|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: gay sex - being and doing
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Doublethink;
quote:
You haven't answered my question Steve.
I had to backtrack on this a bit as you seem to have originally asked it during an exchange with Ad Orientem which I skimmed through because I've been through most of it with him on earlier threads - all the 'authority of the Church' stuff.
Your question is about 'intersex', I gather; and I honestly don't know what the full answer is. One obvious thing about it is that it's a very variable phenomenon, so I'd be inclined to deal with each such case individually, rather than give a blanket answer.
As I understand it such conditions are rare even today, and would be even rarer in Jesus' time because before modern medicine survival into adulthood would be uncommon. So hardly surprising Jesus didn't explicitly deal with it. I would be hesitant to draw inferences either way from that.
I'm broadly with 'Ad' in saying that such anomalies are a result of 'sin in general', the dislocation of human life which results from first being at odds with God. And I'm with Jesus in saying, as he did of the 'man born blind' that the ultimate detail causes and reasons are none of our business - doing what we can to support people and put things right, that's our business. And I can see what you might say there in the context of this thread, but I think 'putting things right' means doing it God's way, not just to suit our own wishes.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
No that was not my question.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
[crosspost replying to Steve Langton]
It has to relate to after the fall, Adam and Eve did not have parents to leave (yes I know it is an allegory, but by definition the rules arose after the fall.). And anyway Jesus is preaching to people *after* the fall, in a world in which intersexed people already exist. Therefore I don't think your response adequately answers my point.
When he spoke Jesus did not give explicit guidance to non-standard people who existed at that time - therefore we have to infer, and I don't think my suggested inference makes less sense than your inference. Why do you think it does ?
This was my question.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
That requires a fairly large layer of interpretation, and I am not convinced as to its origin.
When I asked you about intersexed people you replied that they were explained by the fall of man. You would, I assume, make the same attribution about homosexuality.
Jesus statement about man cleaving to woman, was made *after* the fall of man. But he did not add a caveat, but some of you are born neither man nor woman therefore you should do x. So it is reasonable to hold that he was saying something akin to; the majority of people who are male or female and heterosexual should seek to have a monogamus permanent relationship and within this raise their children.
I don't see why we derives the parallel to this to be - if you don't fall into these categories don't marry.
You would have a strong case for arguing the most likely parallel would be, don't be promiscuous, form a monogamous permanent relationship - you have a duty to raise abandoned orphans who have no family to claim them.
And this is the inference I was referring back to.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Doublethink;
quote:
You haven't answered my question Steve.
I had to backtrack on this a bit as you seem to have originally asked it during an exchange with Ad Orientem which I skimmed through because I've been through most of it with him on earlier threads - all the 'authority of the Church' stuff.
Your question is about 'intersex', I gather; and I honestly don't know what the full answer is. One obvious thing about it is that it's a very variable phenomenon, so I'd be inclined to deal with each such case individually, rather than give a blanket answer.
As I understand it such conditions are rare even today, and would be even rarer in Jesus' time because before modern medicine survival into adulthood would be uncommon. So hardly surprising Jesus didn't explicitly deal with it. I would be hesitant to draw inferences either way from that.
I'm broadly with 'Ad' in saying that such anomalies are a result of 'sin in general', the dislocation of human life which results from first being at odds with God. And I'm with Jesus in saying, as he did of the 'man born blind' that the ultimate detail causes and reasons are none of our business - doing what we can to support people and put things right, that's our business. And I can see what you might say there in the context of this thread, but I think 'putting things right' means doing it God's way, not just to suit our own wishes.
Please explain why intersex people existing are a result of sin/the Fall? I honestly don't understand. It's not a disability, it's not harmful, it's just a difference. Not all people are male or female - why is that a problem?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As I understand it such conditions are rare even today, and would be even rarer in Jesus' time because before modern medicine survival into adulthood would be uncommon. So hardly surprising Jesus didn't explicitly deal with it. I would be hesitant to draw inferences either way from that.
Yet you're quite happy to draw inferences about lifelong monogamous same-sex couples, that would have been about as common (in the open) as intersex folk in Jesus' time, from vague references to Genesis that don't address the issue even in the slightest.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Chast, when you said, "I personally suck at loving my enemies," I'm sure we all nodded in sympathy. However, I couldn't help wondering if you meant to write "when" instead of "at". ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
(I tried to send this as a PM, but your box is full.)
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Doublethink;
quote:
It has to relate to after the fall, Adam and Eve did not have parents to leave (yes I know it is an allegory, but by definition the rules arose after the fall.). And anyway Jesus is preaching to people *after* the fall, in a world in which intersexed people already exist. Therefore I don't think your response adequately answers my point.
When he spoke Jesus did not give explicit guidance to non-standard people who existed at that time - therefore we have to infer, and I don't think my suggested inference makes less sense than your inference. Why do you think it does ?
1) Yes, I know Genesis' early chapters are not a modern scientific academic historical account. For what it's worth I often use the example of comparing a hypothetical multi-volume account of the Russian Revolution (an academic version) with the more accessible but far less academic account presented by Orwell in “Animal Farm”. As I understand it Jerome, the early translator into Latin, gave a literary judgement that those chapters are 'after the manner of a popular poet' – but of course a poet inspired by God to give us helpful info.
2) On that basis I think the idea that “God created them male and female....” is intended to represent a reality, God's original intent. The comment “For this reason a man will leave....” clearly doesn't refer directly to the parentless (and anyway not entirely literal) Adam and Eve, but of course is drawing a consequence from the basic idea of that 'creation male and female'.
3) My previous post answers the next – the chance of Jesus meeting someone with such a problem was very limited anyway. Inferring anything from this is pretty much impossible.
My best assessment is that Jesus quotes the Genesis passage as "what marriage is about" and therefore why divorce is wrong even if in OT terms it had to be allowed. But Jesus' re-assertion of the principle is valid for his people (which remember according to the NT is a voluntary church of serious believers, not a 'Christendom' of nominal believers).
I am aware, by the way, that (a) Jesus was the guy who was willing to eat with 'harlots and tax-collectors' - but also (b) when forgiving the woman taken in adultery he said 'Go and sin no more'. I would try to get that balance of generous forgivingness with clear understanding of right and wrong.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Dafyd;
quote:
So if that bit only literally applies to the ancient world, then presumably the man and wife bit only literally applies to the ancient world too?
Not quite what I said. Ancient custom tended to follow that way of thinking, that on marriage a man would 'leave' parents; we don't follow that custom so often. That doesn't invalidate the basic meaning of the original. I'm intrigued by the way that just about any feeble excuse will do to evade what are rather plain meanings. Why does Jesus pick texts about male and female and becoming 'one flesh' except because he means the idea is important?
Which brings me to an answer to this
by Croesos earlier;
quote:
By Croesos;
You just applied special pleading (again!) as to why "[t]here is neither Jew nor Gentile" is something that can be interpreted in a straightforward, literal manner as being against racial divisions but "nor is there male and female" is some kind of super-secret metaphor you need the decoder ring to realize it means the exact opposite of the anti-racist text.
As another shipmate pointed out, what Paul is opposing here (in both cases) is people thinking they are superior (as in the traditional Jewish prayer 'I thank God I was not made a woman') – In Christ people must not think that they matter more to God because they are Jewish, or Greek, or Roman, or whatever, or because they are free rather than a slave, or that they matter more to God because they are male. It's not about the rather obvious and unchanging fact that men and women are different in rather important ways! Of course in terms of racial equality this also implies that, for example, Christians may make interracial marriages; in Christian terms the problem would be a marriage with a non-Christian, which would have potential practical problems. But equal status of male and female is still seen in terms of traditional relationships. He's not saying all differences have been abolished.
Working this out is not about some 'decoder ring' – it's about something called “reading in context”. The Galatians context is about all being equally 'sons of God' (including even the women having what would previously have been the status of males only – a point obscured by fussy gender-neutral translations, by the way).
A further clue that Paul cannot have intended what you suggest is the wider context – Paul's epistles as a whole. It is known that Galatians is one of the earliest of Paul's letters that have come down to us; but it is in the later ones that Paul says all kinds of things affirming the traditional view of marriage, including Romans 1; 26-7 and the other passages clearly disapproving of gay relationships. At least credit the guy with being consistent....
I'd add another point here – Paul is a guy who in Jewish eyes had driven a cart and horses through the OT Law (if not as whole battalion of heavy tanks!); he is the guy who in the 'circumcision' controversy said something on the lines of “If cutting bits off you is so important, why don't they go the whole hog?” As I read it, Paul is the kind of person that if he had meant that 'same-sex-marriage is OK', he would have said it openly, not left it to be dubiously deduced from silence and putting questionable limitations on what he's supposed to have said/meant.
Much the same point applies to Jesus' words – do you really believe that the Jesus who shocked people by saying stuff like “You have heard it was said... but I tell you” would have avoided being clear if he had intended to radically change the existing ideas about marriage to allow it to same-sex-couples? But asked about divorce, yes, again he shocked people by saying “Divorce wasn't really God's ideal; it was a concession made through Moses because of human 'hardness of heart' which means marriages don't always work out”. But still he affirmed that divorce shouldn't happen and called his followers to live out the proper meaning of marriage. And how did he illustrate that? By going back to Genesis and to a passage explicitly saying “God made them male and female and that is the meaning of marriage”.
Again I have to ask – if Jesus, who was so happy to shock conventional thought on so many issues, had intended to change the implications of that text by approving same-sex-marriage, do you really think he wouldn't have said so openly, not left it to weak weaselly words like “It's about divorce so it's not relevant....” or “Jesus didn't say anything (or to quote an earlier post, “Jesus said fuck-all...”) so we can fill in his silence with what we'd like to believe about it”. Instead he chooses a text which could hardly more emphatically confirm the traditional interpretation.....
Steve,
We may not agree on many things, but that at least is well said.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Doublethink;
quote:
It has to relate to after the fall, Adam and Eve did not have parents to leave (yes I know it is an allegory, but by definition the rules arose after the fall.). And anyway Jesus is preaching to people *after* the fall, in a world in which intersexed people already exist. Therefore I don't think your response adequately answers my point.
When he spoke Jesus did not give explicit guidance to non-standard people who existed at that time - therefore we have to infer, and I don't think my suggested inference makes less sense than your inference. Why do you think it does ?
1) Yes, I know Genesis' early chapters are not a modern scientific academic historical account. For what it's worth I often use the example of comparing a hypothetical multi-volume account of the Russian Revolution (an academic version) with the more accessible but far less academic account presented by Orwell in “Animal Farm”. As I understand it Jerome, the early translator into Latin, gave a literary judgement that those chapters are 'after the manner of a popular poet' – but of course a poet inspired by God to give us helpful info.
2) On that basis I think the idea that “God created them male and female....” is intended to represent a reality, God's original intent. The comment “For this reason a man will leave....” clearly doesn't refer directly to the parentless (and anyway not entirely literal) Adam and Eve, but of course is drawing a consequence from the basic idea of that 'creation male and female'.
3) My previous post answers the next – the chance of Jesus meeting someone with such a problem was very limited anyway. Inferring anything from this is pretty much impossible.
My best assessment is that Jesus quotes the Genesis passage as "what marriage is about" and therefore why divorce is wrong even if in OT terms it had to be allowed. But Jesus' re-assertion of the principle is valid for his people (which remember according to the NT is a voluntary church of serious believers, not a 'Christendom' of nominal believers).
I am aware, by the way, that (a) Jesus was the guy who was willing to eat with 'harlots and tax-collectors' - but also (b) when forgiving the woman taken in adultery he said 'Go and sin no more'. I would try to get that balance of generous forgivingness with clear understanding of right and wrong.
You still haven't explained why the inference of celibacy is more probable than the inference of the pursuit of monogamy.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Arethosemyfeet;
quote:
Yet you're quite happy to draw inferences about lifelong monogamous same-sex couples, that would have been about as common (in the open) as intersex folk in Jesus' time, from vague references to Genesis that don't address the issue even in the slightest.
Again “don't address the issue even in the slightest” is a big-time 'argument from silence'; and an argument rather defeated by the simple fact that Jesus quotes just about the most pro-heterosexual-marriage text in the whole Bible. This isn't a matter of 'not addressing the issue' – it's a matter of saying something so clear one way that the other issue doesn't have to be addressed.
by Doublethink;
quote:
You would have a strong case for arguing the most likely parallel would be, don't be promiscuous, form a monogamous permanent relationship - you have a duty to raise abandoned orphans who have no family to claim them.
Is it necessary to have a sexual relationship in order to do that??
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Please explain why intersex people existing are a result of sin/the Fall?
Often it's not a great problem, sometimes apparently it even goes unnoticed; but from the Wiki article I just looked up intersex is generally a problem, often a severe one. In the days before modern medicine some forms of intersex could be fatal because of complications in the... er... 'plumbing'.
Due to sin (in general) we live in a spoiled world,this is just one aspect of that to which I wouldn't normally give great prominence except that it's been explicitly raised in this post. As someone else said back upthread, it doesn't imply the intersex person is unusually sinful compared to the rest of us. How we react to the challenge does matter, of course.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Doublethink;
quote:
You still haven't explained why the inference of celibacy is more probable than the inference of the pursuit of monogamy.
If marriage is about God having created them 'male and female' anything else would not be marriage/monogamy. The alternative would seem to be celibacy...?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
You see I don't get that leap of logic. Seems like celibacy is not intended either.
So given the original intention is not possible for the minority we are discussing, would it not make more sense to try and form a pairbond and possibly raise children ?
In other words, to me, celibacy seems further from the original intention than a same-sex relationship.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Arethosemyfeet;
quote:
Yet you're quite happy to draw inferences about lifelong monogamous same-sex couples, that would have been about as common (in the open) as intersex folk in Jesus' time, from vague references to Genesis that don't address the issue even in the slightest.
Again “don't address the issue even in the slightest” is a big-time 'argument from silence'; and an argument rather defeated by the simple fact that Jesus quotes just about the most pro-heterosexual-marriage text in the whole Bible. This isn't a matter of 'not addressing the issue' – it's a matter of saying something so clear one way that the other issue doesn't have to be addressed.
I'm pro-heterosexual-marriage. So much so that I'm participating in one (which Jesus didn't do, to the best of our knowledge). Being pro-heterosexual-marriage doesn't mean being against gay marriage any more than it means being against celibacy (which clearly Jesus wasn't). It is you who are making the argument from silence and reading your own prejudices back into Christ's words.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
I don't think Jesus addressed same sex marriage or same sex couples because long term, monogamous same sex couples didn't exist, at least not in any great number.
For the most part, the social and economic system didn't support them. Before the advent of industrialization and the modern welfare state, it was up to each family to provide their own livelihood and protect themselves and having as many children as possible provided for the greatest amount of income and security.
The ancient world depended on subsidence farming and small craft industry for income. More children could herd more cattle, plant more crops, build more furniture or tents, etc., and provide better defence against those who might want to steal land or possessions. In a land of frequent drought and famine, large family networks were the key to survival. As soon as children were old enough to walk, they were put to work. Children also were expected to take care of the elderly and infirm who couldn't continue to be productive. In this context, choosing to forgo heterosexual marriage and children to be in a same sex relationship meant not doing one's fair share to contribute to the the welfare of the family (while relying on others to do so) which would have been seen as a betrayal.
Once industrialization occurred and welfare, social security and police protection was outsourced to the State from from the family unit, things started to change. Once child labour was abolished in favor of mandatory education, having as many kids as possible stopped being an income provider and started (again purely from an economic POV) to be a drain. It was only then when people were freed from these economic pressures that more homosexually-inclined people, who undoubtedly always existed, could pursue long term, same sex relationships.
Also, the ancient world didn't divide people into "gay" or "straight". Instead people were divided into "tops" (inserters) or "bottoms" (insertees). In ancient Greece, Rome and throughout the Middle East it was perfectly acceptable (and expected) for a freeman to be the penetrator of women, slaves and boys but not acceptable (with legal sanctions) for him to be the insertee. So the whole concept of sexual orientation and egalitarian same sex as opposed to opposite sex relationships just didn't exist.
As much as all this is interesting, it seems to me that the Bible is speaking to a very different sexual context. And arguing from silence isn't going to be very persuasive to those who aren't already persuaded. No doubt, marriage within scripture was male/female(s), but it doesn't make much sense for the Bible to make all kinds of provisions for things that didn't exist at the time of writing. No doubt Jesus overturned many OT laws, but He didn't speak to how one should behave on the internet, or whether one should text while driving, or how to manage road rage. I look to the Bible for guidance on how to conduct my same sex relationship (agape love and fidelity) even if it doesn't mention them specifically.
--------------------
"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
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Chast, when you said, "I personally suck at loving my enemies," I'm sure we all nodded in sympathy. However, I couldn't help wondering if you meant to write "when" instead of "at".
(I tried to send this as a PM, but your box is full.)
I thought of making a horrible joke about it but decided it mightn't be appropriate... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) (As well as perhaps giving people the wrong impression about where my limits lie, but that's a long story which has already been told before... ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
Will clear out that inbox right away by the way.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And I'm with Jesus in saying, as he did of the 'man born blind' that the ultimate detail causes and reasons are none of our business
No, I'm sorry, that is a wild mischaracterisation of what Jesus said!!
He did NOT say "it's none of our business". He flat out said that people were wrong to attribute sin as the cause of the man's blindness.
--------------------
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
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm intrigued by the way that just about any feeble excuse will do to evade what are rather plain meanings. Why does Jesus pick texts about male and female and becoming 'one flesh' except because he means the idea is important?
And I'm intrigued by the way anti-gay people find just about any feeble excuse to read anti-gay ideas into texts when the plain meaning is talking about something else. Jesus is having an argument about divorce. He says "man should not separate what God has joined together". So what's important and relevant to his argument is that marriage is a God ordained joining. He quotes the one-flesh passage to prove this. So the plain meaning of the text as used by Jesus is that marriage is a God-ordaining joining.
Jesus is not quoting the passage to say that the married couple need to move out of their parents' houses and ought not to live with their parents. Jesus is not quoting the passage to say that it's really important that there is one male and one female in every marriage and that he therefore objects to gay marriage. Both those ideas are coincidentally present in the text of the quoted passage, but they're not the reason Jesus was quoting it.
quote:
Of course in terms of racial equality this also implies that, for example, Christians may make interracial marriages; ... But equal status of male and female is still seen in terms of traditional relationships. He's not saying all differences have been abolished.
I find it utterly inconsistent that you think "There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female" legitimizes interracial marriage but does not legitimize same-sex marriage. Nothing you wrote makes that apparent inconsistency seem any less bizarre to me.
quote:
Paul says all kinds of things affirming the traditional view of marriage, including Romans 1; 26-7 and the other passages clearly disapproving of gay relationships.
I don't personally agree. I don't think Paul at any point in his writings condemns same-sex relationships. I think that in Romans Paul has a long dialogue with an opponent, and in Rom 1:18-32 the opponent is speaking (who is condemning same-sex relationships), and Paul responds critically in Rom 2. I think that the words Paul uses in the passages 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 1 are mistranslated when they are rendered as anti-gay - Paul's society was very familiar with same-sex activities and they had words for it which Paul never uses, instead Christians have come up with hand-waving explanations to defend their anti-gay translations which just don't fly.
quote:
Paul is the kind of person that if he had meant that 'same-sex-marriage is OK', he would have said it openly...
Much the same point applies to Jesus' words – do you really believe that the Jesus who shocked people by saying stuff like “You have heard it was said... but I tell you” would have avoided being clear if he had intended to radically change the existing ideas about marriage to allow it to same-sex-couples?
You're making a massive and wrong assumption here. You're assuming that the world Jesus and Paul lived in was a world in which everyone rejected same-sex sex and same-sex marriage and considered it a clear biblical teaching that same-sex anything was not allowed. That is every kind of not true. Same sex sexual activities were rampant in the Roman world. They weren't just confined to what we would think of as gay people. But, also, men we would think of as straight, would regularly have sex with teenage boys (the best explanation I've seen for this is that masculine features are quite late-developing and so prior to the growth of body hair around the age of 22ish a teenage boy actually still has a lot of feminine characteristics which a straight man can find attractive). Same-sex activity was particularly prevalent in Greece and Rome, and was part of a history that went back centuries in Greece.
As far as I am aware, there is no surviving information concerning the frequency of same-sex relationships among Jews at the time of Jesus or whether they were considered acceptable in Judea. However, we can presume that any Greeks and Romans living in Judea were probably practicing such relationships with their usual frequency.
So your suggestion that if Paul had wanted to challenge the existing social norms that he would have said something, is true but backwards. The existing social norms in Greece allowed for same-sex relationships. If Paul had wanted to challenge those, he would probably have said a lot about it. For starters he would have mentioned at least once even one of the words that the Greeks used to talk about such relationships, but he doesn't.
Jesus is a much, much more difficult case to judge. Because we just don't know enough about exactly what was going on in Judea at that time and the level of influence different ideas were having. We do know that the area Jesus lived in had been extensively "Hellenized" - Greek style cities had been deliberately built there, and Jesus could have walked to one in less than a day from Nazareth. But we also know that the native population resented the intrusion of Greek culture. Judea at the time was a huge mishmash of people with different ideas and cultures and views, and so Jesus and the people who he was talking to could have fallen anywhere on the spectrum of thinking same-sex acts were totally fine through to thinking they totally weren't. There's not anything overly much in the gospels on this subject, though there's a couple of passages that are a little suggestive...
When Jesus is asked to heal a Roman Centurion's "beloved slave", Jesus would have every reason to ask the question "um, are you guys, um, y'know? In a kind of relationship that some devout Leviticus-following Jews might disapprove of?" but he doesn't ask that question. Instead he holds the Centurion up as an exemplar of faith. (It's also not at all clear whether law-following Jews at the time would have interpreted the Leviticus passages as binding on Gentiles. eg would God-fearing gentiles who were attending Jewish religious ceremonies be expected to avoid same-sex relations, or was that regarded as just another one of many parts of the law that were assumed to not apply to gentiles?)
Jesus also talks about those who "become eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven" - ie will refrain from normal marriage due to dedicating their lives to focus on God's goals, and compares them with those who were "born eunuchs" which may well be meaning "born gay".
Far more controversially, the gospel of John's entire portrayal of the "beloved disciple" who rests his head on Jesus' breast etc would have struck the Greek audience as being somewhat reminiscent of the ancient Greek tradition where the teacher-student relationship could include a sexual component.
Basically, we don't have good data on Jesus' society, and while we know that the Greek and Roman influences were strong, we don't know to what extent their pro same-sex activity viewpoints had influenced Jewish society, and we have little or no data as to whether Jews were following the Leviticus same-sex activity prohibitions or not or whether they were trying to enforce them on gentiles or not.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Agreed. I find it utterly baffling that people insist on using the Bible as some kind of divine lawbook without any cultural context, nuance or understanding of the linguistic differences.
The Bible is a sacred text as it uses a variety of genres to give us an understanding of who God is and how He acted in the world. As an Anglican it makes sense for it to be prominent in worship.
But good grief! The rules in the Bible are contradictory, unclear and often presented as advice rather than law (Acts 15). Jesus contradicts the OT and on occasion the Apostles (Paul, etc) contradict Jesus. People try to make rules out of passages that aren't presented as law (like Romans 1:26-27, which is descriptive, not proscriptive and hinges on v. 23 and v. 25 which seems awfully narrow to me).
If God wanted to create a divine rulebook He did a lousy job at it with the Bible. At least in Islam, there is Shari'a, which may seem primitive but is true legal code. It seems to me that many Christians wish we had a version of it in our religion.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
Actually Roman law was fairly clear that a man remained under the control of his father as long as his father was alive even if he married. This wouldn't have applied to non-Romans. In addition the older custom of wives becoming part of her husband's family was becoming uncommon in Rome (so much so that Augustus some years previously had taken measures because certain priests of the state cults had to be married under the old style).
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
If God wanted to create a divine rulebook He did a lousy job at it with the Bible. At least in Islam, there is Shari'a, which may seem primitive but is true legal code. It seems to me that many Christians wish we had a version of it in our religion.
It's not that they wish we did. They think we do.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
On the subject of Jesus and what he said:
I am struck by a Star Trek sketch in which Captain Picard can be found trying to write an inclusive version of 'No man has gone before' and ends up with some massive long 'No creature with any sentient characteristics whatsoever has ever gone before' clearly for rhetorical effect this is a bit rubbish (in the end they went for No one)
I think most of what Jesus says in the gospels is like this, poetic and rhetorical devices to make the same strong point. There is a gap between humans and God and that we need to align our lives to God in order to close it before the proverbial hits the fan.
Rhetorical devices fail when you have to say things like 'Male, female he created them though some of them had a few differences like that dude with fragile X syndrome, a couple with 5 alpha reductase syndrome and that one there with congenital adrenal hyperplasia syndrome' so I imagine he was more concerned with the message (which applies to all these people) than being absolutely technically correct about including every aspect of the broad spectrum that is humanity.
Why are people so happy to unpack 'Neither male nor female, Jew nor Gentile, Slave nor Free' to include every nationality and creed - St Paul obviously did not mean us all to become agender and obviously did not mean that salvation is not available outside of those prescribed categories. We know what St Paul meant and that he was using a rhetorical device that basically meant 'everyone' so why is it so hard to see those rhetorical devices elsewhere?
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Yes, I would agree.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Starlight;
quote:
I don't personally agree. I don't think Paul at any point in his writings condemns same-sex relationships. I think that in Romans Paul has a long dialogue with an opponent, and in Rom 1:18-32 the opponent is speaking (who is condemning same-sex relationships), and Paul responds critically in Rom 2.
I hope I will eventually recover from the damage inflicted by me pinching myself to convince myself that your statement here was no weird dream but had actually been written in the real world! This is seriously bizarre interpretation.
I'm fairly well at home in Romans 1 – it's quite a basic evangelistic text. I've been back looking at the Greek (in which I'll admit I'm not fluent, but I have a good interlinear text and a decent dictionary) and I can't find in it any trace of 1; 18-32 being a separate bit attributed to an opponent at all. All the 'fors' and 'therefores' and so on are there as you'd expect if it was Paul's main line of argument, and it does in fact make a coherent argument with what precedes and what follows. Further, the following argument does not seem anywhere near as coherent if you take ch 1 out of it.
Indeed, you have to ask what in this passage is 'opposing' Paul's position? Which bits of this exposition of the nature and workings of sin are you suggesting Paul would disagree with so much? I know you want to claim he disagrees with vv26-7; but the problem is if he'd disagreed with only that point, he'd either have left the issue out altogether or (less likely) made it very clear indeed that it was an opposing position. The rest of the passage – well why would Paul disagree?
Actually I think your interpretation here contains (unintended on your part, no doubt!) two rather key admissions about the text.
Firstly, that you have found yourself unable to fragment these verses; you've had to accept that ch1;18ff is a connected and coherent argument, all one chunk, and that the controversial vv26-7 are an integral part of that chunk. Indeed on the face of it your interpretation of the passage must be pretty similar to mine; it's just that you don't want to accept the implications of that being Paul's view so you've had to resort to an extreme reconstruction to avoid that conclusion. However, if that extreme reconstruction cannot be justified (and I don't see how it can be)....?
Secondly, it seems that despite all the shilly-shallying, evasions, fine distinctions and so on of other interpreters, you've had to admit that these verses are indeed after all 'condemning same-sex relationships'. Again, you don't want to admit that this is Paul's view and therefore the true Christian view, and so you've had little choice but a drastic reconstruction to artificially attribute that view to a supposed opponent. But again, if it actually is Paul's view...?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Paul's view? Really? Paul is no fan of heterosexual sex either.
Paul's view is if you must fuck, fuck one person. This, crudely but accurately, represents Paul's view on sex.
Kinda contrasts with the whole, "be fruitful and multiply" bit, yes? So, we demonstrably see Paul is bringing in his own baggage.
Reading the bible is one massive irregular verb.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Paul's view? Really? Paul is no fan of heterosexual sex either.
Paul's view is if you must fuck, fuck one person. This, crudely but accurately, represents Paul's view on sex.
Kinda contrasts with the whole, "be fruitful and multiply" bit, yes? So, we demonstrably see Paul is bringing in his own baggage.
Reading the bible is one massive irregular verb.
That's a dandy post. I want to keep it and frame it. Go, girl.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
I hope I will eventually recover from the damage inflicted by me pinching myself to convince myself that your statement here was no weird dream but had actually been written in the real world! This is seriously bizarre interpretation.
It's not that bizarre given that Starlight's interpretation shows up in a lot of respectable theological journals and is mentioned here, here, here, and here, to name a few.
I find it intriguing though I think Jeramy Townsley's interpretation where Paul is describing cult prostitution found in the Attis/Cybele cult is a bit more convincing.
In any case, the link between "them" worshiping images made to look like "mortal man, and animals and birds and reptiles" (v.23), repeated again in serving "created things instead of the creator" (v. 25)being linked to God "giving them over" to a lustful punishment is far too narrow to use against all forms of homosexuality.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm fairly well at home in Romans 1 – it's quite a basic evangelistic text. I've been back looking at the Greek (in which I'll admit I'm not fluent, but I have a good interlinear text and a decent dictionary) and I can't find in it any trace of 1; 18-32 being a separate bit attributed to an opponent at all.
The crucial verses are Romans 2:1-4, which is where the argument turns round.
The Jewish addressee argues that the Gentile idolatry and sexual irregularity of 1:18-27 leads to the catalogue of wrongdoing in 28-32. But, says Paul, you Jews also engage in all the wrongdoing of 28-32 as well. Therefore, you have no grounds for saying that God will judge the Gentiles any more harshly than he will judge the Jews. Rather all have fallen short of the glory of God, and all will be redeemed.
It's arguable to what extent Paul rejects the argument in its entirety, or merely its application to Gentiles alone. What is clear is that any attempt to use the passages in Romans 1 to condemn homosexuality must take into account Romans 2:1.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Steve Langton - so what about celibacy (in people of any sexual orientation)? Genesis says bad, Paul says good. What do you say?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Steve Langton - so what about celibacy (in people of any sexual orientation)? Genesis says bad, Paul says good. What do you say?
And Jesus says something inbetween with a comment about 'eunuchs for the kingdom's sake'. I think the answer is "Sometimes in a sinful world celibacy is a good thing". But I would reject the view that being celibate is somehow 'super-spiritual', and I regard it as particularly dubious in the context of RC clergy, given that the NT clearly intends elders/episkopoi to be normally married people.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Steve Langton - so what about celibacy (in people of any sexual orientation)? Genesis says bad, Paul says good. What do you say?
And Jesus says something inbetween with a comment about 'eunuchs for the kingdom's sake'. I think the answer is "Sometimes in a sinful world celibacy is a good thing". But I would reject the view that being celibate is somehow 'super-spiritual', and I regard it as particularly dubious in the context of RC clergy, given that the NT clearly intends elders/episkopoi to be normally married people.
But Paul says clearly that being married is second best to being celibate. I thought you believed everything that Paul wrote was the word of God?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
cough cough
x-post with Atmf
[ 03. August 2014, 21:17: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Steve Langton - so what about celibacy (in people of any sexual orientation)? Genesis says bad, Paul says good. What do you say?
And Jesus says something inbetween with a comment about 'eunuchs for the kingdom's sake'. I think the answer is "Sometimes in a sinful world celibacy is a good thing". But I would reject the view that being celibate is somehow 'super-spiritual', and I regard it as particularly dubious in the context of RC clergy, given that the NT clearly intends elders/episkopoi to be normally married people.
In this context, which would you prioritise as a guide for Christian life? What Jesus said (as you quote above) or what Jesus did (lived an unmarried life in a culture where that may have been out of the ordinary). I ask as an unmarried, celibate anglican priest, wondering exactly where my failings lie.
Am I wrong for failing to marry? Is it OK if that's because people stopped asking? Am I right to be celibate? Is that less OK if it's only because people stopped asking?
And finally the most important questions of all. Is this really the most important thing that we can talk about? Are all the hungry fed? All the naked clothed? Every prisoner visited? Have all the rich people of the world (including me) sold all that we have and given it to the poor*? And if not, where are the pages of posts about these failures to follow the clear directions of Christ? Is it perhaps easier for us to condemn other people for actions that we ourselves do not commit than to risk having to confront the failings that we all share?
anne
*I may have a get out clause here, because a literal interpretation of the text implies that only rich men need to sacrifice their wealth. Unless you think that the message applies equally to women, even though Jesus didn't mention them.
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Arethosemyfeet;
quote:
But Paul says clearly that being married is second best to being celibate. I thought you believed everything that Paul wrote was the word of God?
And I'm also aware that various interpreters have all kinds of various views on exactly what Paul meant and whether he refers to an immediate circumstance or something longer term; so I don't have a definitive view myself on what Paul meant.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
It's interesting that Paul may be speaking to an immediate circumstance when it comes to celibacy but he couldn't do that when it comes to homosexuality, just... because.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
@Anne;
First, I'm sorry but I don't feel able to answer the more personal questions you ask there. I think those are matters firstly between yourself and God, and secondly for discussion with Christian friends who know you better than I possibly can. I could only give you a partial and academic answer which might not be the right one for you personally.
Secondly;
quote:
Is this really the most important thing that we can talk about?
Definitely NOT; but I'm rather taking the attitude I take to another question, that of 'church-and-state-issues' - that it's not the most important thing but right now it has ended up prominent in ways that are hindering the more important things, so it needs dealing with.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by ToujoursDan;
quote:
It's interesting that Paul may be speaking to an immediate circumstance when it comes to celibacy but he couldn't do that when it comes to homosexuality, just... because.
Yes, and actually I find the uncertainty frustrating too. But I do know that one of the reasons commentators think that way is that Paul only seems to mention this in one epistle, while in the others he talks about marriage without making such a suggestion.
Now if only in all his discussions about marriage he'd also clearly mentioned how what he said applied to same-sex-relationships... I mean, you could think he didn't accept such relationships, couldn't you...?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
@Anne;
First, I'm sorry but I don't feel able to answer the more personal questions you ask there. I think those are matters firstly between yourself and God, and secondly for discussion with Christian friends who know you better than I possibly can.
You are absolutely right. It's none of your business. Those matters are between me and God, with my confessor and spiritual director in the loop.
Why is that true of my sex-life and not true of the sex-life of a lesbian bishop in a civil partnership? Or a gay priest who has married his partner? Or any other Christian minister of any sexual orientation or none who is not breaking the law, outraging public decency (by having sex in the churchyard or during the coffee hour on Sunday) or bringing the church into disrepute (by sleeping with the organist or breaking up a marriage)?
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
but I'm rather taking the attitude I take to another question, that of 'church-and-state-issues' - that it's not the most important thing but right now it has ended up prominent in ways that are hindering the more important things, so it needs dealing with.
It's prominent because we keep talking about it. If we talked about the evils of poverty this much, that's what would be prominent. We are not 'dealing with it', we are pruriently speculating about people's lives in ways which at best do nothing to advance the Gospel and at worst are harmful and show a lack of love for our neighbour.
The pages and pages of this thread show at the very least that there is honest difference of opinion on this issue. Different interpretations of scripture are possible, different weight might be given to different parts of the Bible, different understanding of the text may be honestly held by devout, honest, careful scholars. So in an area where the will of God can be debated, we should be very careful about assuming that any of us have the one true answer.
The feeding the poor thing, that whole 'neighbour as myself' business? There is really no doubt at all about Jesus' desire. We know exactly what he wanted us to do. Scholars are really not divided about Jesus' views here. So if there's any dealing with things to be done, let's deal with that.
anne
I was reminded of the Stonewall bus campaign "some people are gay - deal with it".
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
Steve,
My interest in Paul's writings and in the interpretation of Romans and Rom 1:18-32 actually predated my interest in biblical passages about homosexuality by several years. My interpretation of Rom 1 thus is entirely based on biblical scholarship and the logic of Paul's arguments, and actually owes zero to the gay bit. ToujoursDan has linked to some of the scholarship on the subject.
My preferred exposition of the view is Calvin Porter's 1994 article. Though Campbell and Stowers both add something in their more recent books. Here is an entire blog dedicated to analyzing this position by someone who's not entirely favourable to it. Note that gay issues are not mentioned in most of these sources because they are discussing the interpretation of Paul's writings and not at all motivated by sexuality issues.
quote:
I hope I will eventually recover from the damage inflicted by me pinching myself to convince myself that your statement here was no weird dream but had actually been written in the real world! This is seriously bizarre interpretation.
I understand why you say that. It must seem bizarre to someone who has not encountered it before, and who is familiar only with the standard evangelical reading of Romans. Nonetheless there are quite a number of respected biblical scholars who have advocated this reading in recent years, and again I emphasise, have done so purely as scholars of Paul's epistles and not out of any interest or consideration of gay rights issues.
The arguments for it can get quite complex (Campbell's tome on why this reading is right and the standard evangelical one is wrong is 1248 pages), so I will say only a few words in it's defense.
1. Everybody agrees that there is some sort of dialogue in Romans. Whether you want to call it "rhetorical questions" or just call it dialogue, a series of questions get asked and answered in Rom 3 and Rom 10. You could say that Paul is asking questions he thinks a reader might ask, or that he's asking and answering challenging questions he knows his opponents ask, or that he's presenting a dialogue between himself and an imaginary (or real) third party.
2. We know from Galatians etc that Paul had opponents in his ministry. They visited some of his churches and taught them different things to Paul regarding Jew/Gentile issues. Scholars struggle to reconstruct the theology of these opponents entirely, but it is clear they believed the Christians in Paul's churches ought to be following more of the Jewish law than Paul thought they should.
3. Words and ideas from the jewish book Wisdom of Solomon keep cropping up in Paul's letter to the Romans. Most interestingly the entire passage Rom 1:18-32 is a paraphrase of Wisdom of Solomon chapters 13 and 14. It's basically the single longest quotation in the bible.
4. The theology of Wisdom of Solomon is heavily focused on Jew-Gentile issues and particularly on how awesome Jews are and how awful gentiles are. This is not Paul's theology - Paul teaches the exact opposite, namely that Jews and Gentiles are equal. Wis Sol 13-14 is a massive anti-gentile rant by the author of Wisdom about how truly and utterly awful the gentiles are. Whereas Jews, by comparison, don't sin (Wis Sol 15:1).
So why does Paul keep referencing Wisdom of Solomon in his letter to the Romans when the entire thrust of the referenced work is completely antithetical to Paul's own view and the parts he quotes most from are the most antithetical of all? Why does Paul of all people quote extensively what is possibly the single most vehement anti-gentile rant found in all of ancient Jewish literature? The simplest answer is that this is Paul's opponent's view. To their anti-gentile rant quoted in Rom 1:18-32 Paul replies with his view, repeating 3 times in the course of 2 sentences in Romans 2:9-11 that there is no difference in God's eyes between Jews and Gentiles. And then he goes on a little rant against his opponent in 2:17f. And the dialogue between them continues throughout much of the rest of the letter.
The main argument usually made against this entire reading is that the letter to the Romans as we have it does not explicitly say "This bit is the opponent speaking" and "This bit is Paul speaking". However, surviving rhetoric textbooks from the ancient world tell us that it was acceptable to quote your opponent without clearly warning your audience who you were quoting and have them puzzle it out. Dialogues were also a common form of rhetorical style - popular in philosophical writings in particular (eg Plato) - and most of these dialogues do not appear to have originally had clear markings as to whom the speaker was at any particular occasion (such markings were usually added in in subsequent centuries) as it was usually presumed that the reader could infer who was speaking from what was being said. Several of Paul's letters mention that he is sending a friend to carry the letter. Presumably upon arriving at the destination church the friend would then read the letter to them (reading was not a universal skill back then). We can presume the friend knew exactly who the speakers were at which points in the dialogue and could act out the dialogue by reading each person in a slightly different voice so as to make it 100% clear to the original hearers exactly who was speaking at any given time. Paul did not necessarily have the expectation that his written worlds would be treasured for centuries and studied as scripture, rather he probably thought of his letter primarily as something his friend would read once or twice to the church in Rome. Ancient rhetorical textbooks give various instructions on how to read a dialogue so that the audience can distinguish who's who. It makes sense that Paul might use a dialogue format when writing to the church in Rome whom he had never met and over whom he has no authority - unlike the churches he has founded he can't just tell them what to do or order them about, but rather he has to show them what his viewpoint and arguments are without arguing with them.
There are various other subtler clues in the text, eg changes from 3rd person to second person singular to first person between different passages, use of the second person singular (this often gets overlooked in English where we don't have a second person singular) where Paul is clearly speaking to a single person (eg his opponent) and not a group (eg the Roman Church), stylistic and theological differences between Rom 1:18-32 and Rom 2, etc
quote:
Indeed on the face of it your interpretation of the passage must be pretty similar to mine; it's just that you don't want to accept the implications of that being Paul's view so you've had to resort to an extreme reconstruction to avoid that conclusion.
As I mentioned at the start of my post, you have this backwards. Since I don't think any of Rom 1:18-32 is Paul speaking, I don't overly much care what 1:26-27 has to say about homosexuality if anything.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Starlight;
just quickly to say I may have misjudged your personal position and if so, sorry. I will be following up some of the links you've provided. Whether I'll be convinced may be a different matter, of course....
Thank you.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Steve Langton - so what about celibacy (in people of any sexual orientation)? Genesis says bad, Paul says good. What do you say?
And Jesus says something inbetween with a comment about 'eunuchs for the kingdom's sake'. I think the answer is "Sometimes in a sinful world celibacy is a good thing". But I would reject the view that being celibate is somehow 'super-spiritual', and I regard it as particularly dubious in the context of RC clergy, given that the NT clearly intends elders/episkopoi to be normally married people.
So is it wrong for celibate people to join the clergy or otherwise lead churches?
Surely the view that celibacy is sub-spiritual is as harmful as the view that celibacy is super-spiritual? Some people are called to celibacy, and some of those people may also be called to the priesthood.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Starlight;
quote:
From a theological point of view, it strikes me as a bit unusual to exclude people from membership because they are sinners.
No, we don't exclude people simply because they are 'sinners'; as you say, we all are. That is why I used the phrasing "aggressively practicing gays" to mean someone who is not only a sinner (accepting that between us that may be in dispute in this particular case) but doesn't admit he is. As with other sins, there's an expectation of repentance.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
@Anne;
First, I'm sorry but I don't feel able to answer the more personal questions you ask there. I think those are matters firstly between yourself and God, and secondly for discussion with Christian friends who know you better than I possibly can. I could only give you a partial and academic answer which might not be the right one for you personally.
Sorry, but this strikes me as coyly false humility. What happened to the certainty where you felt comfortable not only in pointing out other people's sins but demanding their repentance as if you were God's personal envoy?
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
So is it wrong for celibate people to join the clergy or otherwise lead churches?
And does it matter if they're "aggressively" (i.e. unapologetically) celibate?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Ah, chapter divisions. You've got to love them.
What a pity that when someone inserted them after the fact, they sometimes did so in places that totally disrupted the flow of the text.
The division between 'chapters 1 and 2' of Romans being one of them.
Steve Langton, all I can add to Starlight's comments on this passage is that if you stop at the end of Chapter 1, you're reading it wrong, in a way the original author never intended. Telling me how much you've studied Romans 1 doesn't fill me with any confidence that you've grasped that the first several 'chapters' of Romans are one vast argument that starts with listing all the stereotypical Gentile sins that Jewish readers would rattle off, before turning on those Jewish readers and saying 'you're not so hot yourself', then saying that all have sinned and fallen short and then discussing what God has done about the situation.
If you stop at rattling off the stereotypical Gentile sins, including idolatrous homosexual sex, you've missed the point completely. You're at stage 1. Paul only repeats stage 1 so that all his self-righteous Jewish readers will be nodding their heads in agreement before he hits them in the solar plexus.
--------------------
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:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by ToujoursDan;
quote:
It's interesting that Paul may be speaking to an immediate circumstance when it comes to celibacy but he couldn't do that when it comes to homosexuality, just... because.
Yes, and actually I find the uncertainty frustrating too. But I do know that one of the reasons commentators think that way is that Paul only seems to mention this in one epistle, while in the others he talks about marriage without making such a suggestion.
Now if only in all his discussions about marriage he'd also clearly mentioned how what he said applied to same-sex-relationships... I mean, you could think he didn't accept such relationships, couldn't you...?
Honestly, I don't know what Paul would think about same sex marriage by gay Christians.
I do know that even unequivocal statements by Paul are not taken as binding by modern Christians.
Paul says:
quote:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honour to whom honour is owed.
---Romans 13
Yet, I doubt most Christians today would expect believers to live in total submission to secular authorities and pay taxes without protest. (I KNOW this isn't the case in North America.) After what the Nazis and communist authorities did to believers in the 20th Century, to do so would be absurd.
Paul also said:
quote:
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife[a] is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should have her hair cut off. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels
Yet almost every church allows women to pray and prophesy without covering their head.
So perhaps Paul was or was not, against monogamous same sex relationships, but he was for and against all kinds of things every mainstream denomination ignores today.
The onus is on conservative Christians to show why Paul's views on submission to secular authorities or what women are to wear is time-bound, yet the passages that may, or may not deal with homosexuality aren't, particularly when Paul spoke to a place and time where assumptions about homosexuality are far far different than they are today. Where do Paul's own opinions end and where do God's begin?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Further, the following argument does not seem anywhere near as coherent if you take ch 1 out of it.
It's not just a matter of cutting out 1:18-32 and leaving the rest btw, it's a large scale rereading of the first several chapters of Romans as a dialogue.
I also have a fundamental disagreement with your basic idea that the common evangelical reading of Rom 1-4 is coherent. The idea of Paul showing that each and every individual is sinful and therefore needs Christ sounds perfectly logical, and to most modern evangelicals is "the gospel in its purest form". Except... it's not what the text of Rom 1-4 actually says, or alternatively, if it is what the text is supposed to be saying, then Paul's doing a downright terrible job of saying it.
The motivation that a lot of scholars have had for trying to find an alternative reading of Rom 1-4 (such as the dialogue reading) is that they have been unable to make any sense of what Rom 1-4 says in the straightforward reading. There are bits that contradict other bits. There are premises that are missing entirely. There are logical non-sequiturs. Thus one either has to play a game of "let's pretend that what Paul wrote here was a nice logical portrayal of the gospel as we understand it today, and read our premises into the text all over the place and gloss over and ignore any bits that confuse us or which say the opposite" which is the game many evangelicals today play with the text. Alternatively scholars can opt for honesty, and go with "this is a complete disaster of an argument". J C O'Neill was one of the first to be bluntly honest about this, and his commentary on Romans (1975) is interesting reading because he basically says "I can't make any sense of the argument in the text without deleting large parts of it. So I'm going to assume that one of the early copyists inserted large chunks of text into Romans." And so the commentary proceeds with "this bit's not by Paul", "and neither is this bit", "this is an interpolation too" etc.
A second scholar to approach the subject with blatant honesty was E.P. Sanders, who in an excellent chapter in his book Paul and the Law (1983), outlines what he sees as a large series of logical inconsistencies and incoherencies in Rom 1-3. He doesn't like O'Neill's strategy of appealing to interpolations left right and center, but neither can Sanders see any way of making sense of the text as written. He concludes that it looks as if Paul's grabbed a sermon straight out of some local Jewish synagogue and pasted it into the text of his letter with minimal reflection about the fact that the ideas contained therein aren't really consistent with the rest of his argument, and the result is an argument that makes no sense and a letter that's incoherent. And to this problem, Sanders can't think of any solution. (I admire Sanders both for his extremely clear and insightful writing style that expresses the problems he sees with the text so precisely, and also for the fact that he is completely open and honest about the fact that he doesn't have a solution to the problem and can't think of one and that he's not peddling any particular way of reading the text because he can't think of a way of reading it that makes sense.)
I completely agree with the assessment of O'Neill and Sanders that Romans 1-4 is incoherent if read as Paul's argument, and that the logical argument that evangelicals try to force it to say doesn't actually match the text. This view has been held by a lot of people in recent decades. What naturally emerges from this concern is a need to find a way to say that some sections of the text are not part of Paul's argument. Not many people liked O'Neill's "it was all added later by a copyist" view, neither was Sanders' "well it was probably all copy+pasted in by Paul from a sermon by a third party, and Paul clearly didn't think much about what he was doing because it makes no sense" overly inspiring, which leaves us with the option of Paul deliberately putting third-party material into Rom 1-4 that is indeed inconsistent with his own view and doing so in order to critique it. Thus, various versions of the idea that Rom 1-4 contains expressions of both Paul's own view and a viewpoint to which he is opposed is now a view that is quite popular among those who don't think the usual reading of Rom 1-4 makes any sense. eg Campbell's ridiculously overlarge tome lays out over two dozen reasons (some good, some awful, all overly convoluted) why he thinks the usual reading of Rom 1-4 is nonsense.
quote:
Originally quoted by ToujoursDan:
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should have her hair cut off. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels
IMO the fact that Christians ignore this passage out of hand today is particularly interesting, because in the passage Paul uses a theological argument that appeals to the original creation story. It's an identical sort of logic as is used by Jesus in the "In the beginning God made them male and female..." quote about marriage. And evangelicals say that we can't possibly ever consider ignoring those particular words of Jesus because he appeals to the original order and intent of creation and that makes it especially binding so we therefore absolutely have to be anti-gay, but of course women don't have to cover their heads because that's just not important. Both biblical passages appeal to the creation narrative as a theological justification for their present day practices, but in one case it is ignored entirely by modern evangelicals and in the other case it is defended to the last as core to the Christian faith.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Jade Constable;
quote:
So is it wrong for celibate people to join the clergy or otherwise lead churches?
Actually I said the opposite, pretty much. I think it is wrong for a church to impose celibacy on its clergy. I think the normal expectation about elders is that they will be married, as the NT indicates. 'Elders' as I understand it are not, I think, 'Clergy' as you understand it, so I'm talking of a somewhat differently organised church with a different style of leadership. You need to sort out what kind of 'leadership' the 'clergy' are supposed to be before sorting out some of these other issues.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by ToujoursDan;
(after quoting Romans 13 at length);
quote:
Yet, I doubt most Christians today would expect believers to live in total submission to secular authorities and pay taxes without protest. (I KNOW this isn't the case in North America.) After what the Nazis and communist authorities did to believers in the 20th Century, to do so would be absurd.
As an Anabaptist (albeit not from one of the traditional groups) I believe we should follow Romans 13. 'total submission' is a misinterpretation (though one that has often suited the supposedly Christian rulers of 'Christendom').
The words Paul uses are carefully chosen (and connected by root) to set careful boundaries. We are to 'be subject' on the one hand, but also not to violently/militarily oppose the authorities. The crucial question is, do you think Paul would agree with Peter's point in Acts 5; 29 - that we must 'obey God rather than men'? Clearly if we accept that we will not be 'totally submissive', and the authorities may find us awkward citizens.
On the other hand Paul, and Peter in his first epistle, clearly reject the idea that when we cannot obey we should become rebels and fight the authorities; and both say that we should instead follow the example of Jesus in being willing to accept the state's unjust punishment of our obedience to God and necessary disobedience to the state - i.e., become martyrs, not Zealots or similar rebels.
To do otherwise is tempting; and there are those who have tried to come up with limits and exceptions to justify fighting back. You will find one such argument in Ian Paisley's commentary on Romans - the refusal of him and his fellow Protestants to 'be subject' has cost thousands of deaths just in my lifetime, and worse has caused many Christians to become killers and justify hatred.
On that one, we definitely should take Paul seriously; and, BTW, as I recently put it on my blog, "Romans 13 starts in Romans 12" - it does not stand in isolation but is part of another of the serious and useful logical arguments which Starlight and the people he's quoting seem to want to deny.
On that wider point I'm still checking things out - don't expect a hurried reply. One comment I do have is that I've long considered Romans to be a 'paste-up' done by Paul probably with a secretary's help to serve a slightly different purpose to his usual letters to a church he had founded and knew personally, and I think such a 'paste-up' explains much of the detail unevenness in the epistle.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Orfeo;
quote:
Ah, chapter divisions. You've got to love them.
What a pity that when someone inserted them after the fact, they sometimes did so in places that totally disrupted the flow of the text.
The division between 'chapters 1 and 2' of Romans being one of them.
With you on the general point - you'll note above that I'm critical of the way the chapter division interrupts an argument that starts in Romans 12.
The division between Romans 1 & 2 does seem nevertheless to reflect a shift in direction. And yes, it's a shift broadly in the direction of "And don't you Jewish leaders go thinking you're an exception and that God won't be angry at you too..."
This doesn't answer a point I've already hinted at; What is there in 1; 18-32 that Paul would actually disagree with? And why therefore can't it be an expression of his actual view on the things he deals with therein? Why would he be 'setting it up' as a supposed other view that he critiques? It's not just a rant; it's quite focused and logical. As I said in the earlier post, I'm still checking things out, but that aspect of this new interpretation looks really questionable to me.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Orfeo;
quote:
Ah, chapter divisions. You've got to love them.
What a pity that when someone inserted them after the fact, they sometimes did so in places that totally disrupted the flow of the text.
The division between 'chapters 1 and 2' of Romans being one of them.
With you on the general point - you'll note above that I'm critical of the way the chapter division interrupts an argument that starts in Romans 12.
The division between Romans 1 & 2 does seem nevertheless to reflect a shift in direction. And yes, it's a shift broadly in the direction of "And don't you Jewish leaders go thinking you're an exception and that God won't be angry at you too..."
This doesn't answer a point I've already hinted at; What is there in 1; 18-32 that Paul would actually disagree with? And why therefore can't it be an expression of his actual view on the things he deals with therein? Why would he be 'setting it up' as a supposed other view that he critiques? It's not just a rant; it's quite focused and logical. As I said in the earlier post, I'm still checking things out, but that aspect of this new interpretation looks really questionable to me.
If you'd quoted the second half of my post as well as the first, you'd already know my answer to that.
EDIT: And also, as far as I'm concerned, it's not a matter of "why can't it be?", more a matter of "why should we assume it IS?". It's a shift of onus, not a proof. I'm faced with two alternative interpretations of this passage. One of those interpretations makes my life a living hell as a result of an innate characteristic I have no control over. The other doesn't. I'll leave you to figure out which one I think is more likely to be the correct expression of the will of a loving Creator.
[ 04. August 2014, 11:08: 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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
