if the question were framed this way, instead of focusing so much on the spectre of same-sex marriage, I think that conservatives would be more likely to jump on board.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
IMO, we don't see lots of people arguing in favor of the legalization of polygamy because there simply aren't a lot of people who want to live that way. Based on what I've read, it seems to me that the few people in the US who do want to be polygamists tend to do it by taking teenage girls into what amounts to little more than sexual slavery, and I'm sure they know that they're not going to get that written into the law.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
It seems like the same-sex-marriage lobby is arguing that instead of the rigid standard of one-man-one-woman marriage, we should have that rigid standard along with another rigid standard of one-man-one-man or one-woman-one-woman. But why must we have any standards at all, then? Why can't polygamists, and communal groups, and anyone else be joined together in the eyes of the state?
It's especially ironic because if the question were framed this way, instead of focusing so much on the spectre of same-sex marriage, I think that conservatives would be more likely to jump on board.
Same-sex 'marriage' is a misnoma. We all know what marriage is and it is between a man and a woman, it is a term that symbolises a whole lot more than just a legal partnership. I am talking about civil partnerships which grant rights to homosexual couples, cohabiting opposite sex couples, and also those who are not in sexual relationships such as siblings or carers etc.
Gay couples and the gay community it seems to me are entirely within their rights to invest their civil partnerships with depth, commitment and meaning without suggesting that they are identical to marriage.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Just Ruth:
IMO, we don't see lots of people arguing in favor of the legalization of polygamy because there simply aren't a lot of people who want to live that way. Based on what I've read, it seems to me that the few people in the US who do want to be polygamists tend to do it by taking teenage girls into what amounts to little more than sexual slavery, and I'm sure they know that they're not going to get that written into the law.
The difference is that most people recognise that polygomy is damaging and/or expoitative. This is not the same as a committed homosexual relationship, as I see it (or at least no different to the incidence of exploitation in heterosexual marriage).
It might be a fine distinction, but I see committed relationships between one person and another (in societal terms) as something to be supported and cherished. I don't see evidence that polygamous relationships should be treated in the same way.
I think it is unfortunate that there is a pressure to call these relationships 'marriage' but I don't see how you can argue against it without undermining your own support of heterosexual marriage, Spawn.
Again, we need a distinction between 'legal' marriage, based on a state's recognition of commitment, and a religious conviction.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karin 3
Shipmate
# 3474
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Just Ruth:
IMO, we don't see lots of people arguing in favor of the legalization of polygamy because there simply aren't a lot of people who want to live that way. Based on what I've read, it seems to me that the few people in the US who do want to be polygamists tend to do it by taking teenage girls into what amounts to little more than sexual slavery, and I'm sure they know that they're not going to get that written into the law.
An Amercian on another website told me he and his wife were thinking of letting a close friend of hers into their marriage, and indeed he had lived with his (now)wife and her first husband in an openly polygamous relationship initially. I'm a bit uneasy about the morality of this and whether it could work long term, but such polygamy isn't exactly exploitative I don't think, or is it? After just inviting this other woman (I think she's in her late 20's or maybe her 30's, so no teenager) to share the house for a while to see how they get on just living together they plan to make everything legal if they go ahead with it.
--------------------
Inspiration to live more generously, ethically and sustainably
Posts: 417 | From: South East England | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
phudfan
Shipmate
# 4740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
This seems very odd to me Phudfan. On the one hand, you seem to doubt that conviction based on the Bible can be a genuine motive for opinions - and yet you yourself I think in the past have been conservative on this issue (so do you now think that before you were just a homophobe and now you are one of the enlightened ones). Furthermore, you seem to think that deriving an argument from the Bible is a cloak of dishonesty.
You don't seem to take into account that there are huge varieties even among conservatives on the question of civil rights. I, for example, believe that civil partnerships of those who share their lives, including homosexual couples should be allowed to be registered so that inheritance rights, pensions etc can be more readily recognised by the state and the private sector. On the other hand, with regard to the rights of children it might be right under certain circumstances to have a broad bias in favour of the demonstrably more stable relationship of marriage.
Your journey away from conservatism seems to have more than its fair share of anger towards your previous views.
You ask some interesting, and very valid questions of me Spawn. Firstly, in my more conservative past, was I homophobic? Well, if I look back to around 12 to 15 years ago, then the answer would be yes, I think I was. Why did I think this way? Probably because I thought that homosexuality was a 'lifestyle choice' that people made - I basically thought that people chose to be gay to satisfy their sinful natures. What caused my opinion to change? My opinion started to change shape as I found out more about sexuality in general, as I became friends with gay people (both christians and non-christians), and also as I grew as a christian myself. All these things lead to me being challenged about how I viewed homosexuality (along with a number of other issues).
Do I consider myself more enlightened? No. I think we each have to hold to what we believe at any point in time. I respect you and your sincerity in the beliefs you hold - however different they are to mine.
Do I think that deriving an argument from the Bible is a cloak of dishonesty? Not necessarily. What I do think is that we can use the Bible to justify a position that we want to hold. In the past, the Bible was used to justify slavery. I now use the Bible to justify my belief that gay people should be afforded the same rights as myself, just as others (not necessarily yourself Spawn) use it to justify the opposite. Who's to say that I'm right? I certainly don't know if my interpretation of scripture is right - but, at the moment, I would find it impossible to live with any other interpretation. It would present me with a picture of God that I would find extremely unpalatable.
As far as your view regarding gay civil partnerships are concerned - I applaud them, but they aren't what I would call conservative - but then we're just getting into semantics. When it comes to the rights of children, we would also, I think, share some common ground - although the issue is an incredibly complex one.
Finally - you're right - my long journey (it started way before I came onto the Ship) away from conservatism does have it's fair share of anger towards my previous views. I sometimes feel very ashamed of how I used to be, and I often feel like I've been duped. I shouldn't, however, let these feelings influence how I treat people, which I sometimes, regrettably, do. For this, I apologise.
--------------------
"It's funny how, things work out, when you're lonely and your life is full of doubt"
Posts: 365 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
phudfan
Shipmate
# 4740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Indeed, if the battle over same-sex marriage is really all about legal rights, we might well ask why we don't see the same groups up in arms over all types of "nontraditional families." Why are they not fighting for the rights of anyone to join up together and call it a legal family?
It seems like the same-sex-marriage lobby is arguing that instead of the rigid standard of one-man-one-woman marriage, we should have that rigid standard along with another rigid standard of one-man-one-man or one-woman-one-woman. But why must we have any standards at all, then? Why can't polygamists, and communal groups, and anyone else be joined together in the eyes of the state?
I am guessing that we interpret scripture differently when it comes to the issue of homosexuality. This dosesn't mean, however, that scripture influences your beliefs but does not unfluence mine. Far from it. I believe that the Bible teaches that, if you are in a sexual relationship, then it should be committed, monogamous, and ideally, lifelong. I believe that these parameters are the most 'healthy' ones for both society and the individual. This is why I believe that these relationships should have some sort of recognition in law - for both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
This doesn't mean that I think any other sorts of relationship are inherently wrong. A polygamous relationship may well work for some people. Indeed, the Bible could be suggested as an endorsement for them. Should they be recognised in law? I honestly don't know - I think I'd need to research the issue more deeply before coming to a definitive opinion.
--------------------
"It's funny how, things work out, when you're lonely and your life is full of doubt"
Posts: 365 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
Kyralessa---I confess that I really expected something better than your rationalizations to my questions. The "I didn't tell them to go form a couple, did I?" was particularly disappointing.
I thought it was telling that you admitted you couldn't go sit in that lesbian couple's living room, look them in the eyes, and explain to them why they deserve to have what few rights they currently possess taken away from them, simply because they are gay.
When you are a reasonably intelligent person--as I know you are---it's really hard to justify discrimination, isn't it? It sounds so...whiny and self-serving.
As for your question to me....
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Now here's a question for you, Paige: If this amendment was such a horrible thing, how come 71% of voters favored it?
[snip]
"They're all bigots" is not an answer, sorry. Think for a bit and tell me just why 71% of voters in Missouri, including many future Kerry-voters, mind you, found it necessary to vote for this amendment.
Sorry, but you don't get to tell me what my answer is. Yes, as far as I'm concerned, they ARE all bigots. Was I supposed to be undone by the sheer numbers of those voting to discriminate?
In the 1950s and 60s, the same percentage of folks would have happily supported similar language barring marriage between blacks and whites. Some states still have those laws on the books.
In both cases, you have nothing but bigotry, prejudice, and a willingness to take benefits you (collective "you" in this case) would deny to others because you don't approve of them.
You also have a bunch of Taliban-like leaders waving the Bible around and assuring the crowd that God hates fags and wants "decent" Americans to make sure the homos don't have any civil rights. Having grown up in a church where you were told you were going to hell if you didn't accept the One True Interpretation of Scripture (which is whatever the preacher says it is), I have some sympathy with those who are willingly led down the path of intolerance---but I certainly am not prepared to sit back and let them chisel their nonsense into the law without a fight.
Sharkshooter---I know people who still wave the Bible around to "prove" that it's against God's laws for blacks and whites to marry. You can see why I'm wary of "The Bible says so..." as an answer to anything having to do with the regulation of relationships.
And I was under the impression that we have separation of church and state in this country---at least for the moment. Maybe all of those people who are voting for those amendments are ready to change that. If so, I'm going to have to apply for asylum somewhere else.
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Do you lose sleep at night thinking about how we have actively discriminated against nice tax-paying, mortgage-holding, hard-working polygamists in this country since the 19th century?
Alt Wally---No. But I might start once my gay and lesbian friends and their kids don't have to worry about being at the mercy of the bigots in our country. One front at a time....
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Same-sex 'marriage' is a misnoma. We all know what marriage is and it is between a man and a woman, it is a term that symbolises a whole lot more than just a legal partnership. I am talking about civil partnerships which grant rights to homosexual couples, cohabiting opposite sex couples, and also those who are not in sexual relationships such as siblings or carers etc.
Gay couples and the gay community it seems to me are entirely within their rights to invest their civil partnerships with depth, commitment and meaning without suggesting that they are identical to marriage.
Spawn---while I am happy to see that you support civil protections for gay and lesbian couples, I would like to note the "we" do NOT all agree that marriage is only between a man and a woman. The gay couples I am thinking of have been together for 30 years or more, have raised children together, and will grow old and die together. Their relationships look no different from mine with my husband. They are certainly "marriages" in any meaningful sense of that word.
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Same-sex 'marriage' is a misnoma. We all know what marriage is and it is between a man and a woman, it is a term that symbolises a whole lot more than just a legal partnership. I am talking about civil partnerships which grant rights to homosexual couples, cohabiting opposite sex couples, and also those who are not in sexual relationships such as siblings or carers etc.
Gay couples and the gay community it seems to me are entirely within their rights to invest their civil partnerships with depth, commitment and meaning without suggesting that they are identical to marriage.
I wholly agree with this. But then, I don't think the state should be in the business of saying what "marriage" is. I think they should issues civil unions to couples who request then and if they want the sacrament of matrimony, they should get that done at a church that will do it. Our rector keeps emphasizing that even within the church, the debate is not about whether to
"marry" gay couples, because as far as the church is concerned, marriage is for men and women.
I can't imagine why a gay couple would want to adopt wholly an old institution meant for men and women (and invested with centuries of good and bad tradition that has to do, a lot of it, with man/woman relationships), and take on the trappings and simulacrum thereof rather than have a union that is suitable to the different (and new) public relationship that they are taking on. And before Paige jumps all over me, I have the greatest respect for the gay couples I know who've been living together for years and raising children; but that isn't all that makes a "marriage".
Though civil union seems a serviceable expression, perhaps a different term is needed.
[ 27. October 2004, 13:37: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
A pedant writes...
Could we flog the dead horse on the right thread, please?
Gay Marriage, and blurred boundaries
There was also another thread earlier this year on which the same stuff was all rehashed - now in Limbo
legalisation of gay marriage
And that had a long discussion of the old 'what about the poor polygamists?' shtick from all the same people on page 2 for anyone who is actually interested and not about to lose their will to live anytime soon.
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
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
A pedant writes...
Could we flog the dead horse on the right thread, please?
Gay Marriage, and blurred boundaries
Point taken. I moved a big post of mine over there.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
I posted this in Purg and it got shut down as a dead horse - so here it is instead. I don't know if this has been covered in the previous 35 pages or not...
Its often said that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. Someone told me of the following verses, and I wondered what people make of them:
Matthew 19:1-12
quote:
1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan.
2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'
5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
10 The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
11 Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.
12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
In these verses, Jesus affirms marriage – and only between a man and a woman (“that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' …'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'). Had he wanted to affirm same sex marriage, he could easily have done so here. He chooses to reaffirm marriage as being between a man and a woman.
The disciples say, then, that its better not to marry. Jesus says some people will not be able to accept his high standards on marriage (v11) – and then explains who those people will be (v12).
The tricky bit is the word “Eunuch”. This usually means someone who is castrated. But since Jesus says “some are born that way” – and medically that is not true – its seems we should take eunuch in a wider sense – not sexually active. So homosexual or heterosexual sex outside marriage is not an option, according to Jesus. People are either to be married – or if they cannot accept this – remain single and sexual “eunuchs”.
I know that homosexuality is a dead horse. I guess I am wondering, in relation to this particular passage, whether Jesus does indeed rule out gay marriage, and leave the options as heterosexual marriage and singleness.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
The concept of homosexuality as an orientation that a person might have was unknown in Jesus's time. If he had indeed said something of that nature, those who heard him would have been completely bewildered.
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lamb chopped:
"Some are born that way"--could be referring to those with undescended testicles.
While at a push you could argue that - but how do you make sense of the final phrase "and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven" which literally means "made themselves eunuchs". No one would voluntarily chop their bits off. The NIV is surely right to interpret that as meaning being celibate.
quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
The concept of homosexuality as an orientation that a person might have was unknown in Jesus's time. If he had indeed said something of that nature, those who heard him would have been completely bewildered.
I'll ignore the fact that there is no evidence that this is the case, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. Instead I'll ask - Are you saying that Jesus Christ, the most radical of teachers, who comes to challenge Jewish thinking on so many levels, shys away from talking about an issue becuase it would be new to some people?! If homosexual marriage is God's desire and God's blessing for some people (as so many argue), then Jesus would have said so loud and clear - and the Jews would have had one more deep lesson to learn.
No - instead he affirms marriage to be between a man and a woman.
So, the two options according to Jesus are still being in a heterosexual marriage, or being a eunuch - celibate.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Fish fish - you can hardly equate the complete cognitive dissonance on the topic that Zeke refers to with "new to some people".
That you need to do so to make your point does nothing to strengthen your position.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Are we obliged to believe that Jesus was omniscient? The concept of homosexuality did not exist in the Graeco-Roman period. There was socially sanctioned pederasty, male prostitution and the abuse of slaves. There was no notion of orientation and the idea of a stable, committed, permanent homosexual relationship in the modern sense was clearly not on anyone's cognitive map. So how the hell was Jesus supposed to know that homosexuality, as we understand the term existed?
Clearly Jesus could be ignorant ("Who touched me?") or even wrong (All that embarassing stuff about this generation seeing the coming of the Son of Man in glory - although he prefaced his prediction with a confession of ignorance). This is because Jesus was both human and divine. He humbled himself to assume our humanity with all its cognitive limitations. One of the cognitive limitations that humans possess is an ignorance of discoveries that are made nearly 2000 years after their death. Jesus could no more talk about homosexuality as we understand it than he could about the internal combustion engine, or nuclear fission. To suggest that Jesus would have known about sexual orientation is, ISTM, Docetism.
What he may have wanted us to do, I suggest, is to apply his teaching in the light of relevant data as it emerges. Which means, I suggest, that the question is open as clearly we are not discussing the sort of sexual arrangements that prevailed in the first century and we are discussing the matter in the light of new information.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Cue accusations of denying the divinity of Christ...
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Are we obliged to believe that Jesus was omniscient? The concept of homosexuality did not exist in the Graeco-Roman period. There was socially sanctioned pederasty, male prostitution and the abuse of slaves. There was no notion of orientation and the idea of a stable, committed, permanent homosexual relationship in the modern sense was clearly not on anyone's cognitive map. So how the hell was Jesus supposed to know that homosexuality, as we understand the term existed?
Callan, you appear not to have read Gagnon on this subject. I have now finished reading his heavyweight textbook (as opposed to the material available for free on his website). He spends a lot of time on historical issues and examining just how much the ancient world knew about homosexuality.
He demonstrates clearly that the ancient world was certainly aware of stable long-term homosexual relationships that could not be characterised as either pedrasty, prostitution or the abuse of slaves. The ancient world even proposed and discussed various theories as to the origin of homosexual inclinations.
The female writer Bernadette Brooten (whom I haven't read) has also examined ancient lesbianism in some detail. She concludes similarly to Gagnon on the historical issues, so far as I can tell from Gagnon's writings.
Finally - and this is something I've been guilty of simplifying too - it should be noted that sexual desires actually exist on a spectrum. Even Kinsey had six points between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual desires. To talk of "orientation" as a simple binary state is completely without scientific foundation.
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
Callan, you appear not to have read Gagnon on this subject. I have now finished reading his heavyweight textbook (as opposed to the material available for free on his website). He spends a lot of time on historical issues and examining just how much the ancient world knew about homosexuality.
Touche! Perhaps you can now tell us what he makes of Foucault.
quote:
He demonstrates clearly that the ancient world was certainly aware of stable long-term homosexual relationships that could not be characterised as either pedrasty, prostitution or the abuse of slaves. The ancient world even proposed and discussed various theories as to the origin of homosexual inclinations.
Really, long term stable monagamous homosexual relationships, in lieu of marriage? I find that implausible given the absolute universality of marriage in antiquity. Remember it was, to quote Peter Brown, 'a population grazed thin by death'. Remember to, the outrage caused by Christian celibacy which was seen as an affront to the civic and moral duty to breed. Of course, pederastic relationships were supposed to be the basis of life long friendships - institutions like the Theban Sacred Band celebrated this, but the couples comprising the band might well have been married men, who were no longer in a sexual relationship once the junior partner had attained maturity. The sexual relationship, according to one writer, was cut with the razor that the youth used to shave with for the first time. Finally in the period which we are discussing, being the passive partner in homosexual intercourse was a matter of some disgrace if one was over the age of maturity. Arsenokoitai may have been coined by Paul, but it would have been a rebuke in the mouth, or on the pen, of any writer from this period. This would strongly militate against a lifelong sexual relationship.
Ancient writers discussed homosexual desire. There was a lot of it about, but orientation? I suppose the 'Symposium' might constitute a case in point, but it is difficult to see how far Aristophanes or Plato is being serious. Its quite likely Plato is getting his revenge on Aristophanes for his treatment of Socrates in the 'Wasps'.
quote:
The female writer Bernadette Brooten (whom I haven't read) has also examined ancient lesbianism in some detail. She concludes similarly to Gagnon on the historical issues, so far as I can tell from Gagnon's writings.
Again, implausible, women were expected to get married. They passed from the authority of the father to the authority of the husband. There were rich and notorious exceptions like all those scandalous Roman women who so grieved the Emperor Augustus, who were able to please themselves but the idea that a Roman paterfamilias would have smiled benignly when his daughter moved in with her girlfriend with the intention of setting up a ceramics kiln together is somewhat startling. I'm sure Lesbianism occurred in antiquity but I would be very surprised indeed if it were widely considered socially acceptable.
Of course, I have not read Gagnon. He may be obliging the classical world to radically revise its opinion on homosexuality during that period but there is a strong academic consensus, I believe, that the case is as I have stated it. If a real classicist wants to correct me I will have to go away and think about it.
quote:
Finally - and this is something I've been guilty of simplifying too - it should be noted that sexual desires actually exist on a spectrum. Even Kinsey had six points between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual desires. To talk of "orientation" as a simple binary state is completely without scientific foundation.
Touche, again! But I think we can take 'homosexual' to mean 'someone with a strongly homosexual orientation' in this instance. I am really concerned with the instance of someone who is lumbered with the choice of involuntary celibacy or a life long mongamous partner of the same sex, not someone who is happily married but also fancies rugby players.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Perhaps you can now tell us what he makes of Foucault.
There are explicit but very brief references to Foucault in the lengthy footnote on page 140 (in a discussion of the OT texts) and again on page 160 (in a discussion of the witness of early Rabbinic Judaism and the phrase "contrary to nature"). I think you'll just have to read Gagnon's book for yourself to see if he engages with the particular issues you have in mind.
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
No one would voluntarily chop their bits off.
One word for you: Origen.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
I always understood Origen took some kind of drug to render himself impotent. He was overscrupulous about the temptations he suffered while conducting a ladies' Bible Class.
Leetle Masha
President, Ladies' Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Origen and Savonarola
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
You'd want to back that up with some evidence.
Certainly the witness of antiquity is that he was believed to have castrated himself -- a practice common enough in one or two of the mystery religions. The usual understanding of what he took too literally is Paul's statement that it would be better for certain men to castrate themselves -- except that I believe the Greek is more graphic and descriptive.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
No one would voluntarily chop their bits off.
One word for you: Origen.
Really? Wow! I had no idea!!
Well, it seems many of you are arguing that Eunuch means a physical eunuch. If that is the case, then there is a great problem with what jesus says. He says you can either be a eunuch or be married - he seems exclusive in his two states. So, those of us who are not married must castrate outselves if we have not been born that way or had such a fate inflicted on us.
This narrow view of eunuch does not make sense. Otherwise I guess Jesus himself would have had to have the operation...
But even if you are all right, that he does mean eunuch in its narrow sense, that doesn't change the argument much. There are two states - eunuch or heterosexual marriage. That is unless Callan is right, and Jesus is totally limited in his knowledge.
If Jesus is so intimately connected with his father, and God thought (as we are told he does today) that calling homosexual activity sinful is a gross act of injustice and cruelty, he could quite easily have had Jesus change the definition of marriage. But this doesn't happen. Jesus quite clearly reafirms marriage to be between a man and a woman only. Since the Jews were quite clear that homosexual activity was outlawed in the OT, by his silence, Jesus says volumes about what he thinks about homosexual activity.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Cue accusations of denying the divinity of Christ...
Well exactly...
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
quote:
You'd want to back that up with some evidence.
John Holding, you're quite correct and I would provide the evidence if only I could, but it was something my spiritual father told me many years ago.
The point was, you see, that temptation, rather than sexuality, is the issue. If one aspect of one's entire personality becomes the only way that person self-identifies, then distortion can occur in other aspects of the personality.
I believe that Origen just didn't have the kind of spiritual guidance he deserved in the face of all that temptation--that suffering due to overscrupulosity and lack of proper guidance in turn made Origen determine that he had to do something drastic.
However, we can progress toward the goal of our high calling in Christ by simply trusting in God's grace, praying and staying close to the sacraments, and trying to resist temptation with God's help--no one really believes in chastity any more, and that's why theology has to be fitted into someone's grander scheme of things, namely that theology has to be made to bless actions that need to be controlled (also with God's help).
But you knew that.
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
whitebait
Shipmate
# 7740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
..... by his silence, Jesus says volumes about what he thinks about homosexual activity.
Indeed.
That raises the interesting case of the Roman centurion and his servant (in Luke Chapter 7).
Roman soldiers were prohibited from legally marrying women during service. Some sought other options.
The relationship between the soldier and his precious/dear servant (entimos pais) might well have been guessed at being homosexual by society at the time (in whatever terms that was phrased). Those sorts of relationships were certainly known to have existed in Roman culture of that period.
Jesus made a bold statement by reaching out to help the soldier who would have been considered socially unacceptable by many, due to being both a gentile and part of an occupying force.
Commentators have noted that there is no proof that the soldier was in a homosexual relationship, but if there had been any doubt, wouldn't Jesus have commented on the relationship if he did indeed consider it a problem?
In the event, Jesus commends the centurion for his faith, and the servant is healed.
--------------------
small fry on a journey
Posts: 151 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by whitebait:
In the event, Jesus commends the centurion for his faith, and the servant is healed.
Indeed - for we are saved by grace and not works. Jesus healed him, not cos of anything good about him, nor did he withhold healing because of anything sinful he may have been doing. In just the same way, Jesus helped prostitutes and tax collectors - "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
But since that example is pure speculation, how about someone commenting on something that is not speculation - what Jesus actually says. The options are heterosexual marriage or "eunuch" - presumably celibate.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Cue accusations of denying the divinity of Christ...
Well exactly...
Now go and look up "Kenosis" and "Docetism" and try to defend the accusation.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
But since that example is pure speculation, how about someone commenting on something that is not speculation - what Jesus actually says. The options are heterosexual marriage or "eunuch" - presumably celibate.
"It is not everyone who can accept what I have said, but only those to whom it is granted."
Way back in my early teens while exploring my sexuality and concluding that what I suspected througout my life (the fact that I was abnormal) was indeed true, I came across this passage in the Bible and had an 'Ah Hah!' moment.
Fish Fish, heterosexual orientation is NOT natural for me and therefore I "cannot accept it". I belive that I was "born so from my mother's womb."
So I think a eunuch in biblical times was someone who could not perform sexually with a woman. Therefore, a gay person. I do not believe Jesus condemns one for living their lives in wholeness and who were "born so from their mother's womb"?
--------------------
Formerly Molly Brown
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
But even if you are all right, that he does mean eunuch in its narrow sense, that doesn't change the argument much. There are two states - eunuch or heterosexual marriage. That is unless Callan is right, and Jesus is totally limited in his knowledge.
If Jesus is so intimately connected with his father, and God thought (as we are told he does today) that calling homosexual activity sinful is a gross act of injustice and cruelty, he could quite easily have had Jesus change the definition of marriage. But this doesn't happen. Jesus quite clearly reafirms marriage to be between a man and a woman only. Since the Jews were quite clear that homosexual activity was outlawed in the OT, by his silence, Jesus says volumes about what he thinks about homosexual activity.
I see, so when Jesus says 'render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and render unto God the things that are Gods' failing completely to mention free elections, human rights, the rule of law, the wickedness of slavery and religious freedom, we can assume that he has spoken completely and definitively on political theology, his closeness with his Father means that he would of course have a complete knowledge of all matters political, and not just those within the knowledge of a first century Jew, and that given that the politiy laid down in the OT is that of a theocracy, or at least theocratic monarchy, we may - according to your methodology - deduce from his silence that he was opposed to anything like a modern democracy.
Presumably this means that people like St Augustine who maintained that laws not based on justice were not law at all, John Wesley, who opposed slavery, Karl Barth, who thought it was rather important for Christians to support democracy, Pope Pius XII who maintained that citizens were entitled to a sphere of juridial immunity from the state and the Second Vatican Council which proclaimed that all human beings have a right to religious freedom were, in fact, denying the divinity of Christ?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
No one would voluntarily chop their bits off.
One word for you: Origen.
Really? Wow! I had no idea!!
And perhaps I was wrong - I remember reading about this a long time ago, and didn't realize that there was some question about whether Origen really castrated himself or not.
What I really want to get at, though, is while the vast majority of people would not "voluntarily chop their bits off," you can't reasonably claim that nobody would.
quote:
This narrow view of eunuch does not make sense.
Are you really allowed to argue about interpretation based on what you think makes sense? It's the kind of thing you're always objecting to in liberal interpretations of the Bible.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Apropos of the whole self-castration thang, I recall a thread, some months ago where someone pointed to one of the canons of the Council of Nicea which stated that someone who had castrated himself could not be ordained priest. So it was sufficiently common for Nicea to rule on it. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Apropos of the whole self-castration thang, I recall a thread, some months ago where someone pointed to one of the canons of the Council of Nicea which stated that someone who had castrated himself could not be ordained priest. So it was sufficiently common for Nicea to rule on it.
While I basically agree, it is just possible the reference was to (suspicious?) converts from the priesthood of Cybele or one of the other fertility gods/goddesses who, somewhat quixotically, required their priests to castrate themselves. Why Nicea would have wanted to ban these converts from priesthood but not other converts is beyond me -- but I raise it as an outside additional dimension of the issue.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Hi John Holding, it's me again, the one without the evidence, but I dare say you are right about the banning of priests of the cult of Cybele! To my mind, it was not only the damage they might already have done to themselves physically, but the greater danger that they might distort the church's teachings in a way similar to those two pastors whose repentance and recantation of their errors in the ECUSA were just documented on another thread....
Origen, of course, was already a priest before the "incident in question".... but what ultimately caused some of his writings to be condemned was not his physical condition so much as his latter writings' (such as the ones that advanced the idea that we'd all some day become perfect spheres) having reflected various forms of gnosticism. A bit like the late Bp. Pike, perhaps.
Aside from all that, though, we all know that Origen did contribute some very valuable stuff, such as his parallel edition of the New Testament that organized common elements in all the Gospels. And I have no evidence for this either, but I think I remember my spiritual father, of blessed memory, saying that it took the Church about 400 years to condemn the wackier writings of Origen's, so he'd been long dead by that time.
I still say it was his ladies' Bible Class that was to blame.
Leetle Masha
President, Ladies' Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Origen and Savonarola
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
whitebait said:
That raises the interesting case of the Roman centurion and his servant (in Luke Chapter 7).
<snip>
Commentators have noted that there is no proof that the soldier was in a homosexual relationship, but if there had been any doubt, wouldn't Jesus have commented on the relationship if he did indeed consider it a problem?
I rather suspect that any hint of homosexuality in this passage is a classic case of eisegesis using a highly precarious argument from silence. Even if some centurions had sex with their slaves, there is no reason to believe that this particular man was having sex with his slave. The whole focus is on the centurion’s faith and obedience, as well as his active concern for the slave’s welfare.
However, if someone insists on finding a reference to homosexuality in this passage, it proves rather too much. A centurion is the equivalent to an NCO – an experienced old salt who would probably be in his 30’s or older. His pais - the word in Greek used here for slave – would have been much younger. Since the word pais can also mean boy or youth, the English word lad comes close to capturing the overtones.
So, even if this passage alludes to a sexual relationship (extremely unlikely in my opinion), it would be one between an older military officer, probably in his thirties, and a young male slave, probably in his mid-teens. The centurion is old enough to be the boy’s father.
The imbalance between the power status of the protagonists and their relative ages renders any sexual relationship ripe for abuse and an unhealthy relational model. In my view a father-son model is much more likely for the relationship between the centurion and his slave, and also more productive theologically.
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
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
quote:
Faithful Sheepdog:
I rather suspect that any hint of homosexuality in this passage is a classic case of eisegesis using a highly precarious argument from silence.
So er, when Fish Fish argues from silence it 'speaks volumes'. But when whitebait does it's 'highly precarious'.
How are ya?! ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Next you'll be telling me that Virginia Woolf and Vita Sackville-West were... 'just good friends'.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Coot:
So er, when Fish Fish argues from silence it 'speaks volumes'. But when whitebait does it's 'highly precarious'.
I don't see that Fish Fish is making any argument from silence at all. Perhaps you would care to elaborate?
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
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by La Sal:
"It is not everyone who can accept what I have said, but only those to whom it is granted."
[SNIP]
Fish Fish, heterosexual orientation is NOT natural for me and therefore I "cannot accept it". I belive that I was "born so from my mother's womb."
La Sal - you don't quite quote what Jesus says correctly. He says "It is not everyone who can accept what I have said, but only those to whom it is granted." in reference to what he has said about heterosexual marriage. Those who can accept that teaching should accept it - but those who can't will be for one of three reasons:
1. Born unable to marry
2. Damaged in some way so as not being able to marry
3. Choose not to marry.
Those who cannot marry will fir into one of those categories, says Jesus. You argue that you were born not to marry. So the option of marriage is not one you would take. But the two options Jesus offers is heterosexual marriage or "Eunuch" - not married.
quote:
Originally posted by La Sal:
I do not believe Jesus condemns one for living their lives in wholeness and who were "born so from their mother's womb"?
I agree. But living in wholeness is in obedience to Jesus teaching. So while Jesus does not at all condemn who you are, He does seem to say sex outside marriage is not an option.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
I see, so when Jesus says 'render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and render unto God the things that are Gods' failing completely to mention free elections, human rights, the rule of law, the wickedness of slavery and religious freedom, we can assume that he has spoken completely and definitively on political theology, his closeness with his Father means that he would of course have a complete knowledge of all matters political, and not just those within the knowledge of a first century Jew, and that given that the politiy laid down in the OT is that of a theocracy, or at least theocratic monarchy, we may - according to your methodology - deduce from his silence that he was opposed to anything like a modern democracy.
I'm afraid that's a poor analogy. Jesus' teaching on tax is just that - teaching on tax. So while there may be implications for how we run a democracy, he is not claiming to make an all inclusive declaration about how a country is to be run.
However, in the passage on marriage and Eunuchs, he does make an all inclusive statement - Marriage - or these are the options for those who cannot marry. All inclusive.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
[QUOTE]This narrow view of eunuch does not make sense.
Are you really allowed to argue about interpretation based on what you think makes sense? It's the kind of thing you're always objecting to in liberal interpretations of the Bible.
I am making a suggestion here, a proposed interpretation, and seeking to see how people respond to it. I am NOT saying this is absolutely true.
quote:
Originally posted by Coot:
So er, when Fish Fish argues from silence it 'speaks volumes'. But when whitebait does it's 'highly precarious'.
Its not the same at all!! I'm not really arguing from silence - I'm arguing from what Jesus DOES say, and so pointing out then what he does not say. The argument about the centurion argues from total silence.
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
...In my view a father-son model is much more likely for the relationship between the centurion and his slave, and also more productive theologically.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Thanks for that explanation!
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
FF, would you like to expand on what you consider Jesus' teaching on homosexuality to be?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
Originally posted by Coot:
So er, when Fish Fish argues from silence it 'speaks volumes'. But when whitebait does it's 'highly precarious'.
I don't see that Fish Fish is making any argument from silence at all. Perhaps you would care to elaborate?
Well, going on the language he used and Jesus remaining silent on homosexuality.
quote:
Fish Fish:
Since the Jews were quite clear that homosexual activity was outlawed in the OT, by his silence, Jesus says volumes about what he thinks about homosexual activity.
Fish Fish contends it is not the same. Shrug. It's still an argument from silence. And while the text literally says nothing, so does the text literally say nothing about Jesus' attitude to homosexuality.
But there is still the question of what the author intended us to understand and what the readership of the time understood 'dear slave' to mean - that's up for grabs with respect to our knowledge of the social/cultural mores of the time.
'Pais' is not necessarily a child or young boy - but included "all members of a household who rank below the master of the house and thus may be used to designate a servant or attendant" (From my NIV Hebrew-Greek Study Bible. p.1658; 4090 Goodrick-Kohlenburger numbering. Zondervan, dontcha know).
Jesus chastens the woman caught in adultery and the Samaritan woman, but says nothing to this guy. He rails on about the hypocrisy of the pharisees, but says nothing about homosexuality... if it was such a terrible abomination, wouldn't he target it? Pooves would have to be worse than hypocrites, surely? You know, there is still a lot of hypocrisy about, divorce (50% of marriages I hear), people creating burdens for others... much more of that about than the homosexualist canker, but on those issues the Church is strangly silent (Only 10% of the population. Still only the stable 10% of the population - why haven't the pooves taken over - we know affirming their lifestyle subverts our young people. But they must have succeeded in undermining the institution of marriage, hence the divorce rate. *It's all their fault!* That must be why the Church is silent on it... because it is not the fault of serial adulterers! It's those bloody poofs!).
It's not enough to say Jesus' focus on marriage indicates homosexuality is right out... his focus on marriage is in the context of telling people who get divorced off (or ones who are trying to catch him out on doctrinal matters).
And it's not an eisegetical reading to examine the cultural environment of the time and try to analyse the text in light of this. It is eisegetical to come from an assumption that homosexuality is wrong (from your own cultural context - even if it is because of Paul's teaching) and try to find it in the text of the Gospels! You naughty liberals! (If the accusation of liberalism doesn't bring on an apoplexy, nothing will ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) )
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
This is a bit tangential to where we are at on this megathread right now but I just want to register my complaint that science too rarely gets a look in when Christians get together to talk about sex. You can't do theology without science ... or at least, this is what this Christian believes.
Here's why we may derive some benefit from a closer meditative attention on "sheep" within the sheepfold ...
Gay Rams
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Hi John Holding, it's me again, the one without the evidence, but I dare say you are right about the banning of priests of the cult of Cybele! To my mind, it was not only the damage they might already have done to themselves physically, but the greater danger that they might distort the church's teachings in a way similar to those two pastors whose repentance and recantation of their errors in the ECUSA were just documented on another thread....
Origen, of course, was already a priest before the "incident in question".... but what ultimately caused some of his writings to be condemned was not his physical condition so much as his latter writings' (such as the ones that advanced the idea that we'd all some day become perfect spheres) having reflected various forms of gnosticism. A bit like the late Bp. Pike, perhaps.
Aside from all that, though, we all know that Origen did contribute some very valuable stuff, such as his parallel edition of the New Testament that organized common elements in all the Gospels. And I have no evidence for this either, but I think I remember my spiritual father, of blessed memory, saying that it took the Church about 400 years to condemn the wackier writings of Origen's, so he'd been long dead by that time.
I still say it was his ladies' Bible Class that was to blame.
Leetle Masha
President, Ladies' Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Origen and Savonarola
With respect, I was not trying to criticze Origen at all. I was suggesting that your Spiritual was feeding you a line of nonesense about Origen and suggesting that if he/you want to propose a theory to the one that has been held since the time of the incident in question, he/you would be well advised to produce it. Otherwise those of us who had ever heard of it are going to continue thinking what we did before.
AS for why the church (wrongly to my mind) decided Origen was a heretic -- the reason lies not in his later or any of his writings in themselves. When he died he was considered orthodox. Several years later some of his more extreme followers took what he had said and stretched it further than he ever did. They may or may not have been heretics, but the church took the chance to dig the poor man up, burn what they dug up and throw the ashes into the Nile. I rather doubt that it caused him to pause a moment singing in the celestial choir, but no doubt the church authorities felt better.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
My goodness. Can I try that first paragraph again so it makes sense.
With respect, I was not trying to criticize Origen at all. I was suggesting that your Spiritual Director was feeding you a line of nonesense about Origen and suggesting that if he/you want to propose a theory contrary to the one that has been held since the time of the incident in question, he/you would be well advised to produce evidence to support it. Otherwise those of us who had ever heard of it are going to continue thinking what we did before.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
That's all right, John Holding. We'll find out, won't we, some day?
Until then, please don't mind if I think what I think. I realize it was quite a while before the Church condemned the remains of Origen, of course. What I am trying my best not to condemn was the motives of Origen while he was alive. So I guess we are on the same wavelength after all.
Your posts are both eloquent and enlightening. Thank you for your contributions to the thread!
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
FF, would you like to expand on what you consider Jesus' teaching on homosexuality to be?
quote:
Originally posted by Coot:
Jesus chastens the woman caught in adultery and the Samaritan woman, but says nothing to this guy. He rails on about the hypocrisy of the pharisees, but says nothing about homosexuality... if it was such a terrible abomination, wouldn't he target it?
It seems to me, when teaching a culture that knew God's laws on sexual morality, and homosexual activity in particular, his lack of challenge of those standards must surely be taken as affirmation of them. He is quick to challenge anything he doesn’t agree with. So why doesn’t he even once say “Now about homosexuals – My father delights in their sexual relationships.” Rather, in the passage I quote, he makes clear there are two options - marriage and celibacy.
quote:
Originally posted by Coot:
And while the text literally says nothing, so does the text literally say nothing about Jesus' attitude to homosexuality.
But it does! By affirming heterosexual marriage, and then saying the only alternative is to be a eunuch, surely he encompasses homosexual activity in what he says! How can you say he doesn't? Does he have to spell out every sexual orientation or activity of those who are not married?
quote:
Originally posted by Coot:
It's not enough to say Jesus' focus on marriage indicates homosexuality is right out... his focus on marriage is in the context of telling people who get divorced off (or ones who are trying to catch him out on doctrinal matters).
The context of what he says is initially a conversation about divorce. However, the topic moves to singleness when the disciples say its better not to marry. This leads Jesus to say some cannot accept his teaching about marriage – and so they will be single – eunuchs. His categories are all encompassing - those who can't be married fit into these groups. The choice he gives is either married or in one of these groups.
If Jesus had another group in mind – beyond those who are married and those who are not – why did he not raise it here? It would have made it an awful lot easier than arguing from total silence that God delights in homosexual relationships!
The context of Jesus’ statement is not, therefore, divorce. His context is singleness. So the context actually strengthens my case.
quote:
Originally posted by Coot:
You naughty liberals!
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
So why doesn’t he even once say “Now about homosexuals – My father delights in their sexual relationships.”
Because neither the word nor the concept as we understand it existed at the time.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
