|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Your argument is staggeringly arrogant - to assume you know better than Jesus, and can tell him what to think.
Keep it up, Fish Fish, and you will find yourself called to Hell.
And go look up the word "incarnational" -- I never said Jesus wasn't divine. What I claimed is that by becoming human in the person of Jesus, God gave up some of the privileges of divinity. I'm not simply making this up, either. Philippians 2:8, if you want a Biblical text: "Bearing the human likeness, revealed in human shape, he humbled himself, and in obedience accepted even death--death on a cross." If Jesus submitted himself to this most painful of human limitations--death--it is not unreasonable to argue that he accepted our other limitations as well. If he didn't, then he wasn't really human. And if he wasn't really human, then I can go back to sleeping in on Sunday mornings.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Mason
Shipmate
# 7562
|
Posted
So has the Church had it wrong all these centuries?
--------------------
Now posting as LatePaul
Posts: 452 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
... If Jesus submitted himself to this most painful of human limitations--death--it is not unreasonable to argue that he accepted our other limitations as well. If he didn't, then he wasn't really human. ...
Surely that is an issue for another thread.
Perhaps "How do you explain Jesus being 100% human and 100% God at the same time?"
--------------------
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
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Mason:
So has the Church had it wrong all these centuries?
Yes - just as it was wrong for centuries about owning slaves, and the position of women. Next?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
... If Jesus submitted himself to this most painful of human limitations--death--it is not unreasonable to argue that he accepted our other limitations as well. If he didn't, then he wasn't really human. ...
Surely that is an issue for another thread.
Perhaps "How do you explain Jesus being 100% human and 100% God at the same time?"
Yes, it's an issue for another thread, but at the same time it's relevant here. Fish Fish is making sweeping claims about Jesus' knowledge in order to support his argument that Jesus could have made explicit statements about homosexuality as we know it today; I am claiming that Jesus' knowledge was limited by being human and that he therefore could not have made such statements.
And yes, the church has gotten a lot of things wrong over the centuries--the real tragedy is its bull-headed persistence in its errors.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Mason
Shipmate
# 7562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Mason:
So has the Church had it wrong all these centuries?
Yes - just as it was wrong for centuries about owning slaves, and the position of women. Next?
And that doesn't give you pause for thought?
--------------------
Now posting as LatePaul
Posts: 452 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
The Wanderer said:
FishFish, based on your line of argument here would I be right in presuming that you wish to reintroduce slavery? It seems to me that you would be on much stronger grounds here than in your line on homosexuality.
The subject of slavery deserves a thread of its own - it is an irrelevance on this thread, where the issue is homosexuality. However, despite the ad hominem nature of your argument, for completeness I will address your post.
Firstly, you have fallen into the trap of assuming that the institution of slavery was a uniform culture that was the same in all times and places. History has demonstrated that this was most certainly not so. The slavery in different times and places had its own distinctive character (especially in the OT).
quote:
After all:
a) There are MANY references to it in the OT (none suggesting it should be abolished)
Have you never read the story of the Exodus? God redeemed Israel from slavery in Egypt. That suggests to me that God is quite happy to abolish slavery in some circumstances. The Bible is a long way from endorsing slavery as an absolute standard – quite the opposite in fact.
The OT rules on slavery are a concession to human weakness, especially in an era before social-security benefits and insurance policies. The OT has no positive global command to own slaves, nor any punishment for doing so. In any case, Hebrew slaves in Israel were closer to indentured bond-servants and were limited to 6 years' service.
quote:
b) It was clearly a well known concept in the First Century, with words and laws dealing with the phenomenon.
Slavery as it existed in the 1st century Roman Empire had important differences from the slavery in 18th and 19th century America. The latter is one of the most pernicious forms of slavery known to history. By comparison Roman Empire slavery was relatively benign, though not as benign as that for Hebrew slaves in Israel.
The Roman Empire was a slave economy and so slavery is presumed, rather than taught, throughout the NT. The NT explicitly touches on the issue of slavery with condemnation for “slave traders” in 1 Tim 1:10 and Paul’s intercession on behalf of Philemon.
quote:
c) Jesus never said a word against slavery, therefore (on your logic) he must have been in favour of it.
It does not automatically follow that Jesus would have spoken against some of the more benign historical manifestations of slavery. You are making some big assumptions here without supporting arguments. The relevance of your argument to the issue of homosexuality eludes me completely.
We know that Jesus healed a centurion’s slave without saying a word about slavery (or indeed homosexuality). He may well have seen a very positive relational model at work, even though the centurion’s pais (lad) was technically a slave. Jesus certainly commended the centurion’s faith.
quote:
Surely, in light of all of the above, to oppose slavery would be breathtakingly arrogant and assuming that you know better than Jesus?
“Breathtakingly arrogant” is not purgatorial language. I would recommend that you do some more study on the issue of slavery before interjecting it inappropriately onto a thread about homosexuality.
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
|
|
leonato
Shipmate
# 5124
|
Posted
FishFish: my take on Matthew 19.
The problem is you are trying to link this final verse
quote:
12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[3] because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
to the rest of the passage in a literal way. I think that this verse is metaphorical. As happens elsewhere in the gospels, Jesus moves on from a simple point (here that remarriage after divorce is wrong) to a complex one.
The disciples suggest that noone should marry so as to avoid adultery, but Jesus corrects them:
Some people keep the law because of who they are or through circumstance: a eunuch, presumably, could not marry.
Some do so by a legalistic avoidance of temptation: by being celibate (making eunuchs of themselves).
But neither really keeps the law, they just avoid it. A faithful marriage is in the true spirit of the law, but this is hard to keep.
So the eunuch issue has nothing to do with sex before or outside marriage, let alone homosexuality. It is a metaphor on the nature of God's law.
--------------------
leonato... Much Ado
Posts: 892 | From: Stage left | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
This goes back a ways on this topic, but I must apologise for misunderstanding Fr. Gregory's posts in several instances, and for posting my own point of view inadequately so that my posts were misleading. Please disregard any posts I have made on this topic, since I was not able to express my thoughts properly.
I am sorry too if I offended anyone else.
Sincerely,
"Leetle Masha"
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Phos Hilaron
Shipmate
# 6914
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by HangerQueen:
Arn't we then setting ourselves up as the judge of what is right and what is wrong?
Doesn't everybody?
Of course. I do it myself all the time. But sometimes I wonder if I make a good arbiter of what is right and what is wrong. Do I know better than God?
--------------------
Gaero?.......Gaero!
Posts: 1684 | From: Choson | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Sheepdog, I agree that slavery is not directly relevant to question of homosexuality. However, the arguement in this portion of the thread seems to be: Jesus said nothing explicitly about homosexuality however, since this behaviour is forbidden in the OT, we must presume his silence also condemns it.
If that is a fair summary of the line of arguement, and I haven't misunderstood it, then would it not also be fair to say: Jesus said nothing explicitly about slavery however, since this behaviour is condoned in the OT, we must assume that his silence approves of it?
I didn't think my reasoning was ad hominem, or my language un-purgatorial - maybe you could point out where you think the faults are?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
Originally posted by leonato:
quote:
Some people keep the law because of who they are or through circumstance: a eunuch, presumably, could not marry.
Some do so by a legalistic avoidance of temptation: by being celibate (making eunuchs of themselves).
But neither really keeps the law, they just avoid it. A faithful marriage is in the true spirit of the law, but this is hard to keep.
Hmmm, that's an interesting take on the passage.
I think Jesus would describe marriage in such a way. He detested hypocrisy and faithfulness in marriage IS a lifelong struggle which requires unselfish love and humility.
Thanks for that leonato.
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Sheepdog, I agree that slavery is not directly relevant to question of homosexuality. However, the arguement in this portion of the thread seems to be: Jesus said nothing explicitly about homosexuality however, since this behaviour is forbidden in the OT, we must presume his silence also condemns it.
If that is a fair summary of the line of arguement, and I haven't misunderstood it, then would it not also be fair to say: Jesus said nothing explicitly about slavery however, since this behaviour is condoned in the OT, we must assume that his silence approves of it?
I didn't think my reasoning was ad hominem, or my language un-purgatorial - maybe you could point out where you think the faults are?
Given that Jesus was not speaking into a cultural vacuum, but fully reflected the Jewish theological and moral inheritance of the OT, I think Fish Fish’s argument here is very sound.
However, if you think that FF’s argument has some logical weaknesses, then this is the thread to point it out. A reduction ad absurdum or other demonstration of the undesirable consequences of the logic is perfectly in order.
As for slavery, FF has actually told us nothing about his views on this question, or about how he understands the teaching of Jesus to relate to it. You have presumed to second guess his views on the subject, particularly when you said:
quote:
FishFish, based on your line of argument here would I be right in presuming that you wish to reintroduce slavery?
At that point you moved away from the logic contained in FF’s argument about homosexuality. Your comment left precisely what you meant by slavery completely undefined, although, as I have said, this is a crucial point in any discussion about slavery. In general slavery is understood as a very negative term in our culture.
As a result your question to him was a set-up that contained an attacking premise, in much the same way that the question “When did you stop beating your wife?” contains an attacking premise. If the man has never beaten his wife at all, the question is of course utterly irrelevant, but it can nevertheless be the basis for a verbal attack.
Likewise, your comment about “FF wishing to reintroducing slavery” is not based on any knowledge of FF’s actual views on slavery. It attempts to discredit FF personally by attributing to him words and/or actions that would reflect badly on him. That is where the ad hominem argument came in, even if you were not consciously launching an attack.
As for unpurgatorial language, it would appear that FF himself was the first to cross the line with his phrase “staggeringly arrogant”. RuthW was quite right to get cross about that.
So it looks like it is slapped wrists all round. ![[Smile]](smile.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
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pob:
As to your use of Matthew 19: The pharisees were asking Jesus about divorce - trying to 'test' him, perhaps trick him. Jesus gave them an answer about divorce, which his own disciples found too difficult to accept. And then Jesus answered them, still on the subject of divorce. We can try to guess what he meant when he talked about renouncing marriage because of the kingdom of heaven, but building a theology - especially one that excludes others - on one possible interpretation of a few sentences that were given as an answer to a completely different question leaves you on very shaky ground. Especially since Jesus doesn't say, 'this is the word of God which must be obeyed by all,' but only "The one who can accept this should accept it."
No, Jesus doesn't say "The one who can accept this should accept it" about the whole of his teaching. His words are not a get out clause for anyone who doesn't like his teaching. Those excluded from this teaching are listed as eunuchs - but everyone else must accept it he says.
So these words are in response to the Disciples exclamation that it is better for some not to marry. Jesus says "Not everyone can accept this" ie, marry. He then explains why some cannot accept marriage. This is a list of exceptions to the teaching. So he's saying "Some can accept this, so should. If they can't accept it, these will be the reasons why. They are eunuchs - sexually inactive. But those who can accept it should." So his final "The one who can accept this should accept it." is clearly referring back to those thinking of marriage. It is not a get out clause for anyone who doesn’t like what Jesus says!
quote:
Originally posted by phudfan:
I don't hear Jesus saying anything that would make sex inside a same sex marriage sinful.
Well, I just cannot see how a "marriage is between a man and a woman - and if you can't accept this you must be celibate" statement from Jesus allows same sex marriage.
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Well, "people of the same sex sleeping together isn't a sin, it delights me" was a direct quote from your previous post. It purported to be a description of the position of those who disagreed with you. And my point was that it was not an accurate description. If you don't remember writing it, I'm not filled with a lot of confidence in some of the other things you write.
OK, sorry - the confusion was that I thought you were saying I agreed with that statement - thai I thought "people of the same sex sleeping together isn't a sin" - which of course is not what I am saying! Sorry for the confusion.
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I believe those who believe God is calling the church to look at what the bible says in context rather than out of context at least deserve the hearing you seem unwilling to give them ("The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it", which seems to be your position, is not giving anybody a hearing).
Firstly, could you tell me how I am taking what Jesus says out of context?
Secondly, could you tell me how, by raising this issue, and seeking people's opinion of it, but defending my own I am "not giving anybody a hearing". I am stating my opinion, and very much seeking the opinion of those who disagree with me to explain this passage.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Your argument is staggeringly arrogant - to assume you know better than Jesus, and can tell him what to think.
Keep it up, Fish Fish, and you will find yourself called to Hell.
And go look up the word "incarnational" -- I never said Jesus wasn't divine. What I claimed is that by becoming human in the person of Jesus, God gave up some of the privileges of divinity. I'm not simply making this up, either. Philippians 2:8, if you want a Biblical text: "Bearing the human likeness, revealed in human shape, he humbled himself, and in obedience accepted even death--death on a cross." If Jesus submitted himself to this most painful of human limitations--death--it is not unreasonable to argue that he accepted our other limitations as well. If he didn't, then he wasn't really human. And if he wasn't really human, then I can go back to sleeping in on Sunday mornings.
It seems to me that you we saying that you know better than Jesus. That Jesus could have been wrong about something, and that you, in the "enlightened" 21st century, with your scientific psychological knowledge, know better than him. That you could correct the son of God's ignorance and misunderstanding about people and their nature and being.
If you are not saying this, then I totally apologise for my mistake, and for saying that that argument is arrogant.
However, if that is what you are saying - if you are indeed setting yourself over Jesus, and superior to him - then that stance seems totally arrogant to me. I'm sorry if that offends you. But any insistence of Jesus' ignorance or misunderstanding offends me.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I am claiming that Jesus' knowledge was limited by being human and that he therefore could not have made such statements.
What makes you, also a mere human, more knowledgeable than him, when he had the whole resources of his heavenly father with him? The father who said "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!"
quote:
Originally posted by leonato:
The problem is you are trying to link this final verse
quote:
12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[3] because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
to the rest of the passage in a literal way. I think that this verse is metaphorical. As happens elsewhere in the gospels, Jesus moves on from a simple point (here that remarriage after divorce is wrong) to a complex one.
<Snip>
So the eunuch issue has nothing to do with sex before or outside marriage, let alone homosexuality. It is a metaphor on the nature of God's law.
I see nothing at all metaphorical about what Jesus says – he is asked a straight set of questions, straight set of answers. He quotes form scripture, and then applies the scriptures to the question in hand. There’s nothing said such as “it’s like this” or “imagine this” that would make it metaphorical. So, sorry, I just don’t think that argument holds water at all.
--------------------
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 Faithful Sheepdog:
As for unpurgatorial language, it would appear that FF himself was the first to cross the line with his phrase “staggeringly arrogant”. RuthW was quite right to get cross about that.
So it looks like it is slapped wrists all round.
Anytime you want to turn in your junior host badge would be good. TonyK is perfectly capable of making these judgements.
quote:
As for slavery, FF has actually told us nothing about his views on this question, or about how he understands the teaching of Jesus to relate to it. You have presumed to second guess his views on the subject, particularly when you said:
quote:
FishFish, based on your line of argument here would I be right in presuming that you wish to reintroduce slavery?
At that point you moved away from the logic contained in FF’s argument about homosexuality. Your comment left precisely what you meant by slavery completely undefined, although, as I have said, this is a crucial point in any discussion about slavery. In general slavery is understood as a very negative term in our culture.
As a result your question to him was a set-up that contained an attacking premise, in much the same way that the question “When did you stop beating your wife?” contains an attacking premise. If the man has never beaten his wife at all, the question is of course utterly irrelevant, but it can nevertheless be the basis for a verbal attack.
What Wanderer is pointing out is that Fish Fish's argument against homosexuality makes about as much sense as an argument for slavery. Please make the effort to wrap your mind around the idea that Wanderer and I and many others find the argument against homosexuality to be as abhorrent as the argument that used to be made for slavery. You've accused Wanderer of engaging in a "when did you stop beating your wife?" set-up; one day, "when did you stop bashing gays?" will also be a set-up line.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
It seems to me that you we saying that you know better than Jesus. That Jesus could have been wrong about something, and that you, in the "enlightened" 21st century, with your scientific psychological knowledge, know better than him. That you could correct the son of God's ignorance and misunderstanding about people and their nature and being.
If you are not saying this, then I totally apologise for my mistake, and for saying that that argument is arrogant.
However, if that is what you are saying - if you are indeed setting yourself over Jesus, and superior to him - then that stance seems totally arrogant to me. I'm sorry if that offends you. But any insistence of Jesus' ignorance or misunderstanding offends me.
Then prepare to be continually offended. Jesus didn't know how to treat cancer, and doctors today do. Jesus didn't know the earth revolved around the sun, and today we know that it does. Jesus didn't know that germs existed, but we do. Jesus didn't know there were people in Australia or North and South America, but we do.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Then prepare to be continually offended. Jesus didn't know how to treat cancer, and doctors today do. Jesus didn't know the earth revolved around the sun, and today we know that it does. Jesus didn't know that germs existed, but we do. Jesus didn't know there were people in Australia or North and South America, but we do.
How on earth do you know that? What evidence do you have that that is so?
Even if those things are true, please could you suply some evidence to show the oft stated but never verified "fact" that the people of Jesus' day did not know about sexual attraction or sexuality. For if they did, then your assertion that Jesus couldn't possibly know about homosexuality is wrong.
And finally, could you answer me this? If Jesus did say homosexual activity was wrong, would you still disagree with him?
--------------------
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:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Then prepare to be continually offended. Jesus didn't know how to treat cancer, and doctors today do. Jesus didn't know the earth revolved around the sun, and today we know that it does. Jesus didn't know that germs existed, but we do. Jesus didn't know there were people in Australia or North and South America, but we do.
How on earth do you know that? What evidence do you have that that is so?
Jesus knew germs existed and didn't tell anybody? What kind of an asshole do you think he was?
quote:
Even if those things are true, please could you suply some evidence to show the oft stated but never verified "fact" that the people of Jesus' day did not know about sexual attraction or sexuality. For if they did, then your assertion that Jesus couldn't possibly know about homosexuality is wrong.
Huh? This makes no sense at all. Knowing about sexual attraction doesn't mean someone knows about homosexuality.
quote:
And finally, could you answer me this? If Jesus did say homosexual activity was wrong, would you still disagree with him?
He didn't, so it's not an issue. I have a hard time getting interested in hypothetical questions when there are real ones to be addressed.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Even if those things are true, please could you suply some evidence to show the oft stated but never verified "fact" that the people of Jesus' day did not know about sexual attraction or sexuality. For if they did, then your assertion that Jesus couldn't possibly know about homosexuality is wrong.
Huh? This makes no sense at all. Knowing about sexual attraction doesn't mean someone knows about homosexuality.
Ok, let me rephase the question.
Please could you suply some evidence to show the oft stated but never verified "fact" that the people of Jesus' day did not know about homosexuality or homosexual attraction.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
And finally, could you answer me this? If Jesus did say homosexual activity was wrong, would you still disagree with him?
He didn't, so it's not an issue. I have a hard time getting interested in hypothetical questions when there are real ones to be addressed.
If you can't provide any evindence to the question above, then this question is not so hypothetical. So, even though it doesn't interest you, it does fascinate me. So, please answer my question. If Jesus did say homosexual activity was wrong, would you still disagree with him? Dodging the question implies that you would disagree with him
[ 10. November 2004, 16:21: Message edited by: Fish Fish ]
--------------------
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
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Isn't the question of just how much Jesus, pre-Resurrection at least, knew about the sciences in doubt? I don't know how much He knew then -- and I would also say that I'd put moral issues in a wholly different category. My own views on gay stuff (and slavery, for that matter) are earlier on this thread (which is why I'm not jumping in on all that; for me it's a dead horse as well), but I'm genuinely not aware that "Jesus was ignorant/all-knowing about X" is (or ever has been) anything like universal Christian doctrine. Isn't that a point on which various Christians disagree in the first place? How much His omniscience as the Son of God was -- as part of His incarnation as Son of Man -- withheld (or not), I genuinely don't know, but I'm seeing some absolute statements on both sides here which I'm not sure are supported... ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Aquinas argues that Christ had no ignorance at all; that He had "acquired" knowledge, but Aquinas along with His infused and beatific. But this is still later Medieval RC doctrine, so I'd be curious about earlier notions, and also Orthodox. (Oh, Father Gregoryyyy...)
David
yes, yes, it probably should be its own thread in Purgatory or something
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
It is wrong to assume anything about RuthW's position based on her refusing to answer a hypothetical question. I generally avoid them as well, and she and I have rather different beliefs.
--------------------
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
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Jesus knew germs existed and didn't tell anybody? What kind of an asshole do you think he was?
Why didn't He go and heal everybody everywhere? Why did He limit His corporeal activity to that short of a ministry? Why did He focus on the spiritual things as much as He did and seem to use miracles only in certain contexts? It seems to me that His not mentioning (so far as is recorded) things like germs is that He had much bigger fish to fry, like dying on the cross and rising to save us from far worse than germs -- so He may have known about them and may not, as far as I can tell.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
It is wrong to assume anything about RuthW's position based on her refusing to answer a hypothetical question. I generally avoid them as well, and she and I have rather different beliefs.
OK, fair point. I'll rephrase my question one more time:
Ruth, if through this analysis of Matthew 19, it turns out that Jesus did say that sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage was wrong, would you still disagree with him?
--------------------
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:
Ruth, if through this analysis of Matthew 19, it turns out that Jesus did say that sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage was wrong, would you still disagree with him?
IF someone were to convince me that this is what Jesus is saying in Matthew 19, I would have to seriously reconsider my positions on homosexuality and extra-marital sex. And, to be honest, if I really thought a prohibition on all sex outside heterosexual marriage were a central tenet of Christianity, I'd bail out of the church in a heartbeat.
But I think leonato's analysis is spot on.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
<Host Mode - ACTIVATE>
Thank you, RuthW.
I have, of course, been watching the developing discussion on this thread, as I do on all in DH.
It has, IMO, drifted close to the edge on one or two occasions, but has rolled back. I have seen nothing that I felt needed a hostly reprimand.
If others wish to anticipate how I may react, I'm not going to stop them, but nobody need to consider themselves reprimanded unless I (or one of the Admins, posting in that capacity) do so.
Please carry on
<Host Mode - DEACTIVATE>
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
... if through this analysis of Matthew 19, it turns out that Jesus did say that sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage was wrong, would you still disagree with him?
We have the much closer parallel of divorce, where Jesus was quite firm - and de facto we disagree with him.
--------------------
"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
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
... if through this analysis of Matthew 19, it turns out that Jesus did say that sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage was wrong, would you still disagree with him?
We have the much closer parallel of divorce, where Jesus was quite firm - and de facto we disagree with him.
Its not quite that clear cut, for there is (in this very passage) the exception to the rule - "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness , and marries another woman commits adultery."
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
IF someone were to convince me that this is what Jesus is saying in Matthew 19, I would have to seriously reconsider my positions on homosexuality and extra-marital sex. And, to be honest, if I really thought a prohibition on all sex outside heterosexual marriage were a central tenet of Christianity, I'd bail out of the church in a heartbeat.
Thanks, Ruth, for your answer to my question. To be honest, you surprised me by your answer. But, in the same spirit, and repeating things I've said before - if anyone can find me once verse that shows God wants to bless, encourage, or in any way approve of same sex sexual relationships, then I too would have to seriously rethink my opinion. However, adding together what seems to be going in Matthew 19, Jesus silence over the Levitical moral laws, and the rest of the tone and argument of the Bible, I can't see much hope of that.
Furthermore, since no one can offer any evidence for the statement that sexuality was unknown or not understood in Bible times, my position seems to be increasingly confirmed.
--------------------
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
Fer cryin' out loud, hang on a bit--I'm supposed to be w*rking. But here's the smart-ass: of course they knew about sexuality back then. Where do you think we all came from? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
The serious answer, short version, is that what people know about sexuality is as culturally conditioned as what they know about everything else. If there weren't stable, loving, committed same-sex relationships between equals in their culture--and I've never seen any evidence that there were--then they didn't know about them. And I've never heard of there being any speculation about such a thing circa 1st century.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pob
Shipmate
# 8009
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Pob:
As to your use of Matthew 19: The pharisees were asking Jesus about divorce - trying to 'test' him, perhaps trick him. Jesus gave them an answer about divorce, which his own disciples found too difficult to accept. And then Jesus answered them, still on the subject of divorce. We can try to guess what he meant when he talked about renouncing marriage because of the kingdom of heaven, but building a theology - especially one that excludes others - on one possible interpretation of a few sentences that were given as an answer to a completely different question leaves you on very shaky ground. Especially since Jesus doesn't say, 'this is the word of God which must be obeyed by all,' but only "The one who can accept this should accept it."
No, Jesus doesn't say "The one who can accept this should accept it" about the whole of his teaching. His words are not a get out clause for anyone who doesn't like his teaching. Those excluded from this teaching are listed as eunuchs - but everyone else must accept it he says.
So these words are in response to the Disciples exclamation that it is better for some not to marry. Jesus says "Not everyone can accept this" ie, marry. He then explains why some cannot accept marriage. This is a list of exceptions to the teaching. So he's saying "Some can accept this, so should. If they can't accept it, these will be the reasons why. They are eunuchs - sexually inactive. But those who can accept it should." So his final "The one who can accept this should accept it." is clearly referring back to those thinking of marriage. It is not a get out clause for anyone who doesn’t like what Jesus says!
With respect, Fish Fish, I'm very happy for you to tell me you disagree with my interpretation, but I don't believe you're in a position to tell me that your interpretation is correct and mine is wrong, as you seem to be doing here.
My interpretation is that Jesus is not changing the subject here; he is still talking about divorce - not marriage, as you suggest - with particular reference to the disciples' comment: "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
My view is that he is simply saying, 'what I've said to you makes sense, and you should accept it if you can.' I admit, I find it difficult to interpret in context the aside about eunuchs, but - as I said before - I think you're on dodgy ground if you try to use this one verse to build a doctrine on about any subject other than divorce and remarriage.
--------------------
As the expensive swimming trunks, so my soul longs after you.
Posts: 738 | From: Gloucestershire, and jolly nice it is too | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Ruth has it absolutely right (as always). I wasn't implying that anyone on this thread supported slavery, and I'm surprised that anyone could draw such a conclusion. All I wnated to do was suggest that the line of reasoning being used here against homosexuality could be used to much greater effect to support slavery - and therefore that that line was highly suspect.
Sheepdog, just a thought. You admonish me for treating slavery as an absolute, without realising that it has taken many different forms in different times. Slavery in Jesus' time, you assert, was benign while at other periods in history it has been cruel and oppresive. Is it not at least possible that homosexuality has meant different things at different times too? Condemning the exploitation of children, or rape, could be a very different thing from condemning a partnership which adults have entered into of their own free will.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leonato:
FishFish: my take on Matthew 19.
The problem is you are trying to link this final verse
quote:
12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[3] because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
to the rest of the passage in a literal way. I think that this verse is metaphorical. As happens elsewhere in the gospels, Jesus moves on from a simple point (here that remarriage after divorce is wrong) to a complex one.
The disciples suggest that noone should marry so as to avoid adultery, but Jesus corrects them:
Some people keep the law because of who they are or through circumstance: a eunuch, presumably, could not marry.
Some do so by a legalistic avoidance of temptation: by being celibate (making eunuchs of themselves).
But neither really keeps the law, they just avoid it. A faithful marriage is in the true spirit of the law, but this is hard to keep.
So the eunuch issue has nothing to do with sex before or outside marriage, let alone homosexuality. It is a metaphor on the nature of God's law.
If “eunuch” is a metaphor on the nature of God’s law, I think it is an extremely strange one to use, with some very distasteful pagan associations. Deuteronomy 23:1 excludes eunuchs from the assembly of Israel. What makes you think the word "eunuch" is used here in a metaphorical sense for God’s law?
In the present passage (Matthew 19:2-12) the reference to eunuchs in verse 12 makes much more sense as a literal description of those in verse 11 to whom it has been given to receive the disciples’ comment in verse 10 “…it is better not to marry”. The punch line at the end of verse 12 has much more clout if it refers to the given/not given to marry distinction.
In Rabbinic thought there were two kinds of literal eunuchs: the impotent (anatomically dysfunctional, perhaps so from birth), and the castrated (anatomically damaged, perhaps against their will). Jesus covers both these kinds of eunuch, and adds a third, novel, metaphorical kind, “those who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”.
At that point Jesus has included two classes: those who will marry (with an explicit heterosexual reference), and those for whom it is given not to marry. Since Jesus has already invoked the creation story, it seems that he intended his remarks to cover the whole of humanity.
In the light of Jesus’ other comments on homosexuality in the gospels, I think Fish Fish’s basic point here is extremely solid. It is certainly an argument from silence to say that there is actually a third class of people that Jesus forgot to mention: those for whom a same-sex relationship is appropriate.
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
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
In the light of Jesus’ other comments on homosexuality in the gospels, I think Fish Fish’s basic point here is extremely solid.
Soory, I think some pages must have fallen out of my Bible. What "other comments" would those be?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Forgot something ...
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
IF someone were to convince me that this is what Jesus is saying in Matthew 19, I would have to seriously reconsider my positions on homosexuality and extra-marital sex. And, to be honest, if I really thought a prohibition on all sex outside heterosexual marriage were a central tenet of Christianity, I'd bail out of the church in a heartbeat.
Thanks, Ruth, for your answer to my question. To be honest, you surprised me by your answer.
What surprises you?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
The Wanderer said:
Sheepdog, just a thought. You admonish me for treating slavery as an absolute, without realising that it has taken many different forms in different times. Slavery in Jesus' time, you assert, was benign while at other periods in history it has been cruel and oppressive.
Roman Empire slavery was certainly much more benign that the uniquely pernicious slavery in 18th and 19th century America. I’m not sure I would use the word “benign” for all Roman Empire slavery, but it was not a slavery based on skin-colour alone.
It was certainly possible to purchase one’s freedom, and then acquire full rights of citizenship. Some slaves were legally married with families, and others were educated people with high responsibility.
quote:
The Wanderer said:
Is it not at least possible that homosexuality has meant different things at different times too? Condemning the exploitation of children, or rape, could be a very different thing from condemning a partnership which adults have entered into of their own free will.
In principle I agree with this observation. For example, the phenomenon of male cult prostitutes (i.e. adult male prostitutes consecrated to a pagan god or goddess, providing “services” as passive homosexuals at pagan shrines) was once a socially acceptable form of homosexuality in ancient Canaanite society. It is rare now, but may still exist in some cultures.
Likewise, in ancient Greek society pederasty was acceptable socially (but note that the “young boys” involved in pederasty were actually teenagers, or even older in some cases). Pederasty is usually deplored, but the legal age of consent in the UK is 16. Some Greek pederasty is now legal in the UK.
The ancient world also provides us with information on other forms of homosexuality, including consensual adult relationships of some longevity and stability. If you want to see what is known historically, then I can only recommend that you read Robert Gagnon’s full-weight book “The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics”.
He provides a comprehensive historical review going back to the second millennium BC. He concludes that the ancient writers (secular and biblical) were well-informed on this subject and were indeed able to conceive of consensual, stable, adult homosexual relationships as we understand them.
quote:
The Wandereer said:
Sorry, I think some pages must have fallen out of my Bible. What "other comments" would those be?
See my reply to Callan on page 36 of this thread on 09 November 2004 at 12:14. Sorry I can’t link directly – for some reason I can’t get it to work.
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 Faithful Sheepdog:
If you want to see what is known historically, then I can only recommend that you read Robert Gagnon’s full-weight book “The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics”.
Thanks, I'll look for it.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Fish Fish - If Jesus had meant to say that 'same sex relationships are very wicked', I feel quite certain that he would have said something like "Verily I say unto you that same sex relationships are very wicked. Go therefore unto all nations casting out rectal demons in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". That sort of thing. It's a bit much suggesting that our Lord unequivocally condemns something when he completely fails to mention it.
Callan, there’s nothing like a superficial caricature to help one’s case, is there?
I suggest that you look closely at Mark 7:20-23 (ESV)
quote:
And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
Gagnon provides a comprehensive study of this passage looking at what words such as “sexual immorality” (porneia) and “sensuality” (aselgeia) meant to a first-century Jew. He adduces a great deal of supporting evidence from contemporary Jewish literature. Not surprisingly, these Greek terms also reappear frequently in St. Paul’s writings.
The word translated “sexual immorality” in Mark 7 is actually in the plural in Greek (porneiai), hence the KJV translation “fornications". In the plural it has the nuance of “various kinds of sexual immorality”. To a first century Jew porneiai in the plural was interpreted in the light of Leviticus and the OT generally. It definitely included a reference to homosexual acts.
So, it simply will not do to say that Jesus said nothing about homosexual behaviour. On this point you are quite simply incorrect. Read Gagnon’s book – then we can talk.
Neil
Forgive me - I haven't read Gagnon and given the way thinga are at the moment I'm not likely to in the immediate future. However I'm afraid this line of argument fails to ocnvince me. Jesus uses a general term which may or may not show that he was thinking of homosexuality at the time. If he was condemning everything covered by the Levitical law, is he also outlawing having sex with a woman during her period (Lev 18.19)? "Wickedness" could include planting two different types of seed in the same field (Lev 19.19), "foolishness" could include trimming your beard (Lev 19.27). If you expand Jesus' words here to include everything forbidden in Leviticus you end up letting far too much through.
Maybe reading Gagnon would change my mind, but it still looks to me as though Jesus didn't mention homosexuality. Maybe it's not a very important issue after all?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
Well, I found Faris Malik's website: "Born Eunuchs" compelling.
He researched the idea that eunuchs of the ancient world are the gay men of today.
Any comments?
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Just thinking about the comments on whether people of that time/place knew about homosexual activity/longing.
Surely the Greeks of the time of Alexander and before were active promoters of homosexual bonding as part of their development of fighting forces? And I have to assume that there is historical record that Alexander, in particular, had some historic effect on the eastern Mediterranean and on towards India? I can't imagine that the people of that time never talked about sexuality in some manner, especially when the well-known conquerors exhibited some "different" forms!
Homosexual behaviour was also known to the Romans, and, carrying the historic line forward, there is some evidence that the slave trade in the Indian Ocean included supplying fresh material for the "pederast princelings" of Arabia and India (I'm referring to Jan Morris' history of the British Empire for the quote, but the trade went on long before that era)
The behaviour may have been more open in the upper classes, but it was definitely occurring at most times in history.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Gagnon is definitely worth looking at so you can see where people like Sheepdog are coming from, Ruth, but be advised that Gagnon ignores authors like Craig Williams whose findings support your viewpoint.
You might also find this very detailed review of Gagnon helpful and illuminating as to some of things recently discussed on this thread.
Journal of Religion and Society
Here's a handy summary of where Gagnon is coming from
quote:
No scholarship is unbiased, and Gagnon is forthright about making his personal disquiet at homosexuality and practicing homosexuals very clear. Based on the witness of authoritative scripture, he believes that the only way a homosexual can be received into the Christian community is to refrain from homosexual activity or, ideally, to undergo counseling or psychotherapy and find fulfillment and acceptance in a monogamous heterosexual marriage (420-29). He paints a devastating picture of "The Negative Effects of Societal Endorsement of Homosexuality," remarks on the financial drain of HIV/AIDS on the health care system, and cites data that show homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals (471-86). A theme to which he returns is the sheer unnaturalness of homosexual intercourse - the penis is intended for the vagina and vice versa. Gagnon suggests that for church and society to affirm same-sex intercourse leads to death - spiritually, morally, and physically - and that homosexual actions are "sinful and harmful to the perpetrators, to the church and to society at large" (493). In fact, the reader is juggling two narratives at once, the scholarly work and the meta-narrative, which reveals Gagnon's motivation and examines the negative connotations of homosexual conduct for church and society at large.
By the way, if you read the review you'll also see where Sheepdog is getting his ideas about Jesus's opinions on the matter.
L
[fixed dead link]
[ 15. August 2014, 23:03: Message edited by: 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
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
You might also find this very detailed review of Gagnon helpful and illuminating as to some of things recently discussed on this thread.
Journal of Religion and Society
Here's a fantastic quote:
quote:
... Edmund Burke ... denounced the cruel and often fatal practice of putting homosexuals in the pillory or sentencing them to death.
Sentencing people to death is indeed often fatal. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Thanks, Louise; you've saved me a fair amount of time and trouble.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
[QB] quote:
The Wanderer said:
Sheepdog, just a thought. You admonish me for treating slavery as an absolute, without realising that it has taken many different forms in different times. Slavery in Jesus' time, you assert, was benign while at other periods in history it has been cruel and oppressive.
Roman Empire slavery was certainly much more benign that the uniquely pernicious slavery in 18th and 19th century America. I’m not sure I would use the word “benign” for all Roman Empire slavery, but it was not a slavery based on skin-colour alone.
It was certainly possible to purchase one’s freedom, and then acquire full rights of citizenship. Some slaves were legally married with families, and others were educated people with high responsibility.
I don't understand the relevance of this to the homosexuality debate, but you clearly weren't paying attention in your school Latin lessons, FS, otherwise you would not have written such garbage. Roman empire slavery was not benign by any definition. I agree it was not exactly the same form as US slavery, but to suggest it was somehow better beggars belief. Clearly in Jesus' time there were some people who were more considerate about their slaves, just as there were some in the southern states.
Stop talking rubbish and give us all a rest.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pob:
My interpretation is that Jesus is not changing the subject here; he is still talking about divorce - not marriage, as you suggest - with particular reference to the disciples' comment: "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
So Jesus is talking about divorce and not marriage? Isn't that two sides of the same coin?
While the initial conversation is about divorce, the conversation changes in verse 10 when the disciples talk about it being better not to marry in the first place. The topic is thrown back in time before divorce to getting married.
quote:
Originally posted by Pob:
My view is that he is simply saying, 'what I've said to you makes sense, and you should accept it if you can.' I admit, I find it difficult to interpret in context the aside about eunuchs, but - as I said before - I think you're on dodgy ground if you try to use this one verse to build a doctrine on about any subject other than divorce and remarriage.
If you can't find a better interpretation of what Jesus says about eunuchs, then perhaps there is no credible alternative - he is indeed talking of the two options available to us - marriage or celibacy.
I'm not using this one verse to build a whole doctrine. I am looking to Matthew 19 to see one place where Jesus does seem to address homosexuality - and I'm doing this in response to the claim that he has nothing to say. I myself feel its sufficient to accept the much more explicit statements in the rest of the Bible. That's where the doctrine more clearly springs from.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
What surprises you?
I got the impression that your view of Jesus' lack of knowledge meant you would not accept his teaching on this matter. I was surprised this was not quite true.
Can I come back to the idea that what Jesus says about Eunuchs is Metaphorical, which people were accepting as a valid explanation. No one has answered my point:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I see nothing at all metaphorical about what Jesus says – he is asked a straight set of questions, straight set of answers. He quotes form scripture, and then applies the scriptures to the question in hand. There’s nothing said such as “it’s like this” or “imagine this” that would make it metaphorical. So, sorry, I just don’t think that argument holds water at all.
Or FS's point:
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
In the present passage (Matthew 19:2-12) the reference to eunuchs in verse 12 makes much more sense as a literal description of those in verse 11 to whom it has been given to receive the disciples’ comment in verse 10 “…it is better not to marry”. The punch line at the end of verse 12 has much more clout if it refers to the given/not given to marry distinction.
One possible attempt was this link that doesn't work unfortunately! Could you try again please?
quote:
Originally posted by La Sal:
Well, I found Faris Malik's website: "Born Eunuchs" compelling.
--------------------
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
Hmmm...
quote:
and cites data that show homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals (471-86).
And since we know this is bullshit, and only works if you define any paedophile who abuses boys as a homosexual, regardless of their self-identified orientation, and their sexual orientation wrt adults, I think we know exactly how high an esteem to hold Gagnon's work.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And since we know this is bullshit, and only works if you define any paedophile who abuses boys as a homosexual, regardless of their self-identified orientation, and their sexual orientation wrt adults, I think we know exactly how high an esteem to hold Gagnon's work.
Genuine ignorance - you say "And since we know this is bullshit" - are there other studies that show this not to be true?
--------------------
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
|
|
Pob
Shipmate
# 8009
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
So Jesus is talking about divorce and not marriage? Isn't that two sides of the same coin?
Surely you might as well say that if he talks about life, he's really talking about death? The point is, he's not talking about who may marry - for instance - he's teaching about under what circumstances divorce is permissible. To move from that to 'homosexuality - right or wrong' is a big leap which I don't believe the passage justifies.
quote:
While the initial conversation is about divorce, the conversation changes in verse 10 when the disciples talk about it being better not to marry in the first place. The topic is thrown back in time before divorce to getting married.
I disagree. The whole context is divorce - IF THIS is true about divorce, THEN THIS must be true about marriage. They're not changing the subject, just saying 'well, it's too risky getting married if there's no get-out clause.' It's still that get-out clause which is the focus.
quote:
If you can't find a better interpretation of what Jesus says about eunuchs, then perhaps there is no credible alternative
And perhaps there is, and it just hasn't yet occurred to either of us. For the reasons I've stated, and some of the other reasons argued on this thread, I don't believe you can frame this as divine instruction on homosexuality. It would be illogical of me to accept your reasoning, which I don't see as making sense, simply because I can't come up with a more sensible alternative.
--------------------
As the expensive swimming trunks, so my soul longs after you.
Posts: 738 | From: Gloucestershire, and jolly nice it is too | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
whitebait
Shipmate
# 7740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by La Sal:
Well, I found Faris Malik's website: "Born Eunuchs" compelling.
Link corrected here
--------------------
small fry on a journey
Posts: 151 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pob:
quote:
While the initial conversation is about divorce, the conversation changes in verse 10 when the disciples talk about it being better not to marry in the first place. The topic is thrown back in time before divorce to getting married.
I disagree. The whole context is divorce - IF THIS is true about divorce, THEN THIS must be true about marriage. They're not changing the subject, just saying 'well, it's too risky getting married if there's no get-out clause.' It's still that get-out clause which is the focus.
But Jesus doesn't say "If" at all. He answers a question about divorce by teaching them what he views to be the truth about divorce and then marrigae. There's no sense of "IF THIS is true about divorce, THEN THIS must be true about marriage." - He says this is what marriage is about - and these people can't accept it for these reasons - and so are eunuchs.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pob
Shipmate
# 8009
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But Jesus doesn't say "If" at all. He answers a question about divorce by teaching them what he views to be the truth about divorce and then marrigae. There's no sense of "IF THIS is true about divorce, THEN THIS must be true about marriage."
It's the disciples who say 'if-then' - see verse 10. It's all within the same context. I really don't see your justification for saying 'and then he moves on to marriage and brings gays into it for good measure'.
--------------------
As the expensive swimming trunks, so my soul longs after you.
Posts: 738 | From: Gloucestershire, and jolly nice it is too | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Carry on...
