|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
ISTM that the person who comes to this list trying to justify their behaviour is precisely the person Paul is trying to persuade to change their mind.
I would say almost the opposite: it seems to me that the person who comes to this list trying to condemn the behaviour of others is the person that Paul is trying to communicate with. As Dafyd has flagged, this part of Romans 1 is just the setup for Paul undercutting the view of Gentiles as depraved versus Jews as righteous.
[ 07. May 2012, 07:59: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Just to point out that Paul's opinions are not Scripture.
Wait a sec. I thought the Bible was considered to be the Christian scripture.
Exactly. The Bible is a book (or set of books). Paul's opinions are only part of the Bible if they got into that set of books.
If some archaeologist finds a letter from Paul in which he declares that all Christians are obliged to wear clown suits every time they leave the house that's not in the Bible and it's not Scripture. If they find a long letter in which he offers his commentary on the letter to the Romans, again, Paul's commentary is not in the Bible and it wouldn't be Scripture.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[QUOTE]But that is special pleading. I know people who are gossips, slanderers, greedy and arrogant but I probably wouldn't blanket cover them with terms like evil or depraved and yet Paul does.
It doesn't seem much of a stretch to argue that engaging in gossip and slander and so on is inherently and obviously evil in that we can see it cannot possibly be loving. It's selfish at the expense of somebody else and plainly such. Eliab is saying (if I understand correctly) that nobody can honestly say this about all contemporary stable gay relationships and therefore using this passage to condemn such relationships is an unjustified generalisation equivalent to condemning talking about somebody else just because slander is wrong. That's not to say that it's right, just that if it's to be condemned then it must be on other grounds.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I would say almost the opposite: it seems to me that the person who comes to this list trying to condemn the behaviour of others is the person that Paul is trying to communicate with. As Dafyd has flagged, this part of Romans 1 is just the setup for Paul undercutting the view of Gentiles as depraved versus Jews as righteous.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) Yes... his punchline is that there is no one righteous. His point is that we all fit under this behaviour.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
It doesn't seem much of a stretch to argue that engaging in gossip and slander and so on is inherently and obviously evil in that we can see it cannot possibly be loving. It's selfish at the expense of somebody else and plainly such. Eliab is saying (if I understand correctly) that nobody can honestly say this about all contemporary stable gay relationships and therefore using this passage to condemn such relationships is an unjustified generalisation equivalent to condemning talking about somebody else just because slander is wrong. That's not to say that it's right, just that if it's to be condemned then it must be on other grounds.
It doesn't matter how many times you say it, you are still reading a utilitarian ethic back into Paul.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Just to point out that Paul's opinions are not Scripture.
Wait a sec. I thought the Bible was considered to be the Christian scripture.
Exactly. The Bible is a book (or set of books). Paul's opinions are only part of the Bible if they got into that set of books.
Well, about half the books of the New Testament were (ostensibly) written by Paul. Further, I'm not aware of any writings of Paul that aren't in the New Testament. As such, we only know Paul's opinions on homosexuality (or anything else) because they are scripture, contrary to your assertion.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Since the "Gay Cure" thread has been moved over here I thought I'd post an interesting bill being considered by the California state legislature. The basic points are that it forbids gay conversion therapy for any patient under the age of 18 and requires therapists to give adult patients the following disclaimer (in 14 point font):
quote:
Having a lesbian, gay, or bisexual sexual orientation is not a mental disorder. Sexual orientation change efforts have not been shown to be safe or effective and can, in fact, be harmful. The risks include, but are not limited to, depression, anxiety, self-destructive behavior, and suicide.
The American Psychological Association convened a Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation and it concluded:
quote:
Efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of sexual orientation change efforts practitioners and advocates.
The American Academy of Pediatrics states:
quote:
"Therapy directed at specifically changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation."
The American Medical Association's Council on Scientific Affairs prepared a report in which it stated:
quote:
Aversion therapy (a behavioral or medical intervention which pairs unwanted behavior, in this case, homosexual behavior, with unpleasant sensations or aversive consequences) is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians. Through psychotherapy, gay men and lesbians can become comfortable with their sexual orientation and understand the societal response to it.
The National Association of Social Workers states:
quote:
Social stigmatization of lesbian, gay and bisexual people is widespread and is a primary motivating factor in leading some people to seek sexual orientation changes. Sexual orientation conversion therapies assume that homosexual orientation is both pathological and freely chosen. No data demonstrates that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and, in fact, they may be harmful.
So is this a necessary, fair warning in line with informed consent (akin to the "this shit will kill you" labels on cigarettes) or unnecessary government interference?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, about half the books of the New Testament were (ostensibly) written by Paul. Further, I'm not aware of any writings of Paul that aren't in the New Testament. As such, we only know Paul's opinions on homosexuality (or anything else) because they are scripture, contrary to your assertion.
Anything else certainly includes Roman bath customs. So, from your final statement, it follows that we only know Paul's opinions of Roman bath customs because they are Scripture. It follows trivially that:
we know Paul's opinions of Roman bath customs and;
Paul's opinions of Roman bath customs are Scripture.
Perhaps you could say where in the New Testament his opinions of Roman bath customs are?
In order for your final sentence to follow logically from your premises, it would be required that:
that we do know Paul's opinions on homosexuality or anything else;
our only way of inferring Paul's opinions is from what he wrote.
That our only way of inferring someone's opinions is from what they write is in fact untrue. The point at question between Johnny S and myself was whether we can infer Paul's opinions by, say, researching what a first century Jew with training as a Pharisee was likely to think about homosexuality. That's a fairly basic procedure that interpreters use to get at the presuppositions behind what they're reading where they think they need to understand those presuppositions. It's not an inerrant procedure - we know of many opinions that Paul held that weren't shared by most first century Jews with training as a Pharisee. But assuming that a historical individual is representative of his background except where he can be inferred not to be is a generally sound procedure.
(For example, I don't think I've ever seen you express your opinion of Alan Turing. But I believe I know that your opinion of his treatment by the UK government is that it was grossly unjust.)
My point is that any knowledge obtained by any such likely inferences from the background of the authors of the Bible is not itself Scripture.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm arguing that the context demands that gay sex is wrong by definition. ISTM that Paul puts gay sex in the same category as gossip - something that those he was writing would instinctively assume was wrong.
It's easy to demonstrate that the context does not demand this at all. Forget about the authority of scripture for a minute and just concentrate on how similar words in everyday speech would be understood.
Suppose you overheard me in the midst of a “what's wrong with the world” diatribe, and I say something like this:
“...and because of this young people are turning to alcohol, boys and girls both. The desire to get wasted is an obsession. It makes people quarrelsome, violent, and sexually promiscuous, it causes no end of trouble for families, and it ruins health. Truly drinkers receive in their own bodies the penalty of self indulgence...”
And suppose your experience of drink is that, for the most part, your friends use alcohol moderately and responsibly, with none of those faults that I'm talking about. How do you interpret my words?
You might assume that my experience is similar to yours, and conclude, from my context, that I'm talking about irresponsible drinkers and only irresponsible drinkers. I obviously disapprove of such drinking, and probably expect you to disapprove as well, but you wouldn't assume anything one way or another about what I think of your responsible friends.
Alternatively, if you thought I was intending to condemn all drinking whatever, because I thought my description covered all drinking, then you could say with confidence that I was simply mistaken. It is possible, and common, to drink alcohol without social and personal harm resulting. There may be arguments against moderate drinking, but I haven't given any. It would be impossible for me to argue against moderate drinking (on this view) because I don't think there is such a thing. I only know of obsessive drinking, and I mistakenly think that that's all there is.
The context does not only not demand that you interpret my words as including moderate, social, responsible drinking, the context does not admit of such an interpretation while preserving any sort of sensible argument at all. The more respect you had for my sense and wisdom, the more likely you are to conclude that I'm not saying anything good or bad about the sort of drinking you know to be common, and the more likely you are to interpret my words to be an attack on alcohol abuse.
The same applies to Paul and gay sex. He's describing irresponsible behaviour that we can all recognise and many of us would condemn. His description does not fit most gay people that we actually know. We're in exactly the position of someone how knows responsible drinkers hearing a rant against drunkards. It isn't in the least necessary to assume the speaker is talking about the people we know.
quote:
Verse 1 of chapter 2 is where he is going with all this - we are all sinners. His aim in this list is not to pore over this list wondering at what point it becomes gossip or when gay sex crosses some line and becomes sin, his aim is for all of us to be convicted of sin. Your reading seems to fundamentally undermine the main thrust of his argument.
That's an essential part of my argument! My entirely sodding point is that Paul is not writing to set out the point at which homosexual attraction or action is wrong. He's not got that question even remotely in mind – he's arguing from a stereotype of pagan immorality to universal human guilt. He has absolutely no reason to nit-pick about what exactly is and is not sinful.
Therefore it is essential that what he describes in Romans 1 is not only wrong but would be obviously wrong to his audience. And what he describes as obviously wrong is NOT “gay sex” but shameless, depraved, lustful, destructive homosexual debauchery – probably (though its not essential to my argument) which some particularly scandalous group in mind to allude to.
Paul might have thought that all gay sex whatever was in the 'obviously wrong' class, but what the Holy Spirit inspired him to write about a particular sort of homosexuality, and his argument works perfectly well if that is what is supposed to be obviously wrong.
Which is just as well – whatever Paul's original hearers might have thought, I simply do not and cannot see that the wrongness of homosexuality is so obvious that it need not be argued for. The argument that we both agree Paul is making here would be inaccessible to me if he had written against all gay sex, but I understand it well enough if he is talking about debauchery.
Which, of course, he blatantly is. You are extending his words by implication to all gay sex. My point is that it is not a necessary implication. The argument works if you take what he says at face value. The behaviour he describes is wrong. He is not describing all gay sex.
quote:
ISTM that the person who comes to this list trying to justify their behaviour is precisely the person Paul is trying to persuade to change their mind.
Since, as far as I know, neither of us is gay, we are lucky to be able to debate this particular part of the argument without that temptation, then.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, about half the books of the New Testament were (ostensibly) written by Paul. Further, I'm not aware of any writings of Paul that aren't in the New Testament. As such, we only know Paul's opinions on homosexuality (or anything else) because they are scripture, contrary to your assertion.
Anything else certainly includes Roman bath customs. So, from your final statement, it follows that we only know Paul's opinions of Roman bath customs because they are Scripture. It follows trivially that:
we know Paul's opinions of Roman bath customs and;
Paul's opinions of Roman bath customs are Scripture.
Perhaps you could say where in the New Testament his opinions of Roman bath customs are?
In order for your final sentence to follow logically from your premises, it would be required that:
that we do know Paul's opinions on homosexuality or anything else;
our only way of inferring Paul's opinions is from what he wrote.
I've highlighted obvious bait-and-switch in your argument. We can infer and guess about Pauls opinions all we like, but all we realy know is what he bothered to write down. The rest is guesswork.
In short, guessing what Paul probably thought about Roman bath customs based on the opinions of his contemporaries is not the same as knowing Paul's opinions of Roman bath customs.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
(For example, I don't think I've ever seen you express your opinion of Alan Turing. But I believe I know that your opinion of his treatment by the UK government is that it was grossly unjust.)
That's just because you haven't been paying attention. My opinion on this matter is "scripture".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
But assuming that a historical individual is representative of his background except where he can be inferred not to be is a generally sound procedure.
Huh? My point is that we should not infer that Paul held different views on homosexuality to this background.
I said 'should not' as opposed to 'cannot' deliberately. It is quite possible for someone to argue that Paul was liberal on homosexuality. They just have no evidence for their position.
Peter Tatchell comes from a community that thinks homosexual practice is not wrong. I've read articles where he says that too. I think I'm on safe ground to assume therefore, that this is his position on the matter.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It's easy to demonstrate that the context does not demand this at all. Forget about the authority of scripture for a minute and just concentrate on how similar words in everyday speech would be understood.
Suppose you overheard me in the midst of a “what's wrong with the world” diatribe, and I say something like this:
“...and because of this young people are turning to alcohol, boys and girls both. The desire to get wasted is an obsession. It makes people quarrelsome, violent, and sexually promiscuous, it causes no end of trouble for families, and it ruins health. Truly drinkers receive in their own bodies the penalty of self indulgence...”
...
The same applies to Paul and gay sex. He's describing irresponsible behaviour that we can all recognise and many of us would condemn. His description does not fit most gay people that we actually know. We're in exactly the position of someone how knows responsible drinkers hearing a rant against drunkards. It isn't in the least necessary to assume the speaker is talking about the people we know.
That analogy doesn't work. He doesn't just say that sex (alchohol) is being abused he also specifies how it is being abused.
You still haven't responded to my assertion that you are using utilitarian ethics that would have been foreign to Paul. He goes out of his way to explain that this behaviour is wrong because it is a result of turning away from God, not just because we can morally evaluate the actions themselves.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Therefore it is essential that what he describes in Romans 1 is not only wrong but would be obviously wrong to his audience. And what he describes as obviously wrong is NOT “gay sex” but shameless, depraved, lustful, destructive homosexual debauchery – probably (though its not essential to my argument) which some particularly scandalous group in mind to allude to.
Again, where does Paul actually say that? He says that gay sex is an example of the human bias away from God he does not say that it is wrong because it looks 'shameless, depraved, lustful and destructive'.
Take 'shameless' for example. The very word assumes that someone is engaging in behaviour that the observer thinks is wrong but the participant either doesn't or doesn't care. Either way to apply the word to our current debate is begging the question. If we think homosexual behaviour is wrong then we will automatically see it as 'shameless, depraved, lustful and destructive'. If we do not see it as wrong then we won't. Your argument is entirely circular.
Paul might have thought that all gay sex whatever was in the 'obviously wrong' class, but what the Holy Spirit inspired him to write about a particular sort of homosexuality, and his argument works perfectly well if that is what is supposed to be obviously wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Since, as far as I know, neither of us is gay, we are lucky to be able to debate this particular part of the argument without that temptation, then.
Haven't you just undermined your entire argument with this last comment? I thought you were agreeing with me that Paul's point is not to pick on particular sins but for all of his readers to feel the weight of the fact that both Jews and Gentile alike are condemned by God's Law.
If you apply that position consistently then we have no reason to feel lucky at all. Gay sex is merely a symptom of our human bias away from obeying God. All of the things in Romans 1 are. Verse 26 is an outworking of verse 25. When I read Paul's condemnation of gay sex in verses 26 and 27 I just think, "That's me too. I may not be tempted to engage in gay sex but I exchange the truth of God for a lie. My life is a constant battle with what is 'shameless, depraved, lustful and destructive'.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I was checking on the progress of this thread when I noticed that I had offers to learn about the End Times (this year! Would you believe?), to attend a house church in Moncton and to learn how to spread the Gospel, the whole being somewhat confused by ad #2, which offered me the chance to meet gay men.
I'm not quite sure why the algorithm put these two disparate topics (somewhat fringe religion and gays) together.
I see now, on returning to this thread that the propagation of the Gospel has been replaced by sexy Asian ladies, so perhaps the algorithm merely has a sense of humour.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Your argument is entirely circular.
But so is yours. For the same reasons.
Indeed, I don't understand Eliab's point to be that he can conclusively prove that your interpretation is wrong. It's more that you can't prove that your interpretation is correct, and that where either interpretation is open it's not a safe basis for telling LGBT folk that they can never act on their attractions in any circumstances.
(Which I also believe to be similar to Louise's point of view.)
I agree entirely with Eliab that the purpose of the passage is not to delineate precisely the boundaries between licit and illicit sex, but to paint an extreme picture of illicit sex. I'm reminded very much, actually, of a lot of constitutional cases where our own High Court has said "we don't need to decide the boundary right now, because this case is clearly in (or clearly out)".
Paul presents a compound image of worshipping created things and shameful lusts. It is pretty well impossible, in my view, to definitively declare the precise relationship between the worship and the lusts, other than to say that combining the two is at the 'core' of the bad thing Paul is describing.
If your point of view is that homosexual lust is always a sign of having abandoned the worship of God for the worship of created things, then you really have your work cut out to explain how young, well-meaning Christians such as I was can so easily and unintentionally slip into these depths of depravity. I never intended to start worshipping idols, but before I knew it I had bypassed that stage and was already into depravity Stage 2.
That's what your interpretation involves. And that's, indeed, the interpretation I spent some time growing up with. Pretty psychologically scarring I might add. I am SO depraved, I thought, that God's already handed me over to unnatural lusts before I even noticed that I was doing the bit that comes before being handed over. JESUS I must have been bad.
Or, you could recognise that this kind of direct causal relationship is not the only reading of the passage that is open.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But so is yours.
In what way is my argument circular? I'm saying that Paul says the gay sex is sinful in Romans 1.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Paul presents a compound image of worshipping created things and shameful lusts. It is pretty well impossible, in my view, to definitively declare the precise relationship between the worship and the lusts, other than to say that combining the two is at the 'core' of the bad thing Paul is describing.
If your point of view is that homosexual lust is always a sign of having abandoned the worship of God for the worship of created things, then you really have your work cut out to explain how young, well-meaning Christians such as I was can so easily and unintentionally slip into these depths of depravity. I never intended to start worshipping idols, but before I knew it I had bypassed that stage and was already into depravity Stage 2.
That's what your interpretation involves. And that's, indeed, the interpretation I spent some time growing up with. Pretty psychologically scarring I might add. I am SO depraved, I thought, that God's already handed me over to unnatural lusts before I even noticed that I was doing the bit that comes before being handed over. JESUS I must have been bad.
Or, you could recognise that this kind of direct causal relationship is not the only reading of the passage that is open.
Actually I think it is quite straight forward:
1. Paul says, in verse 25, that at the heart of idolatry is worshipping creation rather than the creator.
2. Such idolatry is exposed by our lusts - for men, women, money or chocolate. Our natural desires are just that natural, but they are corrupted into lusts.
3. An example he gives of a corrupted desire is gay sex.
We may come to Paul with modern categories of orientation but it is anachronistic to read that back into his writings. As I have said before there is a lot of work to be done in applying it to today. (Issues we now know about things like orientation need to be considered.) However, in this discussion about what Paul said, I think it is pretty clear - he said that gay sex is an example of corrupted human desires.
I don't understand why you think my interpretation has to involve all the steps you mention in some kind of progressive order. If turning from my creator to his creation is a 'natural' bias then I have no need at all to go through your angst over levels of depravity. I happen to be heterosexual. It is 'natural' for me to lust after other women to whom I'm not married - Romans 1 tells me that this is so because I'm 'idolising' sex with God's creation. However, Paul tells me that to indulge such 'natural' lusts is actually 'unnatural' because it means acting against the way I was created to act. If this is not how we are supposed to read Romans 1 then I can't make sense of how we are supposed to 'put to death our sinful desires' in chapter 6 etc. The message of Romans seems to be that, once we have been set free by Jesus, we stop doing what is 'natural' to us and start living according to what is 'natural' to the Spirit.
Gay or straight, we are all the same. We put creation in God's place. And the pinnacle of creation, the thing most godlike is other humans. Therefore we are going to be most tempted to put them in God's place. And the tell tale sign we are seeking fulfilment and satisfaction in creation rather than God is when we place fulfilling our desire above God.
I realise YMMV on Romans 1 but I'm just trying to explain the consistency of my position.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Actually, I don't think Johnny's reasoning isn't circular per se, but a form of Black Swan.
Paul, as traditionally interpreted, says that gay sex is a sign of idolatory, therefore gay sex is always a sin.
However, having been presented with the Black Swan of Gay Christians in monogamous relationships which are so clearly as far from idolatrous (in the Pauline sense) as possible, there are two possible conclusions: either the traditional interpretation of Paul is wrong, or Gay Christians aren't really Christians at all.
For a long time, I held the second option. Now I don't because, yes, swans can be black.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, about half the books of the New Testament were (ostensibly) written by Paul. Further, I'm not aware of any writings of Paul that aren't in the New Testament. As such, we only know Paul's opinions on homosexuality (or anything else) because they are scripture, contrary to your assertion.
Anything else certainly includes Roman bath customs. So, from your final statement, it follows that we only know Paul's opinions of Roman bath customs because they are Scripture. It follows trivially that:
we know Paul's opinions of Roman bath customs and;
Paul's opinions of Roman bath customs are Scripture.
Perhaps you could say where in the New Testament his opinions of Roman bath customs are?
In order for your final sentence to follow logically from your premises, it would be required that:
that we do know Paul's opinions on homosexuality or anything else;
our only way of inferring Paul's opinions is from what he wrote.
I've highlighted obvious bait-and-switch in your argument. We can infer and guess about Pauls opinions all we like, but all we realy know is what he bothered to write down. The rest is guesswork.
A bait-and-switch is when you put forward one proposition and then when that proposition is attacked you defend a different more defensible proposition.
For example:
Bait: quote:
we only know Paul's opinions on homosexuality (or anything else) because they are scripture, contrary to your assertion.
Switch: quote:
all we realy know is what (Paul) bothered to write down
The bait asserts that we know Paul's opinions on homosexuality and anything else. The switch implies that there may be some things that Paul did not write down and therefore we don't know.
The bait is contrary to my assertion that theoretically it's possible for there to exist undiscovered documents by Paul containing opinions Paul didn't record in the letters we have.
The switch is not contrary to that assertion.
Now in the passage of mine that you cite I'm not substituting one proposition for another proposition that's been attacked. I'm stating two propositions (independent of each other) to which you, not I, have committed yourself in the bait proposition.
Ok - you can reject the second proposition if you commit yourself to the strong view that inference is always equivalent to guesswork and never gives knowledge.
So: are you committed to the view that inference is never any more than guesswork? For example, would you describe the inference from the fossil record that humans are descended from the most recent common ancestor of all (non-human) apes as no more than guesswork?
Or is it just a view that you've adopted for the purposes of this particular argument?
Note that knowledge is justified true belief. It is not necessary for the justification to be such that one couldn't be wrong. For example, if I read a fact in a reliable newspaper and that has not made a mistake, then I know that fact. It's not required that the newspaper never make mistakes - merely that for the most part it doesn't make mistakes. Likewise, if a reasonable scholarly procedure yields a true belief then that true belief is knowledge, even if the reasonable scholarly procedure is not infallible.
quote:
In short, guessing what Paul probably thought about Roman bath customs based on the opinions of his contemporaries is not the same as knowing Paul's opinions of Roman bath customs.
That's really your problem, isn't it? You asserted that we know Paul's opinions of homosexuality and anything else - including Roman bath customs. It's up to you to defend that proposition, or, of course, do an obvious bait-and-switch.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Johnny S: quote:
3. An example he gives of a corrupted desire is gay sex.
But Paul doesn't seem to approve of straight sex either. The most positive thing he says about it is 'it is better to marry than burn'. Hardly a ringing endorsement.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
If it is "better to marry than burn", then surely gays/lesbians should be permitted to marry.
It is right there in Scripture!
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
If it is "better to marry than burn", then surely gays/lesbians should be permitted to marry.
It is right there in Scripture!
Unfortunately, I think the position is that they would then be married AND burning.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Actually, I don't think Johnny's reasoning isn't circular per se, but a form of Black Swan.
Paul, as traditionally interpreted, says that gay sex is a sign of idolatory, therefore gay sex is always a sin.
However, having been presented with the Black Swan of Gay Christians in monogamous relationships which are so clearly as far from idolatrous (in the Pauline sense) as possible, there are two possible conclusions: either the traditional interpretation of Paul is wrong, or Gay Christians aren't really Christians at all.
For a long time, I held the second option. Now I don't because, yes, swans can be black.
I can see why you'd think that way and have some sympathies as to why you would.
However, let's be clear of your hermeneutical method here.
You are not giving any reason why we should read Paul differently but rather baldly stating that he was wrong.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Actually, I don't think Johnny's reasoning isn't circular per se, but a form of Black Swan.
Paul, as traditionally interpreted, says that gay sex is a sign of idolatory, therefore gay sex is always a sin.
However, having been presented with the Black Swan of Gay Christians in monogamous relationships which are so clearly as far from idolatrous (in the Pauline sense) as possible, there are two possible conclusions: either the traditional interpretation of Paul is wrong, or Gay Christians aren't really Christians at all.
For a long time, I held the second option. Now I don't because, yes, swans can be black.
I can see why you'd think that way and have some sympathies as to why you would.
However, let's be clear of your hermeneutical method here.
You are not giving any reason why we should read Paul differently but rather baldly stating that he was wrong.
So you're sticking with the second option. Anything but considering the reality of the black swan...
To take another Dead Horse issue: if I can prove that the world is 4.6by old, does this change the way I read Genesis 1? Hell yes.
If I can see Christians who are gay, living godly, non-idolatrous, monogamous lives and exhibiting all the fruits of the Spirit I care to name, does this change the way I read Romans 1? Hell yes.
It's not Paul I'm disagreeing with, it's you.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You still haven't responded to my assertion that you are using utilitarian ethics that would have been foreign to Paul.
I hadn't responded to it because I didn't realise it was directed at me. What have my arguments got to do with utilitarianism? I'm not a utilitarian.
None of Paul's condemnation-words really appeal to utilitarian sentiments. Utilitarians think in terms of benefical as opposed to harmful consequences, not in terms of decency as opposed to depravity, or respect as opposed to lust. Utilitarianism is a red herring here.
quote:
He goes out of his way to explain that this behaviour is wrong because it is a result of turning away from God, not just because we can morally evaluate the actions themselves.
That's not what you argued earlier. You argued that Paul was positing a sort of behaviour that he would expect his readers to evaluate as wrong.
You were right then, and wrong now. The argument which we both agree that Paul is making doesn't work so well if the reader is going: "There I was, imagining that sticking it up every hole within cockslength was OK, but if the pagans do it, I'll have to rethink..."
This is the lead-in to the Romans 2 sucker-punch. It is rhetorically essential that the reader is thinking "Shame, shame..." all the way in, as the failings of the pagan world are ennumerated, until he gets hit with a "And you do that" at the end, which he cannot honestly deny. Romans 1 can't be an argument that these things are wrong. It describes things that Paul expects us to recognise as wrong.
quote:
he does not say that it is wrong because it looks 'shameless, depraved, lustful and destructive'.
He says almost exactly that (though "destructive" is my gloss, the rest is there). He doesn't say, "You might think that neglecting your wife to bugger other men is innocent, but God thinks it depraved". He says that doing that IS actually depraved and he expects us to nod in agreement. It's supposed to be uncontroversial that the Romans 1 behaviour is wrong. That's the set-up.
quote:
Take 'shameless' for example. The very word assumes that someone is engaging in behaviour that the observer thinks is wrong but the participant either doesn't or doesn't care. Either way to apply the word to our current debate is begging the question. If we think homosexual behaviour is wrong then we will automatically see it as 'shameless, depraved, lustful and destructive'. If we do not see it as wrong then we won't.
Not so. And this is very important because this is where you seem to be misunderstanding me.
Since orfeo has offered his experiences as an example, I'll take advantage explicitly, rather than, as before, by implication. It would be entirely possible for a Christian to say that orfeo's final conclusion about the ethics of homosexual behaviour is wrong, mistaken and even culpable, and therefore that any sexual conduct orfeo might engage in on the basis of that conclusion is similarly wrong, and possibly sinful. That would not be an absurd or untenable view.
It would be absurd to say that orfeo is depraved and shameless. He so clearly is not. Merely being wrong doesn't make him "'shameless, depraved, lustful and destructive". Those words are not synonyms for "wrong". It is NOT automatic that if one thinks that gay sex is wrong that one will apply those adjectives to it. That is absolutely vital for (what I say is) a sensible reading of Paul. My whole argument depends on there being a class of gay people who may be right or wrong, but who are certainly not depraved, shameless and lustful. That class includes almost all the gay people I know.
My metaphor with alcohol was supposed to show that it is possible to be opposed to all drinking (or not), but to condemn in particular irresponsible drunkenness in terms which simply do not apply to moderate alcohol consumption. Similarly, it is possible to think all gay sex wrong (or not) but to condemn in particular grossly immoral homosexual conduct in terms which simply do not apply to most gay people. And that is exactly what Paul does.
Your interpretation seems to be that all gay sex whatever really is depraved, shameless and lustful, even when you can see with your own eyes gay people who are sincerely trying to lead decent, committed and respectful relationships. You are arguing (as Doc Tor says) that those swans cannot really be black. Since Romans 1 can be read without that absurdity, even to the same conclusion that you think (correctly) that it is intended to reach, why do that? Why not accept that there are black swans, but that Paul (whether he knew about black swans or not) is not talking about them here?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Since, as far as I know, neither of us is gay, we are lucky to be able to debate this particular part of the argument without that temptation, then.
Haven't you just undermined your entire argument with this last comment?
No - see below.
quote:
When I read Paul's condemnation of gay sex in verses 26 and 27 I just think, "That's me too. I may not be tempted to engage in gay sex but I exchange the truth of God for a lie. My life is a constant battle with what is 'shameless, depraved, lustful and destructive'.
That conclusion can be reached on my reading, too, of course. I would say that it is easier on mine. If we take the essence of Paul's condemnation to be ‘turning from God' leading to ‘depravity and lust' then I can't ignore the application to my own life. If we take the essence of it to be ‘gay sex is wrong' then that's easy, because gay sex isn't something I do or am likely to do. I can, as a straight man, be directly guilty of Romans 1 depravity if I'm right - because the essence is selfish and obsessive lust, not plumbing. On your reading I can be guilty of the principal sin only by analogy.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Indeed, I don't understand Eliab's point to be that he can conclusively prove that your interpretation is wrong. It's more that you can't prove that your interpretation is correct, and that where either interpretation is open it's not a safe basis for telling LGBT folk that they can never act on their attractions in any circumstances.
Yes, that's right.
But as the thread has progressed, I've felt more strongly that the interpretation that Romans 1 is about ALL gays is impossible for me. To accept that would be to believe that all non-celibate gays are particularly lustful and depraved, and I simply cannot do that, because I know some of them and they aren't. I think it is logically possible to say that ordinary gay people better fit the Romans 1 description in God's eyes than do ordinary straights, even if it doesn't look that way to us, but it is psychologically impossible for me to believe that.
So yes, the interpretation is strictly open, but nevertheless, my interpretation is better.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Just to point out that Paul's opinions are not Scripture.
Wait a sec. I thought the Bible was considered to be the Christian scripture.
There are almost as many ways to read the Bible as there are Christians, but the point is that (in US constitutional law terms) it is not necessary for a Christian to be an originalist. There can be a distinction between what the text means, and what the author believed.
Just has it is meaningful to say: that even if the framers of the US constitution supported racial segregation, the constitution itself, properly interpreted, forbids this; it is meaningful to say that even if St Paul thought that all gay sex was wrong, Romans 1, properly interpreted, does not teach that.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Indeed, I don't understand Eliab's point to be that he can conclusively prove that your interpretation is wrong. It's more that you can't prove that your interpretation is correct, and that where either interpretation is open it's not a safe basis for telling LGBT folk that they can never act on their attractions in any circumstances.
Yes, that's right.
But as the thread has progressed, I've felt more strongly that the interpretation that Romans 1 is about ALL gays is impossible for me. To accept that would be to believe that all non-celibate gays are particularly lustful and depraved, and I simply cannot do that, because I know some of them and they aren't. I think it is logically possible to say that ordinary gay people better fit the Romans 1 description in God's eyes than do ordinary straights, even if it doesn't look that way to us, but it is psychologically impossible for me to believe that.
So yes, the interpretation is strictly open, but nevertheless, my interpretation is better.
Yes, that distinction between what's logically open and what's psychologically open makes a great deal of sense to me.
But then, virtually everything you write on this topic makes a great deal of sense from my perspective!
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
A bait-and-switch is when you put forward one proposition and then when that proposition is attacked you defend a different more defensible proposition.
For example:
Bait: quote:
we only know Paul's opinions on homosexuality (or anything else) because they are scripture, contrary to your assertion.
Switch: quote:
all we realy know is what (Paul) bothered to write down
The bait asserts that we know Paul's opinions on homosexuality and anything else. The switch implies that there may be some things that Paul did not write down and therefore we don't know.
That is not bait and switch unless you are determined to apply a meaning to the phrase "or anything else" which is clearly contrary to the common colloquial usage we see here. The obvious meaning given the context is "anything else of which we are aware" not "anything else he may have thought about in his life". I.e. you're mixing up "anything" and "everything".
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peter Ould
Shipmate
# 482
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But as the thread has progressed, I've felt more strongly that the interpretation that Romans 1 is about ALL gays is impossible for me. To accept that would be to believe that all non-celibate gays are particularly lustful and depraved, and I simply cannot do that, because I know some of them and they aren't.
But that's not what Romans 1 teaches. Here's the verses you're referring to.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
(Romans 1:26-27 ESV)
Let's see the sequence - "For *this* reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions". Question - which reason? Answer - next sentence. "the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error".
The sequence is clear - sexual activity leads to greater sexual passion for that which is sinful which leads to further sexual sin and the due penalty.
If you're celibate you don't start that chain of cause and effect that Paul points out.
[ 08. May 2012, 13:15: Message edited by: Peter Ould ]
--------------------
Peter Ould
www.peter-ould.net
Posts: 94 | From: Canterbury | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
Let's see the sequence - "For *this* reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions". Question - which reason? Answer - next sentence.
Peter, in all honesty, is English your native language?
Because that is a totally incorrect construction of English. "For this reason" is a construction that looks backwards to the previous verses, not forwards to the following ones. To look forward would require a colon ( : ) , and even then it would be a highly unnatural form of constructing an idea.
[ 08. May 2012, 13:20: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I hadn't responded to it because I didn't realise it was directed at me. What have my arguments got to do with utilitarianism? I'm not a utilitarian.
None of Paul's condemnation-words really appeal to utilitarian sentiments. Utilitarians think in terms of benefical as opposed to harmful consequences, not in terms of decency as opposed to depravity, or respect as opposed to lust. Utilitarianism is a red herring here.
Yeah, you're right. I was using utilitarianism in a very sloppy way.
I meant that you are evaluating morality on your present assessment of behaviour. I'm arguing that, since Paul starts from creation, he is saying that everything in chapter 1 is wrong FULL STOP.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
That's not what you argued earlier. You argued that Paul was positing a sort of behaviour that he would expect his readers to evaluate as wrong.
You were right then, and wrong now. The argument which we both agree that Paul is making doesn't work so well if the reader is going: "There I was, imagining that sticking it up every hole within cockslength was OK, but if the pagans do it, I'll have to rethink..."
This is the lead-in to the Romans 2 sucker-punch. It is rhetorically essential that the reader is thinking "Shame, shame..." all the way in, as the failings of the pagan world are ennumerated, until he gets hit with a "And you do that" at the end, which he cannot honestly deny. Romans 1 can't be an argument that these things are wrong. It describes things that Paul expects us to recognise as wrong.
I don't think you are following what I'm saying.
1. Paul deliberately picks on a list of things that his hearers would assume were examples of sinful behaviour.
2. He explains why we do these things - what is going on in our hearts.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Your interpretation seems to be that all gay sex whatever really is depraved, shameless and lustful, even when you can see with your own eyes gay people who are sincerely trying to lead decent, committed and respectful relationships. You are arguing (as Doc Tor says) that those swans cannot really be black. Since Romans 1 can be read without that absurdity, even to the same conclusion that you think (correctly) that it is intended to reach, why do that? Why not accept that there are black swans, but that Paul (whether he knew about black swans or not) is not talking about them here?
Because you have given no evidence at all that Paul is talking about a specific sub-set of the gay community here. Why can't I say that not all gossips are wicked and depraved and so Paul only has a subset of them in mind here too? After all I know some gossips personally and they are anything but wicked and depraved.
I still cannot get my head round your argument. You agree that whatever Paul is talking about in Romans 1 was something that would be automatically condemned by his readers. But then you think that Paul was only referring to a particular expression of gay sex which, although he doesn't spell it out, all his readers in the cosmopolitan city of Rome would instinctively know he was talking about. Unlike your alcohol analogy he doesn't say that they 'overdid' the sex, he says, e.g. 'their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones'. Furthermore if he wanted to stress that it was just the lustful aspect of sexual sin in his sights then it is incredibly strange that he didn't pick heterosexual examples. They would certainly have been plenty for his readers to resonate with and he does so elsewhere.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
That conclusion can be reached on my reading, too, of course. I would say that it is easier on mine. If we take the essence of Paul's condemnation to be ‘turning from God' leading to ‘depravity and lust' then I can't ignore the application to my own life. If we take the essence of it to be ‘gay sex is wrong' then that's easy, because gay sex isn't something I do or am likely to do. I can, as a straight man, be directly guilty of Romans 1 depravity if I'm right - because the essence is selfish and obsessive lust, not plumbing. On your reading I can be guilty of the principal sin only by analogy.
I do find it interesting that in this discussion you are the one who keeps making the main thrust of Romans 1 to be about sex or that gay sex was the 'principle sin'. I certainly haven't. I said the main thrust is about turning from God to worship his creation and that the symptoms of this are expressed in various different ways in Romans 1, just one happens to be gay sex.
Or do you think that Paul is saying that every single sin listed in the chapter applies to every individual equally? I am most certainly a sinner, but I can put my hand up unashamedly on the murder front. Well, so far.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
After all I know some gossips personally and they are anything but wicked and depraved.
Seriously?
quote:
I still cannot get my head round your argument. You agree that whatever Paul is talking about in Romans 1 was something that would be automatically condemned by his readers. But then you think that Paul was only referring to a particular expression of gay sex which, although he doesn't spell it out, all his readers in the cosmopolitan city of Rome would instinctively know he was talking about. Unlike your alcohol analogy he doesn't say that they 'overdid' the sex, he says, e.g. 'their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones'.
I'm at a loss to understand why you keep saying that Paul doesn't spell it out as if this is a self-evident truth. It's perfectly arguable that he already has, in the preceding verses that it seems extraordinarly difficult to get people to read this evening. There is no way known, on either my NIV or the translation that Peter Ould presented, that verse 26 is the beginning of a brand new idea.
Homosexual sex is NOT the first thing mentioned in the passage, it's the SECOND, after worship of idols/created things. Why isn't gay-sex-as-part-of-idol-worship a valid subcategory of gay sex?
In fact, it's arguably presented more as a valid subcategory of idol worship, but the point is the same either way. You only get to the position that he unquestionably means all gay sex by reading a couple of verses with no surrounding context whatsoever. As soon as the surrounding context is viewed, it is perfectly possible to read it as being about gay sex associated with idolatry, not gay sex simpliciter. To assert that Paul gives no options for subcategories of gay sex is only possible if you resolutely fix your eyes on verse 26 as if that is the beginning of the idea under discussion. It simply isn't. The start is at least verse 21 and arguably even verse 18.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
It doesn't matter how many times you say it, you are still reading a utilitarian ethic back into Paul.
Firstly, I'm too lazy to confirm this by reading 88 pages but I think that was the first post I made on this thread. You must be confusing it with one about PSA ![[Biased]](wink.gif) . Secondly, the accusation is unfair.
If I was applying utilitarianism, I'd be saying that the good outcome is of overriding concern and the means of achieving that outcome is irrelevant or at least of minimal significance. I notice in passing that few people are prepared to say that stable gay relationships are incapable of producing good outcomes. I'm not saying that the means is irrelevant to morality.
I'm saying rather that the argument has been that St Paul is using a list of actions and states with demonstrably bad outcomes and therefore for consistency and indeed for the strength of the point he's making, his list must have only referred to actions which he and his audience believed had demonstrably bad outcomes. Contemporary stable gay relationships do not have these outcomes, therefore using this passage to refer to them is an unjustified extrapolation because St Paul can only have been referring to a form of homosexual sex that had bad outcomes. That does not mean I'm saying homosexual sex is good or permitted, as per your accusation. It does mean however that in order to say all homosexual sex is inherently bad, as well as the kind to which St Paul refers here, you have to look elsewhere for your evidence.
I suppose I could make a counter-accusation that you're applying a fundamentalist literalist ethic which gives no weight to the consequences of moral choices, only to their apparent scriptural and/or traditional approval without reason. But that wouldn't be any more credible, so I won't.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
It does mean however that in order to say all homosexual sex is inherently bad, as well as the kind to which St Paul refers here, you have to look elsewhere for your evidence.
Evidence?!? Since when does religious dogma depend on real-world evidence?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Evidence?!? Since when does religious dogma depend on real-world evidence?
Go boil your head, or something.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
But assuming that a historical individual is representative of his background except where he can be inferred not to be is a generally sound procedure.
Huh? My point is that we should not infer that Paul held different views on homosexuality to this background.
And my point is that any of Paul's views that we infer from his background are irrelevant to any argument based on the authority of Scripture.
To repeat an earlier point, we can infer that Paul believed that Adam was a literal historical individual. But someone who believes in the authority of Scripture is not therefore bound to take Paul's reference to Adam as a reference to a literal historical individual. They can take his references to Adam in Scripture as figurative - even though we doubt he intended them in that way. Paul's opinions are not what is authoritative: what Paul wrote is authoritative.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Paul's opinions are not what is authoritative: what Paul wrote is authoritative.
Insofar as what Paul wrote is Paul's opinion, I'm not sure you can make that distinction in any meaningful way.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Paul's opinions are not what is authoritative: what Paul wrote is authoritative.
Insofar as what Paul wrote is Paul's opinion, I'm not sure you can make that distinction in any meaningful way.
That is a big 'insofar as'. I think there are compelling reasons to reject it in any sense of 'is' for which 'a is b' implies that no distinction can be made between 'a' and 'b'.
If you want an introduction to what those reasons might be you can look up the 'intentional fallacy' and related problems in philosophy of language.
As orfeo points out above, in US legal theory the position that no meaningful distinction can be made between the opinions of the founding fathers and what the founding fathers wrote, so that therefore the meaning of the constitution is the founding fathers' opinions is originalism. I'm pretty sure you don't believe in originalism.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Paul's opinions are not what is authoritative: what Paul wrote is authoritative.
Insofar as what Paul wrote is Paul's opinion, I'm not sure you can make that distinction in any meaningful way.
That is a big 'insofar as'. I think there are compelling reasons to reject it in any sense of 'is' for which 'a is b' implies that no distinction can be made between 'a' and 'b'.
If you want an introduction to what those reasons might be you can look up the 'intentional fallacy' and related problems in philosophy of language.
Just out of curiosity, which of Paul's writings didn't he believe in?
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As orfeo points out above, in US legal theory the position that no meaningful distinction can be made between the opinions of the founding fathers and what the founding fathers wrote, . . .
True so far. America's founders are dead. They're not doing interviews anymore. All we know of their opinions are what they wrote themselves and what was written about them by others who met them. (This second category of information is only available for St. Paul in the form of mentions by other scriptural authors.)
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
. . . so that therefore the meaning of the constitution is the founding fathers' opinions is originalism.
The most important difference here is that the U.S. Constitution was a collective effort and the founders were a diverse group who differed on its interpretation in important regards. (e.g. if you asked Washington about church-state issues you'd get a very different answer than if you asked Madison.) And where does that put men who were considered founding fathers who nonetheless opposed the Constitution? (e.g. Patrick Henry)
Another key difference is that, unlike Christian scripture, the U.S. Constitution is subject to subsequent changes. The U.S. Constitution of today is not the same document ratified in 1787. Thanks to the thirteenth amendment (for example) modern Americans are not bound by the founders opinions on slavery in the way a Christian is tied to the Bible's approval of the practice.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I'm pretty sure you don't believe in originalism.
You're right that I don't believe in originalism, but probably wrong about the sense in which you mean that. It's not that I don't adhere to its precepts, I just don't believe it exists. Most so-called originalists will carefully calibrate their arguments to the proper level of abstraction to reach the desired conclusion.
Anyway, to bring this back to Paul (which you seem to dislike), all we've got are his writings and a few biographical mentions in Acts. I'm sure he had a lot of opinions not mentioned in any of these places, but we'll never know what they were. Pretending otherwise is akin to originalists pretense of being able to read the minds of America's dead founders. (e.g. "Alexander Hamilton would have had a very strong opinion on internet neutrality, and here it is! . . . ")
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Evidence?!? Since when does religious dogma depend on real-world evidence?
Go boil your head, or something.
hosting
If you want to tell someone to 'boil their head', you need to take that sentiment to the Hell board and post there. Here it's a breach of C3. The usual rules apply on this board.
thanks,
Louise
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
But that's not what Romans 1 teaches. Here's the verses you're referring to.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
(Romans 1:26-27 ESV)...
You never answered my question: how do you know that Paul isn't describing *straight* people indulging in gay/lesbian sex? The key words are EXCHANGE and GAVE UP. These people were previously having straight sex and switched to having gay sex. Well? OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peter Ould
Shipmate
# 482
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
But that's not what Romans 1 teaches. Here's the verses you're referring to.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
(Romans 1:26-27 ESV)...
You never answered my question: how do you know that Paul isn't describing *straight* people indulging in gay/lesbian sex? The key words are EXCHANGE and GAVE UP. These people were previously having straight sex and switched to having gay sex. Well? OliviaG
Because physis consistently in Scripture refers to natural for all humans and NOT what is natural for an individual. Find me any instance of physis in the NT or the LXX and it will be referring to humanity in general. If you think otherwise, then show us the verse.
--------------------
Peter Ould
www.peter-ould.net
Posts: 94 | From: Canterbury | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
Because physis consistently in Scripture refers to natural for all humans and NOT what is natural for an individual. Find me any instance of physis in the NT or the LXX and it will be referring to humanity in general. If you think otherwise, then show us the verse.
Hmmmm - 'Natural for all humans' is a phrase which got me thinking. We are all wonderfully different - some things are common to us all of course. But not as much as you'd think.
Expecting everyone to conform to a rigid, exclusive mind-set is the attitude Jesus stood up against in a big way, in fact it cost him his life.
He was the most INclusive person imaginable. I doubt if you'd find him picking scripture apart to find a new way to exclude people.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peter Ould
Shipmate
# 482
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
Because physis consistently in Scripture refers to natural for all humans and NOT what is natural for an individual. Find me any instance of physis in the NT or the LXX and it will be referring to humanity in general. If you think otherwise, then show us the verse.
Hmmmm - 'Natural for all humans' is a phrase which got me thinking. We are all wonderfully different - some things are common to us all of course. But not as much as you'd think.
Expecting everyone to conform to a rigid, exclusive mind-set is the attitude Jesus stood up against in a big way, in fact it cost him his life.
He was the most INclusive person imaginable. I doubt if you'd find him picking scripture apart to find a new way to exclude people.
Which is all very nice, but ignores the point that physis consistently refers to an understanding of what all humans should naturally do and NOT what an individual naturally wants to do as a unique variant of the human race.
But I'm fascinated by the idea that "Expecting everyone to conform to a rigid, exclusive mind-set is the attitude Jesus stood up against in a big way". Are you saying that when he spoke up against specific sins that was only contextual for the people directly in ear shot and that others were perfectly OK to commit those sins?
--------------------
Peter Ould
www.peter-ould.net
Posts: 94 | From: Canterbury | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Just out of curiosity, which of Paul's writings didn't he believe in?
Oh, I doubt he'd fully thought through the social implications of writing that in Christ there is no male or female or slave or free in Galatians 3:18. For example.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
. . . so that therefore the meaning of the constitution is the founding fathers' opinions is originalism.
The most important difference here is that the U.S. Constitution was a collective effort and the founders were a diverse group who differed on its interpretation in important regards.
That's not an important difference. Otherwise, there would be two types of writing, writing by a single author and writing by multiple authors. And while the one kind of writing would allow us to see into the author's head the interpretation of the other kind of writing is done on some other basis.
The meaning and interpretation of the Letter to the Romans would be unchanged were we to discover that it was a collaboration between Paul and Timothy and that Paul and Timothy differed on the interpretation of some of the paragraphs.
Anyway, in the present context, we are agreed that Johnny S's attempt to supplement the text of Romans by appealing to the presumed opinion of first century Jews shouldn't have authority over those who hold a high view of the Bible?
[ 09. May 2012, 08:55: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
But I'm fascinated by the idea that "Expecting everyone to conform to a rigid, exclusive mind-set is the attitude Jesus stood up against in a big way". Are you saying that when he spoke up against specific sins that was only contextual for the people directly in ear shot and that others were perfectly OK to commit those sins?
Nope - he spoke up against sins, of course. What he didn't do (Which was so unusual then as it is now) is to exclude groups of people.
So, in my view, if he were to meet a group of gay people he would welcome them, enjoy their company and eat with them - he wouldn't call them sinners at all. Any more than being a woman or having blue eyes is a sin. All gay people, women, folks with blue eyes etc etc can sin - of course. But WHO we are and how we love our partners simply isn't part of that picture.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peter Ould
Shipmate
# 482
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
But I'm fascinated by the idea that "Expecting everyone to conform to a rigid, exclusive mind-set is the attitude Jesus stood up against in a big way". Are you saying that when he spoke up against specific sins that was only contextual for the people directly in ear shot and that others were perfectly OK to commit those sins?
Nope - he spoke up against sins, of course. What he didn't do (Which was so unusual then as it is now) is to exclude groups of people.
So, in my view, if he were to meet a group of gay people he would welcome them, enjoy their company and eat with them - he wouldn't call them sinners at all. Any more than being a woman or having blue eyes is a sin. All gay people, women, folks with blue eyes etc etc can sin - of course. But WHO we are and how we love our partners simply isn't part of that picture.
So Jesus would never meet a sinner, spend time with them and then challenge them to "go away and sin no more"? Jesus never challenged people on their sin?
--------------------
Peter Ould
www.peter-ould.net
Posts: 94 | From: Canterbury | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Anyway, in the present context, we are agreed that Johnny S's attempt to supplement the text of Romans by appealing to the presumed opinion of first century Jews shouldn't have authority over those who hold a high view of the Bible?
I'll try to come back to this thread when I've got time but I do want to pick up on this,
This is not what I have been doing.
I'm saying that Paul's background is relevant in how we interpret what he wrote. That is all.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm arguing that, since Paul starts from creation, he is saying that everything in chapter 1 is wrong FULL STOP.
Agreed.
The question is, What is ‘in chapter 1'? Do we take those verses 26-27 at face value, and say we are being told here that homosexual debauchery by those who have turned from God to idols and abandoned all standards of decency as a result is wrong, or do we extend that by implication to all gay sex whatever, even commited, respectful, responsible and loving sexual relationships between faithful believers?
quote:
I don't think you are following what I'm saying.
1. Paul deliberately picks on a list of things that his hearers would assume were examples of sinful behaviour.
2. He explains why we do these things - what is going on in our hearts.
Again, we are in full agreement that this is what Paul is doing, and again the question is whether we need to extend one particular ‘example of sinful behaviour' to cover absolutely all instances of erotic love between persons of the same sex.
quote:
Because you have given no evidence at all that Paul is talking about a specific sub-set of the gay community here.
"Gay community" is an anachronism, as of course you know. The evidence that Paul was talking about shameless, depraved, lustful idolaters, is there in the text.
Of course you can extend that by implication in all sorts of ways. You could, I think, properly argue that someone utterly lost to the ordinary standards of fair-dealing and truth-telling is as much a Romans 1 sinner as those lost to standards of sexual propriety. You could properly argue that debauchees who prey only on the opposite sex are no less guilty than those whose vices make no distinction. Either of those extensions has at least the advantage that it is consistent with the thrust of Paul's main argument.
Is it necessary to extend the condemnation to gay people who are not debauched and lost to all decency in the Romans 1 way? No. Does doing so support the thrust of the main argument? No. Does it add anything to the rhetorical weight of the passage? No. Therefore that particular gloss on the text has very little to recommend it, as far as I can see.
quote:
Why can't I say that not all gossips are wicked and depraved and so Paul only has a subset of them in mind here too? After all I know some gossips personally and they are anything but wicked and depraved.
When they (and you, and me) are gossiping, we are doing something depraved and wicked, according to Paul. And he's right - isn't he? We are gloating over the faults of others and lessening them in the eyes of their peers, for nothing more than our idle curiosity and amusement. It is a horrible thing to do for the sake of pleasure - hence we are wicked - and when we practice it, we very commonly do culpably shut our eyes to the moral standards by which it is wrong - hence we are depraved.
If there is a sort of talking about others which isn't like that, I wouldn't call it gossip, at least, not in the sense of ‘gossip-used-as-the-name-of-a-sin'. I also wouldn't consider it to be covered by Romans 1.
quote:
I still cannot get my head round your argument. You agree that whatever Paul is talking about in Romans 1 was something that would be automatically condemned by his readers. But then you think that Paul was only referring to a particular expression of gay sex which, although he doesn't spell it out, all his readers in the cosmopolitan city of Rome would instinctively know he was talking about.
But he does spell it out! That's my whole point. He explicitly says that he is talking about shameless and depraved lusts.
Either you're saying that this extends by implication to gay sex not involving shameless and depraved lusts, in which case the burden is on you to explain why the extension is necessary, or you are saying that ALL gay sex always and necessarily involves shameless and depraved lusts, in which case you are mad.
quote:
Furthermore if he wanted to stress that it was just the lustful aspect of sexual sin in his sights then it is incredibly strange that he didn't pick heterosexual examples.
True. It is strange on ANY view of the chapter, since straight people sin so atrociously and so often in matters of sexual fidelity and respect.
My guess would be that Paul is concerned for moral depravity, rather than specific sexual sins. Verses 26-27 should therefore be read to emphasis the moral failings of the people concerned, rather than the logistics of their preferred ways of getting off.
quote:
I do find it interesting that in this discussion you are the one who keeps making the main thrust of Romans 1 to be about sex or that gay sex was the 'principle sin'. I certainly haven't. I said the main thrust is about turning from God to worship his creation and that the symptoms of this are expressed in various different ways in Romans 1, just one happens to be gay sex.
Yes, but mine is a defensive position. If no one had ever used this passage to have a go at gay people in particular, there'd be no need for anyone ever to have had to analyse it to see whether it is actually talking about gay people in particular.
I'm quite happen with an interpretation of Romans 1 & 2 that says "this is all about the ways in which we neglect and offend God, and on that point, all of us, Jew, gentile, Christian, atheist, straight, gay, whatever, are deeply guilty but can be forgiven by his grace". That IS my interpretation of chapters 1 & 2.
It's only in answer to the question of whether a gay Christian like orfeo, whose sexual ethics would be considered exemplary to the point of unworldliness if he were straight, is to be considered an especially depraved sinner because he happens to be gay, that I start to care about arguing over what verses 26-27 really mean. If we could all stick to "this is me" of the whole thing, there'd be no problem.
quote:
Or do you think that Paul is saying that every single sin listed in the chapter applies to every individual equally? I am most certainly a sinner, but I can put my hand up unashamedly on the murder front. Well, so far.
No. And I think that in exactly the same way, a non-celibate gay Christian, if his sexual ethics would otherwise pass muster were he straight, can read Romans 1 & 2 and say "Yes, that is me, I am absolutely a sinner, even though I am not guilty of SOME of the sins in this list, including murder, and the depravity described in verses 26-27."
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
a gay Christian like orfeo, whose sexual ethics would be considered exemplary to the point of unworldliness if he were straight
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Thanks. You should probably go back to your nominal gay Christian instead of using me as a specific example at this stage...
Nevertheless, the point you are making is an excellent one. I am familiar with a group of GLBT people of Christian backgrounds where the view is often expressed that sexuality is not a choice, but that sexual morality is. Homosexuals have a range of choices about sexual morality in exactly the same way that heterosexual people do.
And I agree with you that it's quite mad to lump all homosexuals in together as if they all have the same (depraved) sexual ethics. It makes no sense. In exactly the same way that the term "gay lifestyle" makes no sense - the image being of constant partying and hedonism.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
Which is all very nice, but ignores the point that physis consistently refers to an understanding of what all humans should naturally do and NOT what an individual naturally wants to do as a unique variant of the human race.
Except Paul's instructions are gender-specific. The question "is it okay to have sex with men" is not answered by Paul in terms of "all humans", but rather he gives two different answers depending on whether the subject is a man or a woman. This is explicit in the way the problem was phrased, first dealing with what the men were up to, and then coming round to discussing what the women were doing.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Just out of curiosity, which of Paul's writings didn't he believe in?
Oh, I doubt he'd fully thought through the social implications of writing that in Christ there is no male or female or slave or free in Galatians 3:18. For example.
Which just begs the question, if he didn't believe that was true why did he write it?
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
. . . so that therefore the meaning of the constitution is the founding fathers' opinions is originalism.
The most important difference here is that the U.S. Constitution was a collective effort and the founders were a diverse group who differed on its interpretation in important regards.
That's not an important difference. Otherwise, there would be two types of writing, writing by a single author and writing by multiple authors.
Wait, only two types of writing? That sounds like a severe undercount.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
And while the one kind of writing would allow us to see into the author's head the interpretation of the other kind of writing is done on some other basis.
The problem with this is that the U.S. Constitution doesn't have a single author. The original document was a the product of a committee that worked mostly by compromise and has been revised numerous time over the last two centuries by several other committees. The best you can say is that the 1787 original document represents what you would find if you could look into the head of a theoretical median member of the Constitutional Convention, but this doesn't represent any real person and it especially doesn't mean that all members of the Constitutional Convention agreed completely with all aspects of the document.
This is fundamentally different than a document that is the work of a single author. In that case we can be pretty certain whose opinion is being expressed. For example, while the 1787 version of the U.S. Constitution represents the general consensus of the half-a-hundred or so members of the Constitutional Convention, authorship of any individual clause is not ascribed, nor what the individual attendees thought of them. We can be pretty sure that there were very few approved unanimously. On the other hand, when we read Federalist 10 (or Madison's First Epistle to the New Yorkers, if you prefer) we can be reasonably certain that the opinions presented are those of James Madison. What we can't do is assume that these opinions are the same as those held by all fellow Constitutional Convention attendees (like George Mason), or even fellow Federalist Paper authors Alexander Hamilton and John Jay.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Evidence?!? Since when does religious dogma depend on real-world evidence?
Go boil your head, or something.
hosting
If you want to tell someone to 'boil their head', you need to take that sentiment to the Hell board and post there. Here it's a breach of C3. The usual rules apply on this board.
thanks,
Louise
hosting off
Noted, and my apologies.
Alternative version: Crœsos, you're not stupid and that was pointless trolling, so please pack it in.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
