|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: gay sex - being and doing
|
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Sorry, not sure what happened then; trying again
by Orfeo;
quote:
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.
Which still doesn't answer my question about why Paul is supposed to consider 'stage 1' invalid in itself? Yes, he wants to challenge his self-satisfied Jewish readers, and he does - but I repeat, what in 1; 18-32 is he supposed to be disagreeing with? This letter is not written to aJew, or an all-Jewish church - so why can't he simply straightforwardly believe himself the critique of paganism that he starts off with?
It is perfectly consistent that he starts with a critique of paganism which he fully means and intends, and then turns to deal with Jewish readers/hearers who might get smug about their non-paganism and criticise their smugness. And as I said, it's not just an anti-pagan rant anyway, it's a discussion of sin in general, where it comes from and how it works - where is the bit that says Paul disagrees with that presentation about sin?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
This letter is not written to aJew, or an all-Jewish church
My NIV study Bible (hardly a bastion of liberal thinking) says that there are other parts of the letter that are quite clearly directed at Jewish believers. That doesn't mean that the entire Roman church is Jewish, but it does mean that Paul was conscious that the letter would have, among others, a Jewish audience.
quote:
where is the bit that says Paul disagrees with that presentation about sin?
Where is the bit that says he AGREES with it? Again, you're asking me for proof I'm not claiming to have.
[ 04. August 2014, 11:27: 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
ADDENDUM: And Starlight has already set out for you the fact that Paul quotes extensively from a book that he's generally considered not to agree with, theologically. It's widely accepted that in other places he is presenting arguments he doesn't agree with before refuting them. All I am saying is that it's thoroughly plausible the same thing is happening here.
[ 04. August 2014, 11:31: 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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Sorry, not sure what happened then; trying again
by Orfeo;
quote:
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.
Which still doesn't answer my question about why Paul is supposed to consider 'stage 1' invalid in itself? Yes, he wants to challenge his self-satisfied Jewish readers, and he does - but I repeat, what in 1; 18-32 is he supposed to be disagreeing with? This letter is not written to aJew, or an all-Jewish church - so why can't he simply straightforwardly believe himself the critique of paganism that he starts off with?
It is perfectly consistent that he starts with a critique of paganism which he fully means and intends, and then turns to deal with Jewish readers/hearers who might get smug about their non-paganism and criticise their smugness. And as I said, it's not just an anti-pagan rant anyway, it's a discussion of sin in general, where it comes from and how it works - where is the bit that says Paul disagrees with that presentation about sin?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
First, sorry about the double-post just now, I'm doing this through a distracting heavy cold and among other things lost a part-finished post. I think after this one I'd better give up for the day...
by Orfeo;
quote:
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.
Again sorry I somehow missed this edit completely; I've a feeling I may actually have viewed the post before the edit - hosts, is that possible? As it then ended up bottom of page I hadn't gone back to it. I'm not going to try a full answer now.
by Orfeo;
quote:
My NIV study Bible (hardly a bastion of liberal thinking) says that there are other parts of the letter that are quite clearly directed at Jewish believers. That doesn't mean that the entire Roman church is Jewish, but it does mean that Paul was conscious that the letter would have, among others, a Jewish audience.
I'm not arguing that none of it is aimed at the Jews of the church. I'm querying the proposition that Paul would write to a certainly-by-that-time mixed church in the city which was the capital of the pagan world, and apparently the only thing he says about paganism is to lay out an argument he disagrees with in order to slag off his fellow Jews for believing that argument?!?!?! ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
by Orfeo;
quote:
ADDENDUM: And Starlight has already set out for you the fact that Paul quotes extensively from a book that he's generally considered not to agree with, theologically. It's widely accepted that in other places he is presenting arguments he doesn't agree with before refuting them. All I am saying is that it's thoroughly plausible the same thing is happening here.
Does Paul 'quote extensively' or is it just that he shares much of Wisdom's view of paganism because it's also common Jewish belief? What Paul says is a very different product to the two chapters of Wisdom to which I was directed. And please note that part of the point here, as I read it, is that he doesn't appear to refute what he says in 1;18ff. Why would he need to, it makes perfect sense? All he needed to do - and does - is make sure the Jewish readers can't think they're any better off because God kept them from that particular error.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Sorry, not sure what happened then; trying again
by Orfeo;
quote:
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.
Which still doesn't answer my question about why Paul is supposed to consider 'stage 1' invalid in itself? Yes, he wants to challenge his self-satisfied Jewish readers, and he does - but I repeat, what in 1; 18-32 is he supposed to be disagreeing with? This letter is not written to aJew, or an all-Jewish church - so why can't he simply straightforwardly believe himself the critique of paganism that he starts off with?
It is perfectly consistent that he starts with a critique of paganism which he fully means and intends, and then turns to deal with Jewish readers/hearers who might get smug about their non-paganism and criticise their smugness. And as I said, it's not just an anti-pagan rant anyway, it's a discussion of sin in general, where it comes from and how it works - where is the bit that says Paul disagrees with that presentation about sin?
Exactly. I'm not really sure what the others are arguing here. Are they say that the Apostle is arguing that they're not sins? If not, what then are they saying?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Well, in Romans, there's a big question what the sin is - is to do with prostitution? or homosexual sex? or a particular cult? The actual word used is very ambiguous.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Ad Orientem, they are saying that Paul is setting up an argument so that he can then knock it over. Something that the Ship should be extraordinarily familiar with!!!
(And also that the argument is about stereotypical Gentile sins such as idolatrous rituals, which is a world away from a modern same-sex relationship.)
[ 04. August 2014, 13:19: 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
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
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.
I don't believe that we were ever supposed to live in TOTAL submission to the secular authorities--render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, not what is God's--which would, I believe, mean for example not obeying if told to worship the Emperor in ancient Rome, nor to murder innocent children, etc. I do think that many in the modern US -- bluntly, the scary extreme right-wing crowd -- have gone terribly far the other way, and the "store up guns in case we have to overthrow the government" crowd positively terrifies me.
(I'm also a political heretic here in the US, actually, in thinking that the colonists were not justified in the Revolutionary War--if they had allied themselves with the rightful nations who were already here I'd feel very differently, but the popular "they taxed us too much so it was morally right to break away using bloodshed" is not something I agree with.)
I'm actually a big fan of taxes. It's how we have roads, schools, and basic infrastructure. But this is moving a tad off-topic from gay sex...
--------------------
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
By the way, Steve, while you're pondering the interpretation of Romans 1, I'd be grateful if you could consider just what terrible thing I had done by the age of 14 that led God to hand me over to shameful lusts.
I'm not quite sure at what point I failed to glorify God or give thanks to him. What kind of worshipping and serving of created things did I do that was so much worse than all the other kids?
It could have been that one awful Sunday in 5th or 6th grade where I told Mum I couldn't go to church because I really, really needed the time to finish my school project on Switzerland.
Lest you think I'm just taking the piss, I'd like to point out that I spent many years of my life wondering exactly that: what had I done? What dreadful thing had I done to be made like this? And how had I been so careless as to miss it at the time?
If you think the passage is a true and accurate description of homosexuality, then you ought to be able to provide me some insight what dreadful and devilish things I might have done while conning myself into thinking I was a pretty well-behaved kid who was doing well in school. Let me cross a couple off the list for you - no drugs or smoking, no sex, I can't recall any truancy. One litter detention for getting into a fight. I did throw a tomato into a girl's lap, but I'm pretty sure that came after the attraction to boys.
Cheers.
PS Oh wait, was it the fact that I tended to be very excitable and often talked too loud? Or maybe that I cried easily - that could be it, as it was a frequent occurrence, hadn't actually realised that one might be sinful.
[ 04. August 2014, 15:00: 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
|
|
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
I'm a raving Swedish style socialist so I would agree. I tried to use two examples of of Paul's counsel that are generally rejected by most Christians today to show that most mainstream Christians agree that some of Paul's moral counsel is bound by time and place and his other counsel is timeless. The question is, even if he thought same sex activity as immoral, is it time bound or timeless, particularly if the understanding and structure of these relationships are completely different today?
On the one hand I rather agree with Steve that one can't assume from the text that if Paul was using an common rant in 1:18-32 as a set up to Romans 2:1-4, it doesn't necessarily mean that Paul agrees or disagrees with the rant.
At the same time I agree with Starlight that same sex activity was common and accepted in ancient Rome; Paul was ministering to Gentiles who would not think anything of it; Paul wasn't above calling out immoral relationships (like the incestuous relationship in 1 Corinthians 5) when he saw them, so why aren't there many straightforward condemnations of homosexuality? The argument by silence doesn't help the anti-gay crowd, it hurts it, IMHO.
--------------------
"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
by Ad Orientem;
quote:
Exactly. I'm not really sure what the others are arguing here. Are they say that the Apostle is arguing that they're not sins? If not, what then are they saying?
This goes back a bit. Other Shippies assorted have sprung on me an interpretation of Romans I was unaware of, which inter alia supposes that in ch 1, Paul is not stating what he believes himself, but is putting forward - well, not entirely clear in some ways, but - somebody else's view about paganism and idolatry which he then contradicts from ch 2 v1 onwards. Not his own view but a Jewish view that he then rubbishes. The interpretation seems to generally suppose an epistle which is more of a dialogue than generally recognised.
I have reservations ... but if you track back upthread various people have left links and references about this interpretation to check for yourself.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by ToujoursDan;
quote:
On the one hand I rather agree with Steve that one can't assume from the text that if Paul was using an common rant in 1:18-32 as a set up to Romans 2:1-4, it doesn't necessarily mean that Paul agrees or disagrees with the rant.
For clarity I'm not myself saying Paul in Romans 1 is using a mere 'rant' - I think he is actually putting forward something more focused and thoughtful and addressing wider issues about human sinfulness and how it works than just paganism. And 'common', well, maybe - in the sense that he is expressing, though more thoughtfully, ideas which he would have in common with much Jewish ideas about paganism.
I'm then saying I don't understand why, in this interpretation, they are so determined to suggest that Romans 1 would not represent Paul's own view. I don't see why he can't both be expressing his own opinion in ch 1, and then going on to remind Jewish readers that just because they aren't pagans doesn't mean they are automatically OK with God - they are sinners too.... (oh no - a 'both/and' statement; am I turning into Gamaliel?)
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Croesos;
quote:
Given that you don't think Paul can maintain a consistent argument over the length of a single sentence, why should we expect coherence over multiple paragraphs?
In the case you appear to be linking to, yes, Paul maintains a serious consistent argument over the sentence in question; he just didn't happen to be arguing what you want him to, but arguing a different issue - consistently! I'm sure I mentioned the importance of something called 'context'.
Anyway, what's going on about Romans 1 is a question whether a particular passage represents Paul's own view or someone else's he has set up to rubbish in a subsequent chapter. There seems nothing in the immediate text to support the latter case; and the wider context would also suggest that Romans 1 is indeed Paul's own view. Especially as the text is clearly much more than just an anti-pagan rant.
This supposed new interpretation needs proving; and I'm not seeing the proof....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
what's going on about Romans 1 is a question whether a particular passage represents Paul's own view or someone else's he has set up to rubbish in a subsequent chapter. There seems nothing in the immediate text to support the latter case;
Except that he paraphrases Wisdom 14, even quoting from Wisdom verbatim.
quote:
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. 23 For either they sacrifice their own children, or use hidden sacrifices, or keep watches full of madness,
24 So that now they neither keep life, nor marriage undefiled, but one killeth another through envy, or grieveth him by adultery:
25 And all things are mingled together, blood, murder, theft and dissimulation, corruption and unfaithfulness, tumults and perjury, disquieting of the good,26 Forgetfulness of God, defiling of souls, changing of nature, disorder in marriage, and the irregularity of adultery and uncleanness.
27 For the worship of abominable idols is the cause, and the beginning and end of all evil.
Wisdom 14
--------------------
"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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Croesos;
quote:
Given that you don't think Paul can maintain a consistent argument over the length of a single sentence, why should we expect coherence over multiple paragraphs?
In the case you appear to be linking to, yes, Paul maintains a serious consistent argument over the sentence in question; he just didn't happen to be arguing what you want him to, but arguing a different issue - consistently! I'm sure I mentioned the importance of something called 'context'.
"You have to take it in context" is a bit of a dodge when you're claiming that the first half of a sentence has one meaning ("[t]here is neither Jew nor Gentile" means Christians shouldn't distinguish by race or ethnicity in any context) while a parallel phrasing from the same sentence ("nor is there male and female") means the opposite (Christians should still discriminate by gender when they want to). As for what issue Paul was arguing, you were the one who claimed it was applicable to marriage, not me.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
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.
There are other interpretations though. eg you could follow one of the many variants of the view that ToujoursDan's has been expressing that the kind of acts the writer is thinking of are not the sort of loving monogamous same-sex relationships we know today but were cultic sex-acts or were exploitative inegalitarian relationships or heterosexual people doing homosexual acts or were something else that was cultural to that time and place and were indeed bad then; or you could view it as an interpolation a la J C O'Neill; or you could just say that Paul is a giant misogynistic douche who elsewhere says that women should STFU in church, wear their hair long and covered, not wear jewelry, and never deny their husbands sex, and thus ask yourself whether you want to take his opinions particularly seriously on gender and sex issues... especially given the church blatantly ignores him on virtually all these things now, even when he backs up his statements with theological appeals to the creation order.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
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.
This is what baffles me. Even if Paul is saying that gay sex is wrong, why not disagree with him? Is there some idea that he could not be wrong?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm sure I mentioned the importance of something called 'context'.
Context is exactly what I have been arguing this whole time. And what I generally argue with Christians. Read the Bible for context and consistency.
--------------------
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
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
A couple of points to address what has been said by various posters...
The textual relationship between Rom 1:18-32 and Wisdom of Solomon 13-14 is not exact and I would describe Rom 1 as a "paraphrase" of it (and frankly you have to paraphrase when you want to quote two entire chapters). The paraphrased version has numerous matches in the words used and ideas mentioned. There are other ancient Jewish texts that contain some similarities also, but they are not as close matches.
I am not saying that Paul had the written version of Wisdom of Solomon in front of him when he wrote. Rather, I believe that (1) anti-gentile rants like that which are found in Wisdom of Solomon and Rom 1:18-32 were widespread in the Judaism of Paul's day and short anti-gentile tracts probably circulated widely; (2) Paul knew this anti-gentile rhetoric would be familiar to the church in Rome and he and they were both familiar with the general theological position that accompanied such rhetoric; (3) Paul had opponents that he combatted in his ministry who were less gentile-friendly than he was and who wanted to see his churches be more law-observant, who we might well presume viewed this sort of rhetoric favorably and spouted it themselves on a regular basis and that they adhered to to this general strand of Judaism.
Wisdom of Solomon provides our best window into the worldview and theology of an anti-gentile strand in Jewish thinking of the time period, which the anti-gentile rant in Rom 1:18-32 stems from. Pg 360-362 (viewable on google books) of Campbell's book provide an excellent summary of the textual relationship between the two passages.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
What is there in 1; 18-32 that Paul would actually disagree with?
Orfeo has done an excellent job of pointing out that the content of Rom 1:18-32 is empirically false. We should hope Paul didn't agree with Rom 1:18-32 because it's obvious to all of us that Rom 1:18-32 is not true.
The simplest and most glaring example of this being not true, is, as Orfeo has pointed out, the numerous Christians in the present day who are gay. I spent the first twenty-something years of my life as a Christian in a Christian family and attending Christian churches weekly. According to Rom 1:18-32 the reason I'm gay is because I rejected God and worshiped animals...?! That's hilariously false. Were there gay Jews in Paul's time? Of course there were, just as there are gay Jews in the present. The notion that wrong worship causes gay sex was no more true back then than it is true now.
A second thing that's obviously false about the passage is that it suggests the gentiles engage in moral sins as a consequence of them worshiping the wrong God. If that were true then it would mean that Jews (and Christians), who worship the right God, therefore don't engage in moral sins. (And Wisdom 15:2 embraces exactly that position) Jews (and Christians) don't sin? Do you think that is true? In both our readings of Romans Paul goes on to insist that Jews do sin and sin badly (contra Wis Sol 15:1-4). But if Jews sin, then the gentile sins aren't a consequence of their incorrect worship! In Rom 2:1 Paul writes that "you (sing.) are doing the very same things." He can't simultaneously be saying that gentile mis-worship causes gentile sins and yet also be saying that the Jews who worship god correct do "the exact same" sins. If it's true that Jews do the exact same things, then it's blatantly obvious that the method of worship isn't the cause of sin. If 2:1 is factually true that Jews do the same sins, then the causal relationship endorsed in 1:18-32 about what causes sin is factually false.
Another thing that is false in Rom 1:18-32 is that it's just absolutely and obviously not true that all non-Jews/non-Christians are "filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless." I don't think I've ever met a person that could be accurately described by the above. (Dick Cheney is the only one that comes to mind, but he's supposedly Christian.) I've met a lot of Christians and I've met a lot of atheists, and neither group are noticeably nicer or better as people in my personal experience. The long list of evils in Rom 1:29-31 simply isn't true - people empirically are not that awful. Nor was it true of gentiles in Paul's day. On that list is "faithless", yet faithfulness was regarded as one of the greatest virtues among the pagan Romans. Calling them "faithless" in general is just not a charge that can even be taken seriously, it's so far from being true as to just be humorous - it's like saying Americans are unpatriotic or that the French are terrible cooks or that Swiss manufacturing is of poor quality. You could critique a lot of things the Romans and their empire did (eg slavery) but questioning their faithfulness is a joke - the Roman armies were renowned for their faithfulness, eg Jesus noting how the Roman centurion knows all about faithfulness. A number of things on that vice list are likewise core pagan Roman virtues that were taught by Roman philosophers, and regulated by the Roman state... ie the Romans weren't committing those listed vices, far from it. I suspect the original hearers of this letter in Rome would have been laughing by the time the reader reached Rom 1:32, because it's so ridiculously false and over the top that it's just silly. Of course Gentiles are not ridiculously over the top evil villains in the ways described here, and some of the things they are being accused of doing are things that they of all peoples in the world are doing least.
Add to the above the fact that Josephus sheepishly recounts in Antiquities 18:81-84 the fact that a big Jewish scandal by a popular Jewish preacher (involving stealing temple money and implied adultery) led the Emperor Tiberius to expel all Jews from Rome in 19AD. So a rant to Jews in Rome about how evil and immoral the gentiles are has comedy value. Paul points out in Rom 2 that anyone who thinks Jews are sinless only needs to look as far as the fact that the Gentiles think Jews are horrible sinners because Jews have been known to steal from temples and commit adultery. We could speculate that the errant Jewish preacher in Rome of adultery-theft fame in 19AD is Paul's dialogue opponent in Romans, and is the target of the "you" singulars that Paul keeps using and who Paul says in Rom 2:17f calls himself a teacher and a light and guide to the blind but is in fact an adulterous temple-robber, but it need not be him specifically, only a generic imaginary opponent of that general ilk that Paul targeting his dialogue at.
Another thing that can be seriously questioned about the Rom 1:18-32 passage is: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness"... is it? How? That seems like the rantings of a doomsday preacher, but not something actually based on any evidence. How exactly is God's wrath revealed? Rom 1:18-32 implies natural revelation, that these things can been known by looking at creation. But the Roman pagan citizens surely weren't seeing it. They were living in a thriving empire that had conquered the world. I doubt they were really feeling that wrath when they looted the provinces and conquered endlessly more territory. They would have said the blessings of God for them had been revealed when they looked at the world. So is the wrath of God not part of natural revelation then and instead something that's revealed in the gospel? That's a stretch. The love of God, the mercy of God, the kindness of God, are all in the gospel, sure... the wrath of God not so much though! There's just no evidence and no basis for this idea that the wrath of God is revealed, and it has particularly not been revealed to the Roman gentiles through natural revelation since they are living in an extremely wrath-free and blessings-rich world!
So does Paul agree with Rom 1:18-32? I hope not, because it's obviously false. All of it. There's no natural revelation of God's wrath against gentiles. Mis-worship isn't what causes gay sex. Nor does worshiping wrong cause people to become the world's worst person and commit every kind of moral evil in great abundance. And the Romans in particular were, of all peoples in the world, the ones least committing some of the listed sins. So the passage is best read as a parody of rant by some crazed Jewish zealot who's frothing at the mouth and saying all sorts of dumb shit that would have had the audience cracking up laughing by the end of it, to which Paul responds in Rom 2:1 onward.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
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.
I think you've hit the nail right on the head. Some people are looking for rules, rules and more rules. And yet Jesus didn't leave a rule book. In fact, he consistently opposed the Pharisees precisely on this point. They had created endless rules, which he dismissed and took great delight in mocking. So why should Christians try to go back to the way of the Pharisees?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
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.
I think you've hit the nail right on the head. Some people are looking for rules, rules and more rules. And yet Jesus didn't leave a rule book. In fact, he consistently opposed the Pharisees precisely on this point. They had created endless rules, which he dismissed and took great delight in mocking. So why should Christians try to go back to the way of the Pharisees?
I'm not convinced of this argument, as if Christians aren't obligated to live a certain way. Christ's beef with the Pharisees was that they followed the letter of the Law but not the spirit. Of course, the Law is dead but for instance he nevertheless said to the woman caught in adultery, sin no more. The Apostle has much to say concerning such things also, that our freedom from the Law is not a licence to sin.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Ad Orientem, nobody is disagreeing that Jesus didn't want people to sin. The argument is whether a homosexual sexual relationship is a sin. The Bible is not that clear on it, however much people try to make rules on it.
The Leviticus verses could be seen as part of the Law, most of which is now ignored, examples of that being the proscriptions on eating shellfish or wearing mixed fibres.
The current discussion is considering the proscription in Romans and asking whether:
- Paul meant to say homosexuality was wrong, or whether it was part of a ridiculing of Wisdom's rant against the gentiles which is countered by Paul later in Romans;
- what the proscription in Romans actually describes - because the sexual mores of those times were so different to our times where we see monogamous homosexual relationships that last 40 years which have little in common with a society where men had sex with women and slaves without censure so long as they were the "active" partner.
Nobody is saying that people should be promiscuous or adulterous here, but that those who are homosexual should be allowed to be in loving monogamous relationships when that is their desire, rather than only given celibacy as an option.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm not convinced of this argument, as if Christians aren't obligated to live a certain way. Christ's beef with the Pharisees was that they followed the letter of the Law but not the spirit. Of course, the Law is dead but for instance he nevertheless said to the woman caught in adultery, sin no more. The Apostle has much to say concerning such things also, that our freedom from the Law is not a licence to sin.
But the argument is not about "Should Christians be moral?", a binary question that admits of a simple answer, but rather "What is moral and what is immoral for a Christian?", a much more multifaceted and difficult question.
The "sin no more" to the woman caught in adultery definitely answers the first question -- yes, Christians should be moral. It partially answers the second question -- it appears to be saying that adultery is immoral for Christians*. But it doesn't answer the third question, is a monogamous homosexual relationship moral for Christians? For what should be obvious reasons.
_____
*on a surface reading, at least.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm not convinced of this argument, as if Christians aren't obligated to live a certain way. Christ's beef with the Pharisees was that they followed the letter of the Law but not the spirit. Of course, the Law is dead but for instance he nevertheless said to the woman caught in adultery, sin no more. The Apostle has much to say concerning such things also, that our freedom from the Law is not a licence to sin.
But the argument is not about "Should Christians be moral?", a binary question that admits of a simple answer, but rather "What is moral and what is immoral for a Christian?", a much more multifaceted and difficult question.
The "sin no more" to the woman caught in adultery definitely answers the first question -- yes, Christians should be moral. It partially answers the second question -- it appears to be saying that adultery is immoral for Christians*. But it doesn't answer the third question, is a monogamous homosexual relationship moral for Christians? For what should be obvious reasons.
_____
*on a surface reading, at least.
You know how I, at least would answer that and how, until relatively recently, Christianity has always answered it. It is an obvious answer.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You know how I, at least would answer that and how, until relatively recently, Christianity has always answered it. It is an obvious answer.
Not the issue I was addressing. If you think the woman-caught-in-adultery pericope addresses this issue, you are mistaken. Why are you changing the subject?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You know how I, at least would answer that and how, until relatively recently, Christianity has always answered it. It is an obvious answer.
Not the issue I was addressing. If you think the woman-caught-in-adultery pericope addresses this issue, you are mistaken. Why are you changing the subject?
I was referring to your third question.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Ad Orientem, Romans 1 doesn't simply say homosexuality is a sin. It says that homosexuality is a PUNISHMENT for sin.
If it had just said that homosexuality was a sin, then I guess I would have spent my younger years feeling guilty about sinning, but then heck, everybody sins.
No, Romans 1 - if you read it as literal and true and correct - says that people are handed over to homosexuality because of something else that they've done.
Which, as I've already indicated, led to me thinking that (1) I must have done something truly awful, and (2) even more worryingly, I had completely missed the fact that it was awful while doing it. I had somehow gone beyond the pale before I was even an adult.
That's so far beyond "homosexuality is a sin" that it's not funny.
If you think it's 'obvious' that some outwardly God-fearing, church-attending children have in fact rejected God so badly that he hands them over to unnatural sexual desires as a punishment for their rejection of Him, then I simply don't agree with you. I spent a long time trying to find the 'obvious' idolatrous rejection of God that I'd committed without finding it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ad Orientem, Romans 1 doesn't simply say homosexuality is a sin. It says that homosexuality is a PUNISHMENT for sin.
If it had just said that homosexuality was a sin, then I guess I would have spent my younger years feeling guilty about sinning, but then heck, everybody sins.
No, Romans 1 - if you read it as literal and true and correct - says that people are handed over to homosexuality because of something else that they've done.
Which, as I've already indicated, led to me thinking that (1) I must have done something truly awful, and (2) even more worryingly, I had completely missed the fact that it was awful while doing it. I had somehow gone beyond the pale before I was even an adult.
That's so far beyond "homosexuality is a sin" that it's not funny.
If you think it's 'obvious' that some outwardly God-fearing, church-attending children have in fact rejected God so badly that he hands them over to unnatural sexual desires as a punishment for their rejection of Him, then I simply don't agree with you. I spent a long time trying to find the 'obvious' idolatrous rejection of God that I'd committed without finding it.
The Apostle is speaking of mankind in general, that because having in the beginning known God and then departing from him, beginning with the sin of Adam, mankind has abandoned himself to these sins.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
Well if all of mankind is given up to sin in those terms then why isn't everyone gay? Why does God only pick certain people to be especially mean to?
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Well if all of mankind is given up to sin in those terms then why isn't everyone gay? Why does God only pick certain people to be especially mean to?
We went through this somewhere earlier in the thread.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Apostle is speaking of mankind in general, that because having in the beginning known God and then departing from him, beginning with the sin of Adam, mankind has abandoned himself to these sins.
Um, no, he is CLEARLY speaking about Gentiles.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Steve Langton - I am familiar with the concept of elders. Why, though, should marriage be compulsory for them? I agree that compulsory celibacy is a bad idea, but so is compulsory marriage - they are surely as bad as each other. What if someone is called to celibacy, but also eldership? Also, there is a difference between lifelong, vocational celibacy and being celibate because you haven't met the person you want to marry yet. The former is something people are called to, and is less common, but I don't see why anyone should be excluded from eldership for either kind of celibacy.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Well if all of mankind is given up to sin in those terms then why isn't everyone gay? Why does God only pick certain people to be especially mean to?
My understanding of "given up to X" is not that God makes people do X, but rather people say "I want to do X" and God, rather than stopping them from doing so, says, "Fine. Knock yourself out". This is contrasted from hardening Pharaoh's heart, which made it impossible for him to change his mind.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But the argument is not about "Should Christians be moral?", a binary question that admits of a simple answer, but rather "What is moral and what is immoral for a Christian?", a much more multifaceted and difficult question.
Exactly!
And the point I was making was that some (many?) Christians seem to want to have a rule book to answer the question of what is or is not moral, just as the Pharisees had their rule book. But Jesus pointed in a very different direction - one which has far less clear cut answers, but which is much more adaptable to all contexts and circumstances - the way of love. This way requires that, instead of simply reading the "right" answer from a book, we have to think deeply about what is truly loving in all circumstances. And this affects how we see all sorts of issues - from homosexuality to assisted dying and from resistance to injustice to how we deal with terrorists.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You know how I, at least would answer that and how, until relatively recently, Christianity has always answered it. It is an obvious answer.
Not the issue I was addressing. If you think the woman-caught-in-adultery pericope addresses this issue, you are mistaken. Why are you changing the subject?
I was referring to your third question.
I know. But my third question wasn't the point of what I wrote. I could have used any act that humans do. Probably should have referred to something asexual such as murder, so that nobody would try to make what I said into something other than what I said.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Steve Langton - I am familiar with the concept of elders. Why, though, should marriage be compulsory for them? I agree that compulsory celibacy is a bad idea, but so is compulsory marriage - they are surely as bad as each other. What if someone is called to celibacy, but also eldership? Also, there is a difference between lifelong, vocational celibacy and being celibate because you haven't met the person you want to marry yet. The former is something people are called to, and is less common, but I don't see why anyone should be excluded from eldership for either kind of celibacy.
A bit of a tangent from this thread; Obviously there should be neither compulsory marriage nor compulsory celibacy. The NT does imply that normally you will be choosing 'elders' from among married persons, and one of the reasons it gives is that you will judge a person's fitness for the role of elder by their ability in managing their family life.
Also when thinking of eldership 'calling' is viewed in a slightly different way, not that the person feels a call to eldership but that the (local) church feels led to call that person. The whole issue is somewhat different to the usual way that 'high church' priesthood is considered.
In my experience of a church run by a plural eldership there were not only the 10-12 formal elders but at least as many more people in the church who developed gifts and participated in preaching and pastoring in various ways, providing a pool from which replacements for the formal eldership would be chosen. Thus it was not a "sit back and leave it to the 'ordained' bloke" situation, but an encouragement to everybody to work on their various abilities.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
A bit of a tangent from this thread; Obviously there should be neither compulsory marriage nor compulsory celibacy. The NT does imply that normally you will be choosing 'elders' from among married persons, and one of the reasons it gives is that you will judge a person's fitness for the role of elder by their ability in managing their family life.
It does no such thing. It quite plainly says an elder MUST be the husband of one wife. Interpreting it to say anything else requires a hermeneutic which could also interpret passages about homosexuality to not say what the "conservatives" want it to say. Or in other words, the application of this hermeneutic is used inconsistently and perhaps hypocritically.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Fair comment, MT. I was trying to avoid opening up too many separate 'cans of worms' by recognising that there are other interpretations around. One of those interpretations basically says Paul's primary concern here is to stress one wife as opposed to polygamy. But yes, Paul is expecting an elder to be a family man.
But equally, from my viewpoint this version of a 'presbyter' is nothing much like an RCC, Orthodox, or high church Anglican 'priest'; and as Jade C's question was phrased, I thought it best for my answer to stress that different view. For example, about the different way 'calling' is looked on where such 'eldership' is practiced.
quote:
Interpreting it to say anything else requires a hermeneutic which could also interpret passages about homosexuality to not say what the "conservatives" want it to say.
Actually I believe that Jesus' example in interpreting the OT does allow considerable flexibility in the NT also - but requiring us to very much consider the original purpose of the text we are interpreting; as when Jesus points out that the Sabbath was made for man rather than the other way round. I'm not a supporter of strict Sunday observance....
At the same time it's important to beware of turning that into total licence to interpret however we want. In the case of the homosexuality texts I think that the confirmation of OT teaching on marriage by Jesus and Paul, plus Paul's words about homosexuality, make a prima facie case that we shouldn't be changing in that area.
This goes along with my attitude to tradition; that yes we must have new ideas beyond the Bible, but must constantly return to the biblical base and be sure we are genuinely developing and not contradicting.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Determining the "original purpose" of a passage is very much a matter of interpretation. Return to which Biblical base? You can only mean the traditional one, if you reject alternate parsings of Scripture. Thus, setting tradition against scripture is an exercise in setting tradition against tradition. Which will win? Very often, the one we wanted to from the outset.
Anyway my point is simply if you are going to use one hermeneutic to interpret one verse and another to interpret another, you had better have a good, non-question-begging reason for doing so. (generic "you")
[ 05. August 2014, 18:17: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
To take this back to the OP, what counts as sex here? Frequently, only penetrative sex is considered 'real' sex, so lots of sex between queer people (of various genders but especially sex between two cisgender women) is not considered sex in the first place.
--------------------
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
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
To take this back to the OP, what counts as sex here? Frequently, only penetrative sex is considered 'real' sex, so lots of sex between queer people (of various genders but especially sex between two cisgender women) is not considered sex in the first place.
Hmmm. Sounds like a suitable thread for
this possible new board?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
To take this back to the OP, what counts as sex here? Frequently, only penetrative sex is considered 'real' sex, so lots of sex between queer people (of various genders but especially sex between two cisgender women) is not considered sex in the first place.
Yeah, I did raise the what to do with my clitoris issue earlier in the thread - I was told it all comes under the rubric of sex. But I am unconvinced the patriarchs gave it any thought.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Woman, cleave to your man. The clitoris doesn't make babies.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
To take this back to the OP, what counts as sex here? Frequently, only penetrative sex is considered 'real' sex, so lots of sex between queer people (of various genders but especially sex between two cisgender women) is not considered sex in the first place.
Shades of Bill Clinton.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Woman, cleave to your man. The clitoris doesn't make babies.
Quotes file.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
To take this back to the OP, what counts as sex here? Frequently, only penetrative sex is considered 'real' sex, so lots of sex between queer people (of various genders but especially sex between two cisgender women) is not considered sex in the first place.
Hmmm. Sounds like a suitable thread for
this possible new board?
I'm slightly baffled by this being requested - sex gets discussed rather a lot on the Ship IME!
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
