|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Evidence?!? Since when does religious dogma depend on real-world evidence?
Alternative version: Crœsos, you're not stupid and that was pointless trolling, so please pack it in.
The point was made in all seriousness. Given the way religious teachings on this subject (and most others) boils down to "because God said so!", whether or not "[c]ontemporary stable gay relationships do not have these [bad] outcomes" is beside the point.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
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.
Not the question I asked. Paul is describing the behaviour of a specific group of people who changed their sexual activities. Why would Paul say they "exchanged" behaviours if they were exclusively gay all along? What evidence is there that these people engaged in what you and Paul call "unnatural" sex *before* this episode? OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The problem with this is that the U.S. Constitution doesn't have a single author.
As this is a tangent, and as the implications of the tangent for the thread as a whole are exactly the same regardless of which of us is right, I've started a separate thread
in Purgatory.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dennis the Menace
Shipmate
# 11833
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
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.
Not the question I asked. Paul is describing the behaviour of a specific group of people who changed their sexual activities. Why would Paul say they "exchanged" behaviours if they were exclusively gay all along? What evidence is there that these people engaged in what you and Paul call "unnatural" sex *before* this episode? OliviaG
I have only engaged in gay sex and that is natural for me!!
--------------------
"Till we cast our crowns before Him; Lost in wonder, love, and praise."
Posts: 853 | From: Newcastle NSW Australia | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
DH threads tend to move too quickly for me to keep up with and this is no exception. Plus I'm trying to avoid going round the same circles we have previously.
Therefore if I don't respond to posts or even drop off (the thread ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ) then don't read anymore into it than that.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
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?
And my reply is - neither. I thought I'd been pretty clear on that.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
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.
...
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.
This is what I meant by utilitarianism earlier - pace GreyFace too.
That was sloppy of me. What I meant was that you are using a circular argument here by coming up with your own definition of what is depraved and then reading it back into Romans 1.
All I'm asking for is to allow Paul to speak for himself. If he used the word depraved in the first place why don't we let him use it the way he wants to?
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
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.
Once more you are defining shameless and depraved and then reading that back into the discussion.
What strikes me about this passage is the way that Paul speaks of both desires (e.g. shameful lusts) and actions (e.g. indecent acts). He was writing a long way before concepts such as orientation were formed so we know he was not addressing such ideas. Nonetheless, he does write almost as if he was anticipating such discussions. (Again, I'm not speculating on whether he really was anticipating just on the words he left seem to do so.)
The juxtaposition of both desires and actions make it very hard for me to perform the kind of hermeneutical gymnastics that seem to come so easily to you. I hope I am open minded enough to be persuaded but I genuinely cannot see what seems so obvious to you. It could be my background but I don't think so.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The point was made in all seriousness. Given the way religious teachings on this subject (and most others) boils down to "because God said so!", whether or not "[c]ontemporary stable gay relationships do not have these [bad] outcomes" is beside the point.
I don't often agree with Crœsos (and even here would want to put a whole different nuance into what he said) but I do think he is onto something.
This is what I was trying to get at with my clumsy reference to utilitarian ethics.
The way I would put it is like this -
I know that how we interpret the bible is important but let's at least try to make it look as if there is a two way dialectic going on as we engage with the scriptures. I'm quite open to the likelihood that I'm defending cultural prohibitions that are not really God's prohibitions. I hope that we are also open to the possibility of the reverse happening.
One more comment and then I must dash.
I'm not convinced by the link made with shrine prostitution that Orfeo alluded too. There is a sequential argument that turning away from God to idols meant that God handed them over to shameful lusts. However there is nothing in the text to suggest that they happened at the same time. Indeed shrine prostitution was probably more likely to involve heterosexual practice.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However there is nothing in the text to suggest that they happened at the same time.
Then how do you explain the existence of "For this reason" or "Because of this" (or however else it's translated), at the beginning of verse 26?
It's a linking phrase. I've already set out why Peter Ould's suggestion that it links to the NEXT section makes no sense, in terms of English grammar. It naturally reads a link to the PREVIOUS section of material.
It's sitting there in the text. A linking idea.
Which is why I can't understand when the linkage is just left to dangle or treated as if it wasn't there. Verse 26 doesn't simply start with "God them gave over". It explicitly starts with the notion that God had a reason for doing so and that the reason has been set out in the text.
[ 10. May 2012, 06:38: 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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
What I meant was that you are using a circular argument here by coming up with your own definition of what is depraved and then reading it back into Romans 1.
But I know what shameless and depraved mean! Or, more specifically, I know what those English words mean and I trust that they are reasonably fair translations of whatever Paul says in NT Greek.
Paul isn't introducing some new moral category here. There's absolutely no evidence in the text that he is teaching that some thing that I might have imagined to be innocent is really wicked. He expects his readers to know what 'depraved' means, what 'lust' means, what 'shameless' means. He expects his readers to recognise, not to be taught, that the conduct he describes is all of that. And I do.
I don't really get the point of your objection. We bring our own understanding of ordinary words to the Bible every single time we read it - or anything else. Reading would be impossible if we did not. When the Bible says that Zaccheas was short, I know that he was no six-footer. Because I know what 'short' means. I bring that to the text. I have to. If the NT used 'short' in some special sense that bore no relation at all to the ordinary meaning of the word, it would tell me nothing about Zaccheas.
So when the Bible says that shameless lusts are wrong, I know that it isn't talking about ordinary gay people, because I know what 'shameless' means. I bring that to the text. I have to. If the NT used 'shameless' in some special sense that bore no relation at all to the ordinary meaning of the word, I'd have no way of knowing what Paul was talking about at all.
It's an utterly insane approach to the Bible to start from the assumption that we have no idea what the writers mean by any of the words that they use. But, of course, you'd never dream of applying that approach scripture generally. You are only doing it here because you need this passage to be talking about all gay people, and you are alert enough to recognise that in actual fact gay people are no more likely to exhibit ordinary-sense shamelessness, depravity and lust in their relationships than anyone else. Therefore Paul has to be using the words in some special sense in which a gay man who is self-controlled, sensitive and respectful is really burning with lust, a lesbian loving and caring for her family is really sunk in depravity, a gay person looking for an exclusive, monogamous, lifelong relationship before engaging in any expression of sexual intimacy is really exhibiting shamelessness.
And it is an insane approach. It makes an utter nonsense of Paul's words. It is as thoroughly disrespectful to scripture as it is to reason and conscience.
You could drop it, and the whole line of argument which we both agree that Romans 1 & 2 is presenting would remain entirely unchanged. So why not do it?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Then how do you explain the existence of "For this reason" or "Because of this" (or however else it's translated), at the beginning of verse 26?
It's a linking phrase. I've already set out why Peter Ould's suggestion that it links to the NEXT section makes no sense, in terms of English grammar. It naturally reads a link to the PREVIOUS section of material.
It's sitting there in the text. A linking idea.
Which is why I can't understand when the linkage is just left to dangle or treated as if it wasn't there. Verse 26 doesn't simply start with "God them gave over". It explicitly starts with the notion that God had a reason for doing so and that the reason has been set out in the text.
Did you deliberately miss out the rest of my quote?
"There is a sequential argument that turning away from God to idols meant that God handed them over to shameful lusts. However there is nothing in the text to suggest that they happened at the same time. Indeed shrine prostitution was probably more likely to involve heterosexual practice."
I'm agreeing with you that there are linked. What I said was is that there is no evidence that they happened at the same time. To repeat - to think about shrine prostitution has both connotations and if anything more likely to have heterosexual ones.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
What I meant was that you are using a circular argument here by coming up with your own definition of what is depraved and then reading it back into Romans 1.
But I know what shameless and depraved mean! Or, more specifically, I know what those English words mean and I trust that they are reasonably fair translations of whatever Paul says in NT Greek.
Okay, first on line definition I came to with 5 second google search:
Adj. 1. depraved - deviating from what is considered moral or right or proper or good...
If you still can't see the circularity in your argument then there isn't much point continuing this conversation.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The point was made in all seriousness. Given the way religious teachings on this subject (and most others) boils down to "because God said so!", whether or not "[c]ontemporary stable gay relationships do not have these [bad] outcomes" is beside the point.
Yes, but when I used the word evidence in the post to which I assumed - wrongly, and for that I apologise - you were replying in troll mode, I thought it would be clear to all readers that Johnny wasn't contending what you're rather narrowly defining as real-world evidence, and therefore I was talking about something else. For the record, I mean scriptural evidence.
You have to remember though, that you're dealing with people here who actually believe in the reality of God. So although I can have some fun debating the differences and similarities of religious and atheist ethics with you, ultimately for we theists, if it's the case that "God says so" then it's true. When I say that, I don't mean it in the sense that God arbitrarily decides what to define as good and evil but rather that if God is God and not a god or a sky-fairy or an evil supernatural being or a figment of somebody's imagination, then what he says is good must be good by definition or he is not God. Theists also believe that indications that God actually said so, whatever so is, count as evidence.
You also have to remember that we theists generally believe that this life isn't all there is. We consider what happens after death to be quite important and therefore we can't necessarily set our rule of morality to be that which brings about the greatest happiness for the direct participants in this life. But then again, I've never met an atheist who would set that rule either. It's just a bit more clear why theists can't.
I've long been convinced that a true materialist would have to deny the concept of morality as an illusion, and then feel free to break in and steal my TV if he was that way inclined and could get away with it. Explanations of how a sense of morality arises as an emergent genetic and societal conditioning that gives evolutionary advantage are all very well and almost certainly true but they don't come remotely close to saying why any given person ought to do what's right when a moral impulse tells him to do something that affords him no advantage. The non-sociopathic materialist then, the watered-down materialist who won't follow through on his materialism, can only say instead "Because it is!" and if he's honest, proceed on the premise that there is such a thing as right and wrong. But that's not philosophically much different to "Because God said so!" when it comes down to it, and then we're just onto the weighting we give to various sources of evidence as to what's right and what's wrong. There's that E word again.
For the record though (again), if you were trying to argue that attempts to determine guidelines or rules of morality that ignore entirely the positive nature of any outcome are doomed to failure, I'd agree. That's not what you said, though. You said that religious dogma ignores real-world evidence, which is obviously untrue.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Then how do you explain the existence of "For this reason" or "Because of this" (or however else it's translated), at the beginning of verse 26?
It's a linking phrase. I've already set out why Peter Ould's suggestion that it links to the NEXT section makes no sense, in terms of English grammar. It naturally reads a link to the PREVIOUS section of material.
It's sitting there in the text. A linking idea.
Which is why I can't understand when the linkage is just left to dangle or treated as if it wasn't there. Verse 26 doesn't simply start with "God them gave over". It explicitly starts with the notion that God had a reason for doing so and that the reason has been set out in the text.
Did you deliberately miss out the rest of my quote?
"There is a sequential argument that turning away from God to idols meant that God handed them over to shameful lusts. However there is nothing in the text to suggest that they happened at the same time. Indeed shrine prostitution was probably more likely to involve heterosexual practice."
I'm agreeing with you that there are linked. What I said was is that there is no evidence that they happened at the same time. To repeat - to think about shrine prostitution has both connotations and if anything more likely to have heterosexual ones.
I'm not suggesting 'at the same time'. I'm suggesting a causal link. That's what the word 'because' means. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
It doesn't say "also", or "and another thing" or anything else of that nature. A word or phrase is used, on both translations I'm aware of, to designate a CAUSAL link.
That IS the whole evidence I'm basing this on. Right there.
Maybe it's just because of my profession, but when someone uses a reference to CAUSE or REASON I take it seriously. If the homosexuality being talked about is CAUSED by something, ergo we are not talking about homosexuality with DIFFERENT causes, if such a thing exists.
Which gets back to where we started. Either you assert that all homosexuality can indeed be traced back to the CAUSE referred to in verses 21-25, or it's quite obvious that there's no sensible basis for declaring that the description of something as shameful and depraved has anything to do with homosexuality that doesn't have that cause.
[ 10. May 2012, 10:11: 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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I mean, no-one looks at the passage about meat sacrificed to idols and thinks that it's a call to vegetarianism, do they? It's about meat that has been treated in a certain way. The passage has absolutely NOTHING to say about the wisdom, ethics, morality of eating meat that has NOT been sacrificed to idols.
If a vegetarian tried to argue that Paul was showing that eating meat was morally problematic, people would be in total uproar.
And yet, try and make the same point regarding homosexuality and people think you're trying to weasel out of the 'plain' meaning of the text. Because apparently it's simply self-evident that Paul WASN'T intending to say something about all meat, but that he WAS intending to say something about all homosexuality.
Well no, sorry, that's the very essence of prejudice. Look at the passage as it actually stands and there is every reason to see it as linked to worship of idols - the very essence, from the Jewish point of view, of being a Gentile. The entire passage is about portraying the terribleness of Gentiles BECAUSE of their failure to worship the one true God. I worship the one true God. So how on earth does the rest of the passage have anything to do with my situation?
--------------------
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:
Which gets back to where we started. Either you assert that all homosexuality can indeed be traced back to the CAUSE referred to in verses 21-25, or it's quite obvious that there's no sensible basis for declaring that the description of something as shameful and depraved has anything to do with homosexuality that doesn't have that cause.
Again, then it must also apply to all the sins listed in verses 29-31 since they too are part of this sequential 'giving them over to a depraved mind'.
And yes, I am saying that all homosexuality, all envy, all murder, all gossip, all arrogance ... all of that can be traced back to verses 20-25. If we turn away from God to worship created things then this is what we should expect to happen. Not all at once to every single human being, but as a society.
When I say that the depiction of women in the media in the past has led to men viewing women as sex objects I do not mean that every single man views every single woman as a sex object but that the view in the past has led to this problem in the present.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Again, then it must also apply to all the sins listed in verses 29-31 since they too are part of this sequential 'giving them over to a depraved mind'.
The difference here is that nobody needs to use verses 29-31 to prove that envy, murder, strife and deceit are wrong. If the subject of strife and deceit come up you don't get conservative Christians jumping up and saying, deceit is wrong, it says so in Romans 1.
[ 10. May 2012, 11:16: 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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Well then, if you take the view that MY homosexuality is due to MY turning away from God, I have nothing further to say than what I have already said about how that made me feel as a teenage Christian who made his personal commitment to God right around the same time as his sexuality was being made manifest. And no, the two weren't linked - I didn't become a Christian in a desperate attempt to become straight.
So yeah, right at the same time as I was turning growing up in the church into a personal commitment to Jesus as Lord, I was apparently also abandoning God.
Well, that's your theory anyway, as far as I can see.
[X-post, responding to Johnny S]
[ 10. May 2012, 11:19: 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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Okay, first on line definition I came to with 5 second google search:
Adj. 1. depraved - deviating from what is considered moral or right or proper or good...
I don't think that's an especially good definition ("Morally corrupt; perverted" was my first hit, and better conveys how the word is used) but in any event I don't see how your definition refutes my case.
You can't be suggesting that it is not circular reasoning to approach Romans 1 with the presupposition that all gay sex is wrong, but that it is circular to approach it with that question open. But I don't see what else you are suggesting.
quote:
If you still can't see the circularity in your argument then there isn't much point continuing this conversation.
No, I really can't. My reasoning is:
1. Romans 1:26-27 condemns same sex depravity.
2. Not all gay sex is depraved.
Therefore:
3. Romans 1:26-27 does not condemn all gay sex.
This is not circular reasoning. I think that you think it is because you don't have a mental concept in play here of "(potentially) wrong but (certainly) not depraved". I do. Therefore, to me, the question: "Is this depraved?" is not the same question as "Is this wrong?" and may be answered differently. If you are taking my premise "Not all gay sex is depraved" (which I am suggesting as an obvious truth) to include the conclusion "Therefore some gay sex is not wrong"* you might mistake my argument for a circular one, but really it isn't.
Three questions for you:
1) Do you believe that there are any circumstances in which straight sex is not (a) depraved, (b) shameless, and (c) lustful?
2) Do you believe that there are any circumstances in which gay sex is not (a) depraved, (b) shameless, and (c) lustful?
3) If you answered 'yes' to each part of (2), why do you think that that sort of gay sex is included in Romans 1:26-27?
(*Which I'm not arguing - that's something I genuinely don't know. I'm arguing about this one passage)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The difference here is that nobody needs to use verses 29-31 to prove that envy, murder, strife and deceit are wrong. If the subject of strife and deceit come up you don't get conservative Christians jumping up and saying, deceit is wrong, it says so in Romans 1.
They could do, but there are other verses in the NT that also say that these things are wrong. Just as there are other places in the NT that say that homosexual behaviour is wrong. We can look at those other places if you want but I thought we had been through them before.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So yeah, right at the same time as I was turning growing up in the church into a personal commitment to Jesus as Lord, I was apparently also abandoning God.
I have deliberately avoided making it personal. I don't want to try to comment on your personal circumstances.
All I will say generally is that I thought the example I gave about the portrayal of women made it clear that I am talking about an impact on society. Paul was talking about 'men' (i.e. mankind). I was discussing it on that level too.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So yeah, right at the same time as I was turning growing up in the church into a personal commitment to Jesus as Lord, I was apparently also abandoning God.
I have deliberately avoided making it personal. I don't want to try to comment on your personal circumstances.
All I will say generally is that I thought the example I gave about the portrayal of women made it clear that I am talking about an impact on society. Paul was talking about 'men' (i.e. mankind). I was discussing it on that level too.
Nope. Unless the translation is wrong (and I doubt that it is), Paul is quite clearly saying God handed THEM over. As in "not us".
Indeed, that's the entire point of the passage as far as I can see. Talking to Jews about those awful Gentiles. Paul gets to the US part in chapter 2 having made it all about THEM in chapter 1.
The proposition that God vaguely handed 'mankind' over isn't consistent with that.
--------------------
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:
My reasoning is:
1. Romans 1:26-27 condemns same sex depravity.
2. Not all gay sex is depraved.
Okay, last try and then I'll give up.
If depraved is defined as "deviating from what is considered moral or right or proper or good..." then your argument must be circular.
You say that not all gay sex is depraved because it does not measure up to your (or our current society's definition of wrong or improper).
If (and of course that is a big 'if') Paul says that gay sex deviates from what is good or moral then it must be depraved, by definition. Saying that it doesn't fit your view of depravity is neither here nor there. It is Paul's view of depravity that we are discussing at the moment.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Nope. Unless the translation is wrong (and I doubt that it is), Paul is quite clearly saying God handed THEM over. As in "not us".
Indeed, that's the entire point of the passage as far as I can see. Talking to Jews about those awful Gentiles. Paul gets to the US part in chapter 2 having made it all about THEM in chapter 1.
The proposition that God vaguely handed 'mankind' over isn't consistent with that.
Ah, I see where you are going with this now.
Don't think it holds though. The entire history of the Jewish race is littered with idolatry. It is virtually all the OT prophets talk about. The them and us is not as distinct as you are trying to make out.
Anyway, off to bedfordshire.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Nope. Unless the translation is wrong (and I doubt that it is), Paul is quite clearly saying God handed THEM over. As in "not us".
Indeed, that's the entire point of the passage as far as I can see. Talking to Jews about those awful Gentiles. Paul gets to the US part in chapter 2 having made it all about THEM in chapter 1.
The proposition that God vaguely handed 'mankind' over isn't consistent with that.
Ah, I see where you are going with this now.
Don't think it holds though. The entire history of the Jewish race is littered with idolatry. It is virtually all the OT prophets talk about. The them and us is not as distinct as you are trying to make out.
Anyway, off to bedfordshire.
The history of the Jewish race isn't in issue. The self-righteous perception of the Jewish race at the time, quite possibly in direct opposition to unpleasant bits of their history they'd like to forget, is in issue.
AND HE GETS TO THEIR PROBLEMS IN CHAPTER TWO.
I'm actually grateful for this conversation, because it's made me a lot MORE convinced of my point of view than I was before. I always found this bit of Romans the most difficult of the 'anti-gay' passages to wrestle with. But frankly, it's now clear to me that the conservative use of this passage involves unravelling the structure of the first 3 chapters of Romans.
And that just won't do in my book. It involves focusing on the trees and completely ignoring where they are located in the woods. The first couple of chapters are structured entirely to get to the grand statement that ALL have fallen short of the glory of God. But that's simply not where Paul's argument starts, and the idea that he's talking about ALL of us in Chapter 1 just makes total nonsense of the structure that's been amply demonstrated by scholars when they're focused on the woods and not talking about the individual trees.
THEY have fallen short (chapter 1). YOU/WE have fallen short (chapter 2). So ALL have fallen short (chapter 3).
Your point of view doesn't hold up because it renders the twist in Chapter 2 utterly meaningless. Paul's aim is to have the audience nodding furiously in agreement about the failings of those filthy 'others', and then turn the pointing finger back on the audience. So that when he gets to saying ALL have fallen short, there's no longer any room for people to be going "what do you mean, all?". He's led them down the path to agreeing with him that all really means all. And he's done it across several chapters.
Which THEN means he can get onto the solution, finally.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So yeah, right at the same time as I was turning growing up in the church into a personal commitment to Jesus as Lord, I was apparently also abandoning God.
I have deliberately avoided making it personal. I don't want to try to comment on your personal circumstances.
Yes, but...
If you were discussing how stupid and retarded black people were, do you really suppose the black person you're discussing it with isn't going to take it personally?
Either you're able to hold a greater amount of cognitive dissonance than I was, right before I repented of my anti-homosexual views, or you really do mean that orfeo is a depraved queer who's abandoned God.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
On reflection, it does occur to me that I might be read as inciting Johnny to commit a C3/4 violation - something that he's obviously trying to avoid.
Apologies. As you were. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
<tangent alert>
I'm trying to source an alleged quotation from +Rowan that goes something like "The overwhelming witness of Scripture to homosexuality is negative". I can't find it in The Body's Grace and Google has not yet been my friend. I hope someone on this thread may be able to help?
thanks
</tangent>
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
On reflection, it does occur to me that I might be read as inciting Johnny to commit a C3/4 violation - something that he's obviously trying to avoid.
Apologies. As you were.
But this is one of the distinguishing features of this debate, though it is far from unique in this regard. It is very difficult to take part in without it at least feeling personal, especially if one is a member of the group in question. Any pretense at objectivity would be just that, because one's subjectivity is being cited or, as it often feels, attacked. Thus, if you really want to put it that way, the whole debate creates one extended violation of commandments 3 and 4.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I think the hosts would like us to maintain that fiction to enable the smooth running of the DH board.
Yes, it's personal (or in my case, vicariously personal), and something we all need to remember.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Hosting info/
We used to actually have a different version of commandment 3 which counted insulting groups that shipmates belonged to as personally insulting them, but that ended up greatly restricting debate, as it became hard to say anything critical about any group as there was probably a shipmate belonging to it who was affected (probably even Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915 or reformation of 1879, like the old Emo Phillips joke), so the line ended up where it is, that if someone insults a group you belong to and you find it infuriating and personally offensive, then the remedy is to take them to Hell and start a Hell thread.
In the case of people who are utterly monomaniacal racists, homophobes, nazis etc. the no crusading/ don't be a jerk commandments are invoked by the admins when they see a problem which can't be resolved otherwise.
That's why the line is where it is and how it works. Discussion of that line and whether it ought to be changed/why it is like it is, would belong in The Styx though, not on this thread.
If you want to discuss it further, do feel free to start a thread in the Styx.
Thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
--------------------
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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The first couple of chapters are structured entirely to get to the grand statement that ALL have fallen short of the glory of God. But that's simply not where Paul's argument starts, and the idea that he's talking about ALL of us in Chapter 1 just makes total nonsense of the structure that's been amply demonstrated by scholars when they're focused on the woods and not talking about the individual trees.
THEY have fallen short (chapter 1). YOU/WE have fallen short (chapter 2). So ALL have fallen short (chapter 3).
I'm really struggling to see how your they/we division fits so neatly in chapter 1. Verse 20 is explicit, Paul is talking about men (mankind) since the creation of the world.
I can't think of a more graphic idiom that speaks of all humanity than that.
I'm not disputing the they/we rhetoric, just that your neat division does not fit with the text.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Either you're able to hold a greater amount of cognitive dissonance than I was, right before I repented of my anti-homosexual views, or you really do mean that orfeo is a depraved queer who's abandoned God.
As it happens, I'm quite happy to answer the question without feeling pressurised into making a personal attack.
I do see orfeo in Romans 1, in the same way that I see myself and you in it.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If depraved is defined as "deviating from what is considered moral or right or proper or good..." then your argument must be circular.
But depraved isn't defined as that, and it isn't used like that in Romans 1.
Read Romans 1: 26:27 and look at the picture Paul is presenting. He is talking about people who have deliberately turned from God, rejected his truth, and embraced a lie. These people find themselves without a moral compass. They have abandoned any and all standards of propriety. They no longer feel any guilt or shame. They are not restrained by what (for most people) are natural inhibitions. They are governed entirely by lust – selfish and predatory desires. This is more than mere moral failing, it is the abandonment of moral standards because of a rejection of the source of truth and goodness. It is total moral corruption. That's depravity.
quote:
You say that not all gay sex is depraved because it does not measure up to your (or our current society's definition of wrong or improper).
No. Absolutely wrong. You have utterly misunderstood me. I have said nothing like that at all, and several times meant to say the opposite.
I am saying that 'depraved' 'shameless' 'lustful' and the rest are not simply synonyms for 'wrong'. They indicate a particular degree and quality of wrongness. I am not saying that gay people are not depraved because I consider their behaviour acceptable – I am saying that they are not depraved because even if they are wrong their wrongness does not generally have the quality of depravity.
Forget the gays for a moment. Imagine a Muslim man, who has four wives, and who sincerely tries to treat them lovingly, fairly, and equally, as the Prophet commands. If you believe monogamy to be superior to polygamy you can say that this man is wrong. He isn't depraved. He is a man of principle, someone who acknowledges a moral standard and tries to live in obedience to it, whose conscience still accuses him when he fails, who is still capable of shame and remorse when he sins. It is possible to argue against his moral choices, and to claim that he has got things wrong, without thinking that Romans 1 language is appropriate – merely being wrong is NOT the same as being depraved.
I'm arguing the same about gays. Most of the gay people I know are principled, they have working consciences, they acknowledge restrictions on what they can rightly do, and they manage to feel guilty about breaking those restrictions. They are not in the Romans 1:26-27 category – and that is not a matter of opinion but one of readily observable fact. They are not like the people that Paul is describing. They are not depraved.
That has nothing to do with the question of whether you or I or society or St Paul or God wishes to take issue with their moral standards and choices. That is entirely beside the point. I'm saying nothing about that one way or another. The point is that they have standards. They are – and want to be – within the field of moral discourse. Romans 1:26-27 people don't want that. Those people are governed only by their desires.
That's why I say that Romans 1:26-27 isn't talking about the gay people I know. It has nothing to do with whether they meet my personal standards of morality.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Either you're able to hold a greater amount of cognitive dissonance than I was, right before I repented of my anti-homosexual views, or you really do mean that orfeo is a depraved queer who's abandoned God.
As it happens, I'm quite happy to answer the question without feeling pressurised into making a personal attack.
I do see orfeo in Romans 1, in the same way that I see myself and you in it.
That's dodging the question, though.
Given that we all could be in Romans 1, and that there is a sure remedy by acknowledging Jesus as saviour, do you still count gays - whatever their profession and expression of faith - with those who have abandoned God?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
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.
Galatians 2:15. "We who are Jews by nature".
--------------------
"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 Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The first couple of chapters are structured entirely to get to the grand statement that ALL have fallen short of the glory of God. But that's simply not where Paul's argument starts, and the idea that he's talking about ALL of us in Chapter 1 just makes total nonsense of the structure that's been amply demonstrated by scholars when they're focused on the woods and not talking about the individual trees.
THEY have fallen short (chapter 1). YOU/WE have fallen short (chapter 2). So ALL have fallen short (chapter 3).
I'm really struggling to see how your they/we division fits so neatly in chapter 1. Verse 20 is explicit, Paul is talking about men (mankind) since the creation of the world.
I can't think of a more graphic idiom that speaks of all humanity than that.
I'm not disputing the they/we rhetoric, just that your neat division does not fit with the text.
Yes, that's verse 20. Before the description of people exchanging the worship of God for the worship of idols starts.
I keep feeling alternatively quite mystified and quite fascinated by the way this exercise constantly skips over verses 21 to 25.
The point of Paul's writing across several chapters is to show that all have fallen short of the glory of God, but you seem intent on portraying it as all have fallen short IN THE SAME WAY. Which is completely foreign to large chunks of the actual text. It's quite clear that all have fallen short, but that they've fallen short in different ways and for different reasons. Those under law have sinned under law, those apart from the law have sinned apart from the law, etc etc.
--------------------
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
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
I keep feeling alternatively quite mystified and quite fascinated by the way this exercise constantly skips over verses 21 to 25.
I recall having a similar discussion over the identical passage with some of the same participants and expressing the very same thing...
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
I keep feeling alternatively quite mystified and quite fascinated by the way this exercise constantly skips over verses 21 to 25.
I recall having a similar discussion over the identical passage with some of the same participants and expressing the very same thing...
Tag. You're it. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
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:
It is total moral corruption. That's depravity.
Yes. And the punchline of chapter 3 is that it is all of us. Not some particularly bad sub-group.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
That's why I say that Romans 1:26-27 isn't talking about the gay people I know. It has nothing to do with whether they meet my personal standards of morality.
I understand that perfectly. The sticking point is not my grasping of your argument it is that I disagree with it.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Given that we all could be in Romans 1, and that there is a sure remedy by acknowledging Jesus as saviour, do you still count gays - whatever their profession and expression of faith - with those who have abandoned God?
That's a very con evo definition of salvation isn't it?
Apparently I can carry on gossiping to my heart's content as long as I believe in Jesus?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, that's verse 20. Before the description of people exchanging the worship of God for the worship of idols starts.
I keep feeling alternatively quite mystified and quite fascinated by the way this exercise constantly skips over verses 21 to 25.
Sigh. I'm not skipping over verses 21-25. They are central to my argument. You just don't agree with my interpretation, but I'm skipping nothing.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The point of Paul's writing across several chapters is to show that all have fallen short of the glory of God, but you seem intent on portraying it as all have fallen short IN THE SAME WAY. Which is completely foreign to large chunks of the actual text. It's quite clear that all have fallen short, but that they've fallen short in different ways and for different reasons. Those under law have sinned under law, those apart from the law have sinned apart from the law, etc etc.
I'm lost as to how that contradicts anything I've said so far.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
I keep feeling alternatively quite mystified and quite fascinated by the way this exercise constantly skips over verses 21 to 25.
I recall having a similar discussion over the identical passage with some of the same participants and expressing the very same thing...
Agreed.
This is rapidly turning into one of those new free-to-air TV channels.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It is total moral corruption. That's depravity.
Yes. And the punchline of chapter 3 is that it is all of us. Not some particularly bad sub-group.
No. No. NO.
The punchline of chapter 3 is that we have all sinned and fallen short. The punchline of chapter 3 is NOT that "we are all depraved".
That's the absolutely critical point in why I don't agree with you.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Given that we all could be in Romans 1, and that there is a sure remedy by acknowledging Jesus as saviour, do you still count gays - whatever their profession and expression of faith - with those who have abandoned God?
That's a very con evo definition of salvation isn't it?
Apparently I can carry on gossiping to my heart's content as long as I believe in Jesus?
There's some wilful misunderstanding here, and it's not coming from me.
No one is suggesting (least of all me) that Christians don't sin. Hell, Paul makes my point for me better than I ever could (Romans 6).
I am asking you bluntly whether or not you consider gay Christians fellow believers in Christ, or whether their unrepentant sexual activity means it doesn't matter what they call themselves or believe themselves to be, they have abandoned God and are not Christians because God says so.
You know exactly what I'm asking. If you don't want to answer the question, then say so.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No. No. NO.
The punchline of chapter 3 is that we have all sinned and fallen short. The punchline of chapter 3 is NOT that "we are all depraved".
That's the absolutely critical point in why I don't agree with you.
Well there it is then.
I don't think that Paul is saying that every single person is equally depraved but I can't see any evidence in Romans for the very clear distinction that you are making.
Ironically your position is too black and white for me.
Therefore I don't think there is anything more to say.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Yes. And the punchline of chapter 3 is that it is all of us. Not some particularly bad sub-group.
If that is right (I don't think it is, necessarily) the point still remains that Romans 1:26-27 describes a particular sort of obviously depraved behaviour. I can concede the point that the people guilty of that behaviour are actually no worse than the rest of us, and it still leaves the question open whether ALL gay sex is included by implication in vv.26-27.
That's why are asked you whether straight sex can avoid being depraved, shameless and lustful. Because if it can, even though (you assert, and for the sake of argument I accept) straight people are all guilty of total depravity, then this demonstrates that not everything a depraved person does exhibits depravity. That must be true of homosexuals, too. Therefore if there is gay sex that morally speaking looks nothing like Romans 1:26-27 sex (and there clearly is) then that sex might not be included by implication, just as the non-depraved straight sex practised by depraved straights isn't included.
You could, of course, argue that all sex, gay or straight, is inevitably depraved, shameless and lustful, because we are all so utterly corrupt by nature that we know no other sort of fucking. That would be a possible view, even if it is not exactly an orthodox one. But it would also abolish all moral distinctions in sexual conduct - and I don't understand you to be doing that.
Can we agree that even if all human beings whatever are universally and equally guilty before God, Romans 1:26-27 is meant to describe an example of sexual conduct of a particularly wrong sort, that better indicates that universal wickedness, than, say, sex between loving, commited and mutually respectful opposite sex partners?
I'm asking you to extend that principle - to agree that Romans 1:26-27 is meant to describe an example of sexual conduct that better indicates universal wickedness than sex between loving, commited and mutually respectful same sex partners.
Even if you think all gay sex is wrong, and all human beings equally evil, would you not agree that two men who are in love, and have sex, are not demonstrating their innate wickedness as clearly as are two men who have sex because they have abandoned all pretensions to decency and are burning with lust? That's my argument - you can be gay, and sexually active, and still not be doing what Romans 1:26-27 describes.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There's some wilful misunderstanding here, and it's not coming from me.
No one is suggesting (least of all me) that Christians don't sin. Hell, Paul makes my point for me better than I ever could (Romans 6).
I am asking you bluntly whether or not you consider gay Christians fellow believers in Christ, or whether their unrepentant sexual activity means it doesn't matter what they call themselves or believe themselves to be, they have abandoned God and are not Christians because God says so.
You know exactly what I'm asking. If you don't want to answer the question, then say so.
I don't know how to answer your question because I simply wouldn't use those categories. I don't see how I could because I don't really know him or generalise about all gay people who call themselves Christians.
My hunch would be the former (misguided Christians) but I would never make that kind of call based solely on the nature of the sin/issue.
I don't think that self-identifying as a Christian means that someone is a Christian. But that has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Obviously, both you and I know Christians who wouldn't see any ambiguity in my question, and wouldn't hesitate to answer "no, of course they're not Christians" and would further add they are knowingly corrupting the church.
It seems clear enough to me that if you interpret Paul as saying gay sex is a sign of abandoning God, you believe an unrepentant gay has abandoned God.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
I keep feeling alternatively quite mystified and quite fascinated by the way this exercise constantly skips over verses 21 to 25.
I recall having a similar discussion over the identical passage with some of the same participants and expressing the very same thing...
Tag. You're it.
I'd love to, but lack the energy to go through it again. I guess this is why it's a Dead Horse. We have two mostly irreconcilable interpretations based on differing sets of assumptions. I've had the same go-round innumerable times over the 30 years span I have been a gay Christian.
I can't remove the Romans 1 text from the time and space from which it was written. This was written at a time when the Attis/Cybele cult was Rome's civic religion - a cult whose participants engaged in ritual castration, gender bending, orgiastic ceremonies, and same-sex, opposite-sex and paedophilic cult prostitution - stuff that is so foreign to us (in the sphere of religion, at least) that we, unsurprisingly, tend to screen it out when reading texts like these.
In reading Romans 1, I see Paul paraphrasing a passage from the Book of Wisdom (Chap. 14.12-6, 22-25):
quote:
For the beginning of fornication is the devising of idols: and the invention of them is the corruption of life. For neither were they from the beginning, neither shall they be forever. For by the vanity of men they came into the world: and therefore they shall be found to come shortly to an end. For a father being afflicted with bitter grief, made to himself the image of his son who was quickly taken away: and him who then had died as a man, he began now to worship as a god, and appointed him rites and sacrifices among his servants. Then in process of time, wicked custom prevailing, this error was kept as a law, and statues were worshipped by the commandment of tyrants….
…And it was not enough for them to err about the knowledge of God, but whereas they lived in a great war of ignorance, they call so many and so great evils peace. For either they sacrifice their own children, or use hidden sacrifices, or keep watches full of madness, So that now they neither keep life, nor marriage undefiled, but one killeth another through envy, or grieveth him by adultery: And all things are mingled together, blood, murder, theft and dissimulation, corruption and unfaithfulness, tumults and perjury, disquieting of the good, forgetfulness of God, defiling of souls, changing of nature, disorder in marriage, and the irregularity of adultery and uncleanness. For the worship of abominable idols is the cause, and the beginning and end of all evil.
...and pointing to a contemporary example - the Cybele/Attis cult - which his original readers would have been familiar with, to make his point. So I can't read Romans 1 without reading Wisdom 14.
As mentioned upthread, this is exhortation against idolatry, not homosexuality, and ISTM that the example given in v. 26-27 is merely a very notorious example of the out-of-control behaviour most closely identified with institutional idolatry, which according to Wisdom and Paul, becomes inevitable when people turn their backs on God for idols.
Secondly, this passage is descriptive, not proscriptive. It doesn’t say “Don’t have same-gendered sex. Here’s why.” It says: “Look at those idolaters burning in lust and engaging in unexpected (para physn), humiliating acts with other men and women.” There is a big difference in moral scope between using a descriptive and proscriptive passage to pass judgment on an activity. The former gives us the context often without the reasoning while the latter often does the opposite (which is why I'm not in favour of the Bible as rule-book approach anyway.) It just seems far too ambiguous and narrowly-focused to be used against modern gay people - especially gay Christians/Jews.
I honestly don't know what Paul would have thought of gay people in monogamous relationships. Being gay is a social construct that didn't exist in his time. But what I find frustrating is the refusal of many Christians on the conservative side to acknowledge the ambiguity of this passage and say "I am not sure what he's referring to either." and leave it at that. In modern American evangelical culture, there seems to be an insistence that God is primarily a rule-giver, the Bible is primarily a rule book and that the rules are meant to be quite clear as you’ll be judged on them (specifically and individually). So discussion of the nuance and ambiguity of this passage and other passages is often met with hostility.
But surely, if this was as much of a moral and salvific issue that the mainstream of the church makes it today, there would have been far more written about it in Scripture, and in a far less ambiguous way. The conservative response that there isn't more about it "because everyone would have acknowledged it was wrong" just doesn't square with a fledgling 1st Century church recruiting Gentiles in a multicultural Mediterranean setting - Gentiles who mostly came out of pagan backgrounds with all kinds of moral norms.
So I guess I had a bit more energy than I thought - but didn't want to go over the same items that were already covered (and far more eloquently than my attempt some months back.) Both conservative and liberal Christians acknowledge that the Bible is a mishmash of time and culturally-based observations and commands, as well as timeless truths. I struggle with the difficulty conservative Christians have with acknowledging that these two verses at least may contain a bit of the former. Afters uncountable fruitless discussions I am at a point in my faith journey where (from the safety of a post-gay church environment) I’m content to allow the passage of time to clarify this issue. I just don't have the patience for wilful ignorance and exclusion anymore.
But, honestly, I have fewer problems with Romans 1 than the other passages.
[ 11. May 2012, 21:05: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Hi Toujours Dan,
I think you might have missed where debate restarted on this thread about the Cybele/Attis claims. I'd suggest going back those few pages and reading from the post I've linked up to here. Or else we really will end up re-inventing the wheel on that one!
cheers,
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There's some wilful misunderstanding here, and it's not coming from me.
No one is suggesting (least of all me) that Christians don't sin. Hell, Paul makes my point for me better than I ever could (Romans 6).
I am asking you bluntly whether or not you consider gay Christians fellow believers in Christ, or whether their unrepentant sexual activity means it doesn't matter what they call themselves or believe themselves to be, they have abandoned God and are not Christians because God says so.
You know exactly what I'm asking. If you don't want to answer the question, then say so.
I don't know how to answer your question because I simply wouldn't use those categories. I don't see how I could because I don't really know him or generalise about all gay people who call themselves Christians.
My hunch would be the former (misguided Christians) but I would never make that kind of call based solely on the nature of the sin/issue.
I don't think that self-identifying as a Christian means that someone is a Christian. But that has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality.
But logically, Johnny S, the position you are putting forward is that we are all 'depraved'.
And it seems to me that this means that you think we have all abandoned the worship of God for the worship of idols.
Sorry, but... REALLY?
Because that certainly isn't an orthodox interpretation of the passage. I don't recall anyone ever standing up and preaching from Romans 1 about how we are all, every one of us, depraved. I've never heard anyone stand up and preach about how WE knew God, but WE neither glorified God nor gave thanks to him and how OUR thinking became futile.
I've certainly heard people stand up and preach from Romans 3 about we all have sinned. Just not that we are all idolaters who have been given over to sexual impurity and degrading one another and how we've all exchanged the truth of God for a lie.
I'd be quite fascinated to hear a sermon along these lines, actually... see just how it goes down.
If people actually believed and preached this point of view, they would NOT flick open their Bibles to Romans 1 for the purpose of bashing homosexuals over the head with it. There'd be no point.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
