|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Biblical interpretation of apparently anti-gay passages
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I thought the biblical interpretation used, was to say the pertinent verses in the old testament referred to the worship practices of the cult of a false god (Molech I think) and those in the new testament were concerned with temple prostitution.
Ricardus offers a different breakdown here: quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The question is then whether the prohibition on gay sex falls inside the Mosaic Laws or the general laws, and Paul prima facie seems to have believed the latter.
This seems more evident to me and, as I understand the OP, to Eliab. Which is more problematic.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I thought the biblical interpretation used, was to say the pertinent verses in the old testament referred to the worship practices of the cult of a false god (Molech I think) and those in the new testament were concerned with temple prostitution.
Ricardus offers a different breakdown here: quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The question is then whether the prohibition on gay sex falls inside the Mosaic Laws or the general laws, and Paul prima facie seems to have believed the latter.
This seems more evident to me and, as I understand the OP, to Eliab. Which is more problematic.
If we could set aside the question of whether Romans is authoritative and ask only what it (probably) means, I wouldn't go for Doublethink's explanation as the most likely. It's possible - and the link between idolatry and sexual practice is certainly there in the text - but it seems more likely to me that the link is between two things which the writer and his first readers would have agreed were wrong. "If you err theological by worshipping idols (which is wrong), you may become so corrupt that you end up having sex with other men, if male, or unnatural-possibly-but-not-definitely-lesbian sex, if female (which is also wrong)". If I wasn't bothered about having to obey Paul's teachings, I'd have no serious doubt that he was anti-gay. And I'd be glad that human understanding of morality had advanced since his day to the point where I could be sure that he was mistaken.
Alternative explanations commend themselves to me only as a way out of the moral quandary of there otherwise being a clear ethical failure in the plain text of what I believe is sacred scripture. If the "temple prostitution" angle is all Paul meant to talk about, then he can still be right - so it's very tempting to believe that that is all he was talking about. And it is plausible enough to be a possible reading. But I also know that I wouldn't read the text that way if I didn't feel, in some way, that it was inspired by God.
My argument is that it is right to read less likely meanings into scripture, if the most likely reading would be immoral - whereas with any other historic document, we'd simply take the most likely reading, and decide that the author was wrong.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Ricardus offers a different breakdown here: quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The question is then whether the prohibition on gay sex falls inside the Mosaic Laws or the general laws, and Paul prima facie seems to have believed the latter.
This seems more evident to me and, as I understand the OP, to Eliab. Which is more problematic.
Is there a way to make that distinction that doesn't rely on special pleading? Why are First Testament rules on homosexuality considered "generally applicable", but First Testament rules on menstruation (for example) are a special case only applicable to Jews? There's no distinction made in the text that says "Leviticus 20:13 applies to everyone, but Leviticus 20:18 is just for the Chosen People".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Alternative explanations commend themselves to me only as a way out of the moral quandary of there otherwise being a clear ethical failure in the plain text of what I believe is sacred scripture.
Why must sacred = verbatim?
Sorry for the broken record repetition, but this is the problem. If the belief is that the bible is divinely inspired, spoken through imperfect vessels, there is less of an issue. The problem lies, IMO, in viewing the bible as if spoken through an oracle, God's words through human larynx. If the later is the case, he is an inefective communicator, as fickle as any Greek god.
And for another repitition, both Paul and Jesus are on record for saying celibacy is better than any type marriage and that is a cue followed by very few Christian sects.
Christians all pick and choose.
So again, for no one offers a good explanation, why so hung up on homosexuality = wrong when that fairly clearly goes against Jesus teachings?
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If the later is the case, he is an ineffective communicator, as fickle as any Greek god
Tell me about it!
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Thank you for the chuckle. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) Kinda needed it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Is there a way to make that distinction that doesn't rely on special pleading? Why are First Testament rules on homosexuality considered "generally applicable", but First Testament rules on menstruation (for example) are a special case only applicable to Jews?
That's a great question.
Crœsos, I'm indebted to you inasmuch as you first drew my attention to Zelophehad's daughters (as related here).
As I mentioned, this happened to be where my preaching series through Numbers had got to as of last Sunday.
For me this was an opportunity to set down where I had got to (as of last Sunday) on inspiration, of Scripture and of interpretation.
I don't explicitly refer to gay issues or SSM, but I don't think you have to read very much between the lines to see where I've got to on that. I have not been burned to the stake by my congregation - yet.
So I have indulged myself by doing an on-the-fly translation of it into English and posting it for you all, here. Please don't y'all burn me to the stake either.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
homosexuality = wrong when that fairly clearly goes against Jesus teachings?
If it was as clear as all that from Jesus' teachings, I think this issue would have been settled a long time ago. Jesus doesn't say anything either way on homosexuality, and does cite Genesis on man and woman becoming one flesh, among other references to hetero marriage.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Crœsos, I'm indebted to you inasmuch as you first drew my attention to Zelophehad's daughters (as related here).
Glad I could help. BTW, you may be interested in Fred Clark's take on the same incident.
quote:
That’s the context here. Moses speaks for God. The laws that Moses has just explained are laws given by God. And ever since the ground opened up to swallow Korah and his friends, no one in Israel has dared to question Moses’ authority or the justice of any of those laws.
Until now.
Now Moses is again being confronted, but not by clan leaders and respected well-known men. He’s being challenged by five sisters. The law, these sisters tell Moses, is not fair. God’s law is not fair.
Keep in mind that theirs is a world that hasn’t yet parsed out a thousand different words to create a distinction between justice and righteousness. If God’s law is unjust, then God’s law is not righteous. These women are not just challenging the authority of Moses and the authority of God, they’re challenging the basis for that authority. And they’re doing it right there in front of the tabernacle, “before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the leaders, and all the congregation.”
It's an interesting example of one of the rare times in the Torah when arguments from human beings convince God to change His mind.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If it was as clear as all that from Jesus' teachings, I think this issue would have been settled a long time ago. Jesus doesn't say anything either way on homosexuality, and does cite Genesis on man and woman becoming one flesh, among other references to hetero marriage.
Interestingly that passage from Genesis seems to be an aside to the reader rather than anything applicable within the narrative. After all, if "[t]hat is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife", then that description cannot apply to Adam, who had no father or mother to leave. Which rather begs the question of whether Adam and Eve were actually "married", in either the civil or theological sense of the term.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
homosexuality = wrong when that fairly clearly goes against Jesus teachings?
If it was as clear as all that from Jesus' teachings, I think this issue would have been settled a long time ago. Jesus doesn't say anything either way on homosexuality, and does cite Genesis on man and woman becoming one flesh, among other references to hetero marriage.
And he does that in reference to divorce. Context is everything.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Context is everything.
It's certainly not nothing, but it's a fact that Jesus alludes here and elsewhere to hetero marriage and says nothing at all that is unequivocally about homosexuality - either way.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Context is everything.
It's certainly not nothing, but it's a fact that Jesus alludes here and elsewhere to hetero marriage and says nothing at all that is unequivocally about homosexuality - either way.
So then what do you do? My thought would be to evaluate against his overall message. And it is difficult, for me, to see any way Jesus would condemn SSM.
--------------------
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 orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Nor, Orfeo, do you have a gay birthday or celebrate a gay Christmas. That's why I'd like to get away from having gay marriage and instead look to removing gender/sexuality etc as a barrier to marriage.
"Marriage equality" is indeed a better phrase for that reason. It does, though, sometimes have adverse side-effects in discussions with those whose whole believe is that it's not possible to be 'equal' because they find the difference incredibly important.
I have at various points, including a different Dead Horses thread, speculated as to how the ingredients of a gay wedding cake differ from a straight one. Perhaps the eggs of lesbian chickens are specially selected.
A couple of problems with "marriage equality". The first is that it allows some to argue for a form of civil partnership, on the basis that that is equal. Of course it's not, but that won't top the argument.
The second is that it has patronising elements to it -"look, aren't we good, giving something". whereas my approach gives nothing but removes barriers.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
My thought would be to evaluate against his overall message. And it is difficult, for me, to see any way Jesus would condemn SSM.
Well, that's where we get into the arguments about what Paul meant.
As for Jesus, he might not condemn it, but he might not champion it either. We just don't immediately know either way.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
it seems more likely to me that the link is between two things which the writer and his first readers would have agreed were wrong.
Whereas I would argue the link is things that the writer knew his first readers would agree were wrong.
Which is not the same thing. And I think the difference is crucial because of how Romans 2 starts. It talks about "you" who have just indulged in judging others. Not "we".
The point, as I've long understood it, is to have readers feeling self-satisfied right before springing on them.
Very recently a conservative Christian friend of mine shared a meme on Facebook about how Jesus ate with sinners, but didn't participate in their sin. I responded by pointing out that every single person Jesus ever ate with was a sinner.
[ 25. February 2016, 01:09: 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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Is there a way to make that distinction that doesn't rely on special pleading? Why are First Testament rules on homosexuality considered "generally applicable", but First Testament rules on menstruation (for example) are a special case only applicable to Jews? There's no distinction made in the text that says "Leviticus 20:13 applies to everyone, but Leviticus 20:18 is just for the Chosen People".
Hence the need to invoke St Paul.
(Unless you're saying St Paul is special pleading as well.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Picking and choosing whist you will revere and what you will ignore is special pleading no matter how you do it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I could quite easily imagine the Pharisees accusing Jesus of "special pleading" in his attitude to the Law.
Wikipedia defines "special pleading" thus: quote:
an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.
Some arguments on this issue certainly do fall foul of that definition, but for many others, I think it's more a case of disagreement as to whether the exception is justified. Your special pleading might be my justified exception.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
I know the whole thread is about biblical interpretation but what if, just what if, as so many theologians have held (even very trad ones like Aquinas), morality were not something that is revealed. I care not a jot what Paul wrote if it's supposed to order my behaviour according to norms that would otherwise pass my understanding. Ethics are not revealed.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Ethics are not revealed.
So what standard are you using? The views of "every right-minded Greek" (as per Plato)?
I think going with a majority view is actually a reasonable way to make ethical choices of right behaviour - but then leaves a problem when criticising others from different cultural backgrounds and when the majority is wrong.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Ethics are not revealed.
So what standard are you using? The views of "every right-minded Greek" (as per Plato)?
I think going with a majority view is actually a reasonable way to make ethical choices of right behaviour - but then leaves a problem when criticising others from different cultural backgrounds and when the majority is wrong.
Such things as demonstrable harm and human flourishing, MrCheesy, or even natural law should you be catholically inclined.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Such things as demonstrable harm and human flourishing, MrCheesy, or even natural law should you be catholically inclined.
I was with you as far as the first two, but got thrown by the third, as it is often invoked to justify a fundamental male-female difference that has an impact on the rightness or wrongness of sexual relations (see point 3 in Joan the Outlaw-Dwarf's immortal list here).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
Think about it: why have we stopped inflicting the hideous forms of punishment actually revealed as appropriate in the Torah, much like the huddud penalties currently inflicted by Daesh, (and we have well into Tudor times), is it because Jesus further 'revealed' to us that we should be nicer? Have we stopped stoning adulterers because Jesus showed us it should be so? or because Paul alleviated the rule?
Same thing on gay sex or SSM: the. Bible. is. wrong.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
it is often invoked to justify a fundamental male-female difference that has an impact on the rightness or wrongness of sexual relations
yea, but that's a pop version of natural law, IMO. It'd take hundreds of pages to demonstrate it, I'm sure, but in its Thomas for at least, natural need only imply that just as logic is reliant on a few principles that cannot be denied (e.g. non-contradiction) so is morality (e.g. good is to be sought and evil avoided).
[ 25. February 2016, 08:17: Message edited by: Joesaphat ]
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
in its thomist form, damn the automatic spellchecker
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Think about it: why have we stopped inflicting the hideous forms of punishment actually revealed as appropriate in the Torah, much like the huddud penalties currently inflicted by Daesh, (and we have well into Tudor times), is it because Jesus further 'revealed' to us that we should be nicer? Have we stopped stoning adulterers because Jesus showed us it should be so? or because Paul alleviated the rule?
Same thing on gay sex or SSM: the. Bible. is. wrong.
OK, I think there is a gap between saying "ethics are not revealed", which appears to me to be highly problematic and saying "the revealed ethics of the bible are wrong".
To me it isn't a question of whether ethics are or not revealed, but as to which revelation is authoritative and why.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Think about it: why have we stopped inflicting the hideous forms of punishment actually revealed as appropriate in the Torah, much like the huddud penalties currently inflicted by Daesh, (and we have well into Tudor times), is it because Jesus further 'revealed' to us that we should be nicer? Have we stopped stoning adulterers because Jesus showed us it should be so? or because Paul alleviated the rule?
Same thing on gay sex or SSM: the. Bible. is. wrong.
OK, I think there is a gap between saying "ethics are not revealed", which appears to me to be highly problematic and saying "the revealed ethics of the bible are wrong".
To me it isn't a question of whether ethics are or not revealed, but as to which revelation is authoritative and why.
What do you mean by revelation then? If it's something that would otherwise be inaccessible to human reason, of course it cannot be proved wrong. You just have to go along, not knowing why.
[ 25. February 2016, 08:34: Message edited by: Joesaphat ]
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I care not a jot what Paul wrote if it's supposed to order my behaviour according to norms that would otherwise pass my understanding. Ethics are not revealed.
I certainly turned a corner in my thinking when I came to see Acts, in particular, as descriptive and not prescriptive, and it's not much of a leap from there to seeing the epistles in the same light: a record of how the first Christians addressed the issues they faced with the light that they had, rather than all details being set in stone for all time.
Nevertheless, to be perfectly honest I still struggle with making a similar leap when it comes to homosexuality because male and female appears to me to be such a foundational thing, notably in the first chapters of Genesis.
Intellectually, I can readily accept homosexuality as part of life today, post-Fall - in much the same way as I do divorce and remarriage. Jesus' rather wistful words on this subject "but that is not how it was in the beginning" - and his accompanying acknowledgement of the need to accommodate this state of affairs - resonate with me in this respect.
I know this isn't acceptable to a lot of people because it puts homosexuality in the "not God's best" category (although for me, as stated before, that excludes neither great good nor grace, or inclusion).
So far, I haven't found a (to me) more satisfactory way of joining the dots between Genesis and where we find ourselves in today's world.
Just my €0.02.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I care not a jot what Paul wrote if it's supposed to order my behaviour according to norms that would otherwise pass my understanding. Ethics are not revealed.
I certainly turned a corner in my thinking when I came to see Acts, in particular, as descriptive and not prescriptive, and it's not much of a leap from there to seeing the epistles in the same light: a record of how the first Christians addressed the issues they faced with the light that they had, rather than all details being set in stone for all time.
Nevertheless, to be perfectly honest I still struggle with making a similar leap when it comes to homosexuality because male and female appears to me to be such a foundational thing, notably in the first chapters of Genesis.
Intellectually, I can readily accept homosexuality as part of life today, post-Fall - in much the same way as I do divorce and remarriage. Jesus' rather wistful words on this subject "but that is not how it was in the beginning" - and his accompanying acknowledgement of the need to accommodate this state of affairs - resonate with me in this respect.
I know this isn't acceptable to a lot of people because it puts homosexuality in the "not God's best" category (although for me, as stated before, that excludes neither great good nor grace, or inclusion).
So far, I haven't found a (to me) more satisfactory way of joining the dots between Genesis and where we find ourselves in today's world.
Just my €0.02.
In the beginning were sexless anaerobic bacteria, then trilobites a few aeons down the line. Sexual dimorphism is very, very late... pace Matthew.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Picking and choosing whist you will revere and what you will ignore is special pleading no matter how you do it.
If you have a method for picking and choosing then by definition it is not special pleading. Your method may be wrong and stupid but that's a different issue.
lilBuddha, you identify as Buddhist, do you not? But I would bet small amounts of money that you don't believe in the literal existence of hot and cold narakas, or that the sick old man seen by the Buddha was a simulacrum created by the gods. Would you appreciate it if your attempts to explain such apparent anomalies in your worldview were just dismissed as picking and choosing or special pleading?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
In the beginning were sexless anaerobic bacteria, then trilobites a few aeons down the line. Sexual dimorphism is very, very late... pace Matthew.
You can read the second creation narrative that way, too - that humanity was originally without sex. In which case, the emphasis on it becoming two distinct sexes appears more significant, not less, does it not?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Nevertheless, to be perfectly honest I still struggle with making a similar leap when it comes to homosexuality because male and female appears to me to be such a foundational thing, notably in the first chapters of Genesis.
How am I not male?
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
How am I not male?
The text goes on to talk about the male and the female becoming one flesh...
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I know the whole thread is about biblical interpretation but what if, just what if, as so many theologians have held (even very trad ones like Aquinas), morality were not something that is revealed. I care not a jot what Paul wrote if it's supposed to order my behaviour according to norms that would otherwise pass my understanding. Ethics are not revealed.
It has just occurred to me - and this may hark back to the discussion about 'nature' right at the beginning of the thread - that there is an inherent tension between St Paul saying that the Gentiles have the law written on their hearts, and in the same passage that they are so corrupted by idolatry that they don't realise gay sex is wrong. (If that is indeed what St Paul meant ...)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
It's surely presupposing male-female coupling, though? In other words, does it preclude 'so a man/woman leaves his/her father and his/her mother and clings to his/her spouse, and they become one flesh' now that we have an expanded concept of such relationships?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Ricardus,
From the Kālāma sutra:
quote:
Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Rather, when you yourselves know that these things are good; these things are not blamable; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness, then and only then enter into and abide in them.
The existance of narakas and gods are irrelevant. Even the existance of the Buddha is not foundational. It is not coincidental that Christianity is less science friendly than Buddhism.*
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
In the beginning were sexless anaerobic bacteria, then trilobites a few aeons down the line. Sexual dimorphism is very, very late... pace Matthew.
You can read the second creation narrative that way, too - that humanity was originally without sex. In which case, the emphasis on it becoming two distinct sexes appears more significant, not less, does it not?
No, it does not. You learn the wrong lesson.
It is wrong to look at evolution as a progressive path.
Sexual dimorphism is one strategy, not the ultimate one.
Genesis is not a biology tome, nor an historical one. Unless you believe in a 6,000 year old earth, then we have nothing to discuss.
*It should be obvious that this is not to say that one cannot be a Christian and accept science or be Buddhist and reject it.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
How am I not male?
The text goes on to talk about the male and the female becoming one flesh...
Well, you didn't say becoming one flesh was a foundational thing, you said that male and female was a foundational thing.
And it's incredibly critical that you tease that out, because all sorts of implications start being drawn out of it. It's a very dangerous thing to start suggesting that you're not fully male or female if you don't become one flesh.
I don't think it's much less dangerous to start saying that becoming one flesh is foundational, such that if you fail to do this you're not being a full human being.
You're actually trying to come down to a notion that a particular combination of these elements - being male, being female, coming together as one flesh - is "foundational" such that any other combination is "non-foundational". But that's a pretty problematic use of language in itself. You're still in serious danger of putting forward an argument that says it is a moral duty of every human being to find a mate of the opposite gender and become one flesh with them, and that anyone who fails to do this is not fulfilling their function as a human being.
It's not far away from thinking such as childlessness is a curse from God. And you can in fact find thinking in the Bible along those lines, particularly in the Old Testament. But not many people think along those lines now.
--------------------
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
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I know the whole thread is about biblical interpretation but what if, just what if, as so many theologians have held (even very trad ones like Aquinas), morality were not something that is revealed. I care not a jot what Paul wrote if it's supposed to order my behaviour according to norms that would otherwise pass my understanding. Ethics are not revealed.
It has just occurred to me - and this may hark back to the discussion about 'nature' right at the beginning of the thread - that there is an inherent tension between St Paul saying that the Gentiles have the law written on their hearts, and in the same passage that they are so corrupted by idolatry that they don't realise gay sex is wrong. (If that is indeed what St Paul meant ...)
He actually says that their idolatry caused their sexual licentiousness. This is all over rabbinical literature of the game, he's not unique, but I cannot think of any way meaningful in which idolatry causes homosexuality.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
Eutychus, you're also assuming that to become one flesh is to have sexual intercourse or beget children, but that's minority reading in the OT itself. As Prof. Brownson has shown, it frequently means nothing more than becoming kin.
Genesis 29:14 and Laban said to him, “Surely you are my bone and my flesh!” And he stayed with him a month.
Judges 9:2 “Say in the hearing of all the lords of Shechem, ‘Which is better for you, that all seventy of the sons of Jerubbaal rule over you, or that one rule over you?’ Remember also that I am your bone and your flesh.”
2 Samuel 5:1 Then all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron, and said, “Look, we are your bone and flesh.
2 Samuel 19:12 You are my kin, you are my bone and my flesh; why then should you be the last to bring back the king?’
2 Samuel 19:13 And say to Amasa, ‘Are you not my bone and my flesh? So may God do to me, and more, if you are not the commander of my army from now on, in place of Joab.'”
1 Chronicles 11:1 Then all Israel gathered together to David at Hebron and said, “See, we are your bone and flesh.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The existance of narakas and gods are irrelevant. Even the existance of the Buddha is not foundational. It is not coincidental that Christianity is less science friendly than Buddhism.
You don't need to justify Buddhism to me. I have a great respect for Buddhism.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am in favour of SSM and for treating gay couples equally within the church. But I think one should defend this belief using arguments that are true, and I don't think the argument from shellfish is one of them. I responded in an ill-tempered way because I think the argument from shellfish is a misrepresentation.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I'm not convinced that an argument is needed in support of marriage equality or equal treatment of gays.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Ricardus,
I was not justifying Buddhism so much as offering explanation. Reading my reply, it could seem a little defencive, but it was more educational and to show where my POV comes from.
My primary point about Christianity doesn't hang on the shellfish issue; but that the bible is inconsistent if read in a legalistic and/or divinely transcribed fashion.
My secondary point is that Christians already ignore parts of the bible and even have practices that are not directly biblical.
LeRoc,
I think this thread shows it is necessary to have the discussion, though I agree that it shouldn't be. IMO, reading Jesus' message should be enough.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
It isn't just about reading Jesus' message.
In my view, the onus to make a moral case is on who wants to forbid something, not on who wants to allow it.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, you didn't say becoming one flesh was a foundational thing, you said that male and female was a foundational thing.
And it's incredibly critical that you tease that out, because all sorts of implications start being drawn out of it. It's a very dangerous thing to start suggesting that you're not fully male or female if you don't become one flesh.
Indeed. Which is an excellent reason for saying, as I did, that "male and female" is foundational - and stopping right there*.
That said, in the very next verse it goes on to talk about the man cleaving to his wife and becoming one flesh.
To drive a wall between those two verses is, it seems to me, about as ridiculous as trying to drive a wall between two consecutive verses in Leviticus, as Croesos decried just now.
All the more so in that the second of the two verses in question begins "For this reason..."
It doesn't say "all men must...", but does it not suggest that - at least in the beginning (and as reiterated by Jesus, and Paul) - the idea was for a man to become one flesh with a woman, and not another man? How else can this be understood?
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Eutychus, you're also assuming that to become one flesh is to have sexual intercourse or beget children, but that's minority reading in the OT itself. As Prof. Brownson has shown, it frequently means nothing more than becoming kin.
Genesis 29:14 and Laban said to him, “Surely you are my bone and my flesh!” And he stayed with him a month.
I have been careful not to equate having intercourse with bearing children, and indeed a few verses and the Fall elapse before that stage, so I think I'm on safe ground distinguishing the two.
I'm no Hebrew scholar, but while I can well imagine that the "my bone and my flesh" examples you cite might be the equivalent of what Adam says of Eve in Gen 2:23, I'd be really surprised if they are the equivalent of "the two shall become one flesh" in Gen 2:24. Can you demonstrate otherwise (genuinely curious)?
Besides, both Jesus and Paul unequivocally take that passage as referring to sexual relations, whether inside or outside of marriage, so I think it really smacks of desperation to suggest that "becoming one flesh" could be understood to mean anything else here.
=
*Yes this doesn't address intersex people, but while I think a lot of the issues intermingle, it's probably too much of a distraction here. Which is not to discount the immense challenges and suffering such people face - nor how absolutely amazing an incarnation of humanity they can be.
[ 25. February 2016, 20:16: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, you didn't say becoming one flesh was a foundational thing, you said that male and female was a foundational thing.
And it's incredibly critical that you tease that out, because all sorts of implications start being drawn out of it. It's a very dangerous thing to start suggesting that you're not fully male or female if you don't become one flesh.
Indeed. Which is an excellent reason for saying, as I did, that "male and female" is foundational - and stopping right there*.
That said, in the very next verse it goes on to talk about the man cleaving to his wife and becoming one flesh.
To drive a wall between those two verses is, it seems to me, about as ridiculous as trying to drive a wall between two consecutive verses in Leviticus, as Croesos decried just now.
All the more so in that the second of the two verses in question begins "For this reason..."
If you're against driving walls between verses, maybe you should widen your scope beyond two verses. The first of which does NOT say "male and female he created them" in any case. That's Genesis 1:27. The verse before Genesis 2:24 is actually Genesis 2:23, which talks about Adam naming the flesh of his flesh as 'woman', and there are several relevant verses before that outlining the purpose of creating a woman - incredibly important for figuring out what "this reason" is. The words 'male' and 'female' don't appear in the passage.
You did not, by the way, simply say male and female were foundational and stop right there. You said it in a context. The only way that male and female being foundational is any kind of argument against homosexuality is if you go further.
That's exactly why I asked you how I'm not male. Because as far as I'm concerned I'm 100% male. Tick. Foundational requirement met.
[ 25. February 2016, 21:02: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It doesn't say "all men must...", but does it not suggest that - at least in the beginning (and as reiterated by Jesus, and Paul) - the idea was for a man to become one flesh with a woman, and not another man?
Well, it suggests that a particular man's idea was to become one flesh with a particular woman.
God does not say: here is a woman, the idea is for you to become one flesh with her. Rather God says God will provide some candidate companions and see which one you think is suitable. Before Eve comes along, Adam is shown all the other animals in the search for a companion. Which means that if Adam had fancied sheep, or aardvarks, we would be having a very different conversation here. It is Adam's acceptance of Eve as companion that marks her out as the appropriate one flesh. (As twenty-first century readers, we must believe Eve accepted Adam back, but that's not in the text itself.)
The only normative idea the text seems to put forward is that a man must live with his parents until he's married, and then the couple set up at the wife's parents.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is not coincidental that Christianity is less science friendly than Buddhism.
Without wanting to denigrate the achievements of Indian and Chinese mathematics, I point out that the experimental empirical scientific revolution took place in Latin Christendom.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
God does not say: here is a woman, the idea is for you to become one flesh with her. Rather God says God will provide some candidate companions and see which one you think is suitable. Before Eve comes along, Adam is shown all the other animals in the search for a companion. Which means that if Adam had fancied sheep, or aardvarks, we would be having a very different conversation here. It is Adam's acceptance of Eve as companion that marks her out as the appropriate one flesh. (As twenty-first century readers, we must believe Eve accepted Adam back, but that's not in the text itself.)
Thank you. This is exactly what I'm trying to get across, but you've expressed it far better.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is not coincidental that Christianity is less science friendly than Buddhism.
Without wanting to denigrate the achievements of Indian and Chinese mathematics, I point out that the experimental empirical scientific revolution took place in Latin Christendom.
I was speaking of Modernity, but ...
quote:
Thus, clear unbroken lines of influence lead from ancient Greek and Hellenistic philosophers, to medieval Muslim philosophers and scientists, to the European Renaissance and Enlightenment, to the secular sciences of the modern day.
I was reading an article speaking of scientific literacy in Christian countries like the US vs Buddhist countries. I will look try to find the article.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I was not justifying Buddhism so much as offering explanation. Reading my reply, it could seem a little defencive, but it was more educational and to show where my POV comes from.
If I thought you were defensive, it was only because I thought I had been offensive.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
