|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Beyond Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6
|
PonderFactory
Apprentice
# 16415
|
Posted
This is my first serious post here at SoF, so if I am posting amiss please let me know!
I'm a recent escapee from hardcore fundamental christian theology. I am a true bible believer, but some closely held doctrine simply cannot be intellectually sustained by me on a "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" basis any longer.
The first issue I am determined to address with honest sincerity is homosexuality. I realise this topic may automatically be relegated to 'flogging a dead horse' but it is new to me. Who knew we were allowed to question this topic?
In the fundamental interpretation of the bible, it is a sin. Both noun and verb. This is what I've been taught ad nauseum my whole life. But socially, I have always struggled to accept this doctrine. I have no real answer when people object to this fairly antiquated theology.
I've made some progress, reading refutations written by Mel White, in an attempt to see where the 'temple prostitute' argument comes from. I like some of his stuff but I was left rather disappointed by his failure to sufficiently address the design argument I still see in the bible, that marriage was defined by the Lord to be between a man and a woman.
So, I am at an impasse. I really believe there must be a way to be accepting of homosexuality in today's society and I can't continue with my head in the sand, but have no yet found a way to do this without feeling as though I have devalued scripture which I hold near and dear. It's as if this new tolerance of mine is coming at the cost of believing in a relevant, inerrant, Word of God. Please reassure me that this isn't so!
Moving on to the bible study part of things, I feel I am relatively happy considering the Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6 passages about homosexuality in the light of cultural influences at the time to come up with 'gay friendly' doctrine, but I am at a loss as to how to honestly address scripture as a whole that sets up a design for marriage as between a man and a woman.
If you could help, perhaps point me towards some threads already beaten to death on this issue, I would really appreciate it.
Posts: 25 | From: Brisbane | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PonderFactory:
It's as if this new tolerance of mine is coming at the cost of believing in a relevant, inerrant, Word of God. Please reassure me that this isn't so!
It's so, kid. And I agree that the attempts to weasel out of Biblical condemnation of homosexual behavior are indefensible. But the alternative is a different hermeneutic ISTM. When we look at the Biblical view of slavery, we see that the Bible is fine with it. Those antebellum Southerners who invoked scripture to defend slavery weren't misreading scripture -- it really is in there. But they -- and scripture -- were wrong. We are quite comfortable with that notion now (although we now generally gloss over the fact that scripture got it wrong, too).
Scripture is a major place where the Divine meets the human. We are left with the task of separating the two, and we aren't going to always get it right. If our salvation depends on our getting everything right, we are doomed. But it does not. Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
[ 13. May 2011, 13:35: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PonderFactory
Apprentice
# 16415
|
Posted
This journey is going to be a LOT harder than I thought. Being totally honest, the bible says it's a sin. Any argument to the contrary is weakly defended. I've been a believer 14 years and this is the first time I've ever had to consider the bible could be wrong on something. It is very uncomfortable.
I guess I need to ask where this leads me. Can the bible still be informative today on issues of sexuality, or is it totally antiquated on that subject?
I see the 'design argument', that God made man and woman for marriage, to be symbolic of what was to come, Christ as the head of the Church.
Do you leave it at that, or is there still meaning for today in God making marriage between man and woman. (ITMS?) ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posts: 25 | From: Brisbane | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Hello PonderFactory, have you read anything by Brian McLaren? He proposes a different way of reading the Bible, as an inspired library rather than a constitutional, legal-type document. This recent post on his blog might give you a teaser and there are more details in his book from last year, 'A New Kind of Christianity'.
The typical evangelical way of interpreting the Bible is as a legal document; meaning that everything it says must be true (perhaps using metaphor, but still true). Whereas a library can still be inspired without us having to take everything it says as wholly true. McLaren says this is what he means by 'the Bible is an inspired library':
quote:
To say that God inspired the Bible is to say that, for the community of people who seek to be part of the tradition of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob, Moses, Ruth, David, Amos, John, Mary and Jesus, the Bible has a unique and unparalleled role that none of these other voices [he's just given a list of philosophers and theologians] can claim.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
Hi Ponderfactory. I know the problems with trying to reconcile your thoughts on this since I’ve been through a similar place. On the one hand, Paul seems quite clear on the subject, the temple prostitute argument is inherently flawed IMO, and based on very poor historical suppositions unfortunately, though it seems to be very convincing to many people. The translation problem is an issue and a point of weakness for the traditionalist viewpoint, but it is hardly conclusive, and, to my reading I am unable to see Paul as referencing anything other than men who have sex with other men in his language, whether he invented the word he used or utilised one he felt appropriate.
On the other hand, my understanding of the spirit of God that runs throughout scripture makes me extremely uncomfortable with making the claim, as Paul implies (never explicitly of course, but I think it’s more likely than not that he saw it this way) that certain acts intended to express commitment, tenderness and love are in and of themselves sinful, and therefore by extension a loving relationship between two people of the same gender is fundamentally sinful, unless they deny themselves any physical act of love within their relationship.
Now, we know the idea of homosexual marriage was unknown in Paul’s time, and most men were married if they were to have any standing in society, so possibly he was against homosexuality because married men were running off with their gay lovers and therefore he saw homosexuality as another form of promiscuity and adultery. What would Paul have said about two single men in love who wanted to make a monogamous lifelong commitment to each other before God? We don’t know unfortunately because he never commented on this (perhaps quite modern) concept. He also didn’t comment on men who felt they were really women trapped in a male body, or even, on another note, people born with both or ambiguous genitalia and sexuality, or androgynous people, and how they should or should not regulate their love lives and who with. While the standard male/female model is appropriate in general over the human race, people are born and/or develop with a wide range of diverse sexuality, both physiological and psychological. This isn't their fault of course - and they deserve just as much chance to love and be loved as the rest of the human race who are fortunate enough to be in the majority. Paul didn’t go into detail and so we are forced to deal with these difficult and complex issues ourselves, using our reason, and our understanding of our loving God.
What I do know is that gay people have and continue to suffer from the oppression and repression of those who claim that they should not be who they know they are. And that what they want to do (have a physical loving relationship with their lover) does not appear to be harmful, but instead appears to enrich and bless their lives, and the many attempts to stop, prevent or disrupt these relationships causes immense suffering to people for what seems like no good reason. What I do know fundamentally is that causing suffering to others is wrong.
Fortunately I am not forced to address the issue at all. I do not know any homosexuals personally, and no one is looking to me for my opinion on the matter or cares what I think. I am happy and have been for some time to put the issue aside. I think first and foremost it’s none of my business and that it should be up to homosexuals to work out for themselves whether what they are doing in sinful or not. When I do think about it I think in terms of discrimination, which I’m against, rather than a matter of sinfulness or not.
In terms of the general issues you've raised, the marriage symbolism of man/woman and Christ/Church is a rhetorical device that Paul uses to illustrate that Christ loves the Church and leads it. A rhetorical device means only the point it is being used to make, and nothing else. There are other symbols Paul could have used, and other relationships he could have linked together in his argument to make the same point. The fact he chose marriage does not mean that they are intrinsically linked spiritually or otherwise, and that if the one changes then the other does. I think that would be a mistake to read this into what he was trying to say.
In terms of whether the Bible could be wrong or not, I have moved away from the idea that the Bible is a homogenous whole, and for instance if one sentence in one book is found to be incorrect then the whole thing collapses. If it was somehow proven that David was never king of Israel, or Noah never built an ark (if such a thing could be proven), it would not shake my faith in the living God, or the saving grace of Jesus Christ, or in the truth of scripture. I see scripture as a diverse collection of writings, written by numerous individuals, inspired by their knowledge of and relationship with God, to record their beliefs, understandings and their faith for posterity. The Bible contains much truth, and is trustworthy in spiritual matters, but it was written by humans, whose knowledge was of their time, and can easily be found wrong on many points that are not spiritual. We know the authors’ sense of historicity, cosmology, and of science were inaccurate and primitive on many points. Their ideas about human sexuality and the best way of ordering human relationships were based on the best ideas of their time as well.
I’m sorry this is so long, but hopefully some of my points have been helpful to you in your thoughts on the subject.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Hi Ponderfactory
I dont know if my experience helps.
20 years ago I was in no doubt. Homosexuality was a sin and the Bible said so.
I then had to deal pastorally with a family whose son was ostracised because he was homosexual. It was the first time I had to question what I thought.
My thinking moved. Was homosexuality a matter of Nature or Nurture? If it was nature ( i.e. genetic) then no blame could be attached. If it was nurture ( i.e. chosen life style) then it was wrong. The Bible did not take account of this distinction.
My feeling at that time was that it was nurture and therefore wrong.
5 years ago I met someone who was "straight" but sympathetic to homosexuals and whose immediate family included the same.
I listened long and hard and against my theological upbringing/preferences.
My position changed. I came to accept the "condition" as being one of nature. A difference of genetic disposition.
That changed my whole thinking.
As regards the Bible I have come to think that Paul ( and the OT references) were pretty much "culturally conditioned" ( as were his strictures on the place of women in the Church and his opinion on slavery).
So I am now in a different place and comfortably so.
It fits with my theological conviction that the Holy Spirit leads us into the truth. That is a dynamic, on-going process, and I do not feel required to accept 1st Century applications as being the last word in the process of revelation.
Does that experience help you?
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
PonderFactory
Apprentice
# 16415
|
Posted
Thank you all for your replies, I can see that many have worked this issue out without having to discard their faith. I guess I accept homosexuality now for the same reason that I don't believe in a 6000 year old earth.
My view on the bible - well it's so hard to change this, after years of being conditioned that without the bible you have nothing.
But I've come to see it as various men writing about how they understood God at the time, while the central construct of Christ and His redemption for us from sin is true.
I've shared this with my fundamental friends and they are praying for my salvation as if I've lost it ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) .
Posts: 25 | From: Brisbane | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Host hat on
shamwari, this thread is for discussion of what the Bible says about homosexuality. If you want to discuss your own opinion, take it to Dead Horses.
Host hat off
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PonderFactory
Apprentice
# 16415
|
Posted
My lingering question still remains: is the bible informative and relevant today on issues of sexuality?
Posts: 25 | From: Brisbane | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Ponderfactory: quote:
I've shared this with my fundamental friends and they are praying for my salvation as if I've lost it .
Amazing how the simple acceptance of Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, as the cleanser of sin and center of one's life becomes "....that and you've got to believe thus and so about all these other passages".
quote:
My lingering question still remains: is the bible informative and relevant today on issues of sexuality?
So step away from the homosexuality issue a moment. Check over other Biblical themes and strictures on sexuality. Divorce? Polygamy? Rape? Women as chattel? Widows being passed down the fraternal line from brother to brother? Passing off your wife as your sister to protect yourself in a foreign land? What does it all add up to for you today?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PonderFactory:
My lingering question still remains: is the bible informative and relevant today on issues of sexuality?
I think one of the biggest paradigm shifts is getting away from the common question format of "what does the bible say about...?"
There's a few problems with that type of question. It assumes that the bible has one single voice, rather than a range of (sometimes contradictory) voices. This doesn't stop it being inspired - in fact part of the inspiration is in the type of dialogues that go on within scripture.
It also gives equal weight to every voice within scripture, which even if people say they do theologically, no-one does practically. It makes a difference if Jesus says something, or Paul says something, or the Prophets say something, or the Law says something. How we then interpret that is entirely dependent on context - how our wider theology gives us scope to understand that passage within cultural and theological context. I bet you could get away with quoting the words of Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar in Church, saying 'the bible says', and people would listen to their words as having authority - they even have similar themes to other parts of scripture. Yet Job is vindicated and they're told to shut up.
So, regarding what 'the bible says about' sexuality, think about how you already interpret the words of the law according to Jesus' teaching - I doubt you follow all the food laws and so on that were relevant to the Jewish custom. Yet presumably you can still appreciate themes and principles about spiritual cleanliness and holiness. So those passages aren't irrelevant.
In the same way, being tolerant of sexuality doesn't mean ignoring those passages you mention, but understanding them in a historical and theological context. It means taking themes found throughout scripture about love, humility, self-sacrifice, and so on, and applying them to our own relationships.
And to back up what others have said - there are a lot more models of relationships in scripture than the 'one man & one woman in marriage' one. Polygamy (like slavery) is accepted as a cultural reality - even in the New Testament.
One more thing, ask your friends to show you where female same-sex relationships are condemned in scripture, and ask them to tell you what Jesus said about homosexuality. This is only a beginning, but might provoke them to begin to ask the questions that you're asking.
I find it ironic that I have friends who are divorced, yet have a strong anti-homosexual stance. Jesus spoke about divorce with some fairly strong condemnation, yet they're able to contextualize their situation (which I do think is fair enough). I find it sad that they don't appreciate that others might do that for homosexuality too.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
Not to turn this into an advice column, PonderFactory, but I can't help just saying what was helpful for me.
I was raised in the Assemblies of God which isn't totally fundamentalist (but it can be, or people in it can be), but I also went to Baptist schools. What I had to do when I decided to part ways with those traditions (which never were a good fit for me) was actually put the Bible away for a while.
That probably sounds but if you're like I was, you have a good bit of it already ingrained in you. Not looking at the text can be helpful. Recall passages and images you need from memory. They'll come from deep within your spirit, but also through your experience and even through your body (since we internalize our memories & experiences in our bodies as well as our minds).
OK, that may sound hokey. But - rely on the God you know and experience, and remember that Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth, and also would bring to mind what we need when we need it. Keep your prayer life up.
The purpose in this exercise, if you think it would benefit you as it did me, is that all your life, you've learned to read the Bible in a certain way, through certain lenses. Every time you read it, you're reading back into it the interpretations you've been given that now seem to be in the text itself. But they are interpretations.
Given a little distance and a little time, you can come back to it with fresh eyes. And in the meantime, you can experience God in every other part of your life and through different channels, so to speak. It's not that you won't encounter Scripture or read bits of it here & there, especially if you're going to church. But you'll find yourself paying closer attention to how you encounter & engage with God in your prayer life, in your everyday thoughts and actions, in your relationships, in liturgy, etc. It's an exercise in trust as well. And when you feel ready to go back to Bible study/reading, you'll find that fresh insights start popping up, especially if you have resources such as a class at church, or some good authors or Bible study aids, that can guide you in these. Avoid any that try to tell you there's only one "right" way to read the book. Here's a great principle (from the American philosopher CS Peirce, who called it "fallibilism") : You're more likely to get at the truth if you admit you could be wrong than if you don't admit you could be wrong. 'Cause you will be wrong sometimes. Welcome the opportunity to explore, even playfully, different ways to read the text, and when you feel less overwhelmed by it all, you'll find your own critical opinions shaping up quite naturally. If you're like me, anyway. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
YMMV. This worked great for me, but it could be that it was something God was leading me to do and isn't leading you to do, so don't dive into it without doing some discernment on the matter. (It was during that time, BTW, that my experience with friends who were Christians and also coming to terms with being gay that I found I had no problem with what I had always thought was an unresolvable contradiction in terms. It's one thing when you've got text in black & white in front of you; quite another when you see the Spirit at work in human beings you know.)
(Edited to add two things: One - you've found this site; it's a great resource! Two - I mentioned the church I grew up in, so it's only fair to also add that I'm now Episcopalian, on the Anglo-Catholic side of things. And it blew my mind, and still I think blows my parents' minds, that not only are there different ways of reading Scripture, but also different ways of thinking of church - e.g., as a covenanted community rather than a meeting of like-minded individuals; that you can lean on this community to make up what might be lacking in your own faith, etc.)
[ 14. May 2011, 08:39: Message edited by: churchgeek ]
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoker
Shipmate
# 11939
|
Posted
I propose we re-name this thread:
'How can I shoehorn what the bible says into my worldview?'
Posts: 428 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Host hat on
Please note my earlier host post.
The OP raised the question of what the Bible says about homosexuality. This is a proper topic for Kerygmania. Discussion of how people come to terms with homosexuality and Christianity belong in Dead Horses.
DO NOT MAKE ANY MORE POSTS ON THAT TOPIC ON THIS BOARD.
Host hat off
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PonderFactory
Apprentice
# 16415
|
Posted
Is it possible to move the thread? It is obvious this is what I wish to discuss. Thanks
Posts: 25 | From: Brisbane | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PonderFactory
Is it possible to move the thread? It is obvious this is what I wish to discuss. Thanks
Okay, hold your hats.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PonderFactory
Apprentice
# 16415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
I propose we re-name this thread:
'How can I shoehorn what the bible says into my worldview?'
It is evident you have not read the OP, otherwise you would not make statements like that.
It is clear what the bible says about homosexuals. It is not clear, using only the bible, how God would want us to think and act towards homosexuals in today's culture.
Posts: 25 | From: Brisbane | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PonderFactory:
I've made some progress, reading refutations written by Mel White, in an attempt to see where the 'temple prostitute' argument comes from. I like some of his stuff but I was left rather disappointed by his failure to sufficiently address the design argument I still see in the bible, that marriage was defined by the Lord to be between a man and a woman ...
Moving on to the bible study part of things, I feel I am relatively happy considering the Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6 passages about homosexuality in the light of cultural influences at the time to come up with 'gay friendly' doctrine, but I am at a loss as to how to honestly address scripture as a whole that sets up a design for marriage as between a man and a woman.
The trouble with the debate between 'traditionalist' and 'revisionist' readings of the Bible is that the former position is so much easier to argue. At its most basic level, all it has to do is pull out Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and a few other passages, insist on a 'plain reading', and there you have it.
The 'revisionist' argument, meanwhile, has a wholly different scriptural starting point. Their problem is, that theirs is a much more subtle and complex argument than the traditionalist one. It tends to start with an wide-lens narrative reading of scripture, as opposed to a narrow-lens focus on a few key passages. In other words, 'revisionists' begin with a view of the Bible as the story of God's interaction with God's people. But stories are things which unfold and develop over time; full understanding is not given all at once, and sometimes God's people got God plain wrong. This does not mean that any part of the Bible should be discarded or ignored - it can be believed that God intends every part of the Bible to stand as is, because if it is discarded, then you lose the story. But God intends that we wrestle with the text in the context of the whole Bible and of the whole continuing Christian story, and we should not understand its meaning as wholly transparent.
See what I mean about complex? To illustrate, take an example that has been discussed somewhere on another Dead Horses thread (sorry - can't find it): the Deuteronomical command that if a man rapes a virgin woman, she must marry him. For the faithful Chistian reader, I can see four options:
(1) Accept this command as the direct Word of God, and argue that it should be enforced.
(ultra-traditionalist, but consistent!)
(2) Accept it as the direct Word of God, but argue that the New Covenant in Jesus has superceded the old Law, so it need no longer be applied.
(Traditionalist, but less consistent. Why is just this command superceded, and not the ones about homosexuality? What hermeneutic is being used to decide this?)
(3) Reject the command as being in any shape or form the Word of God, and argue that human error and sin are behind this statement.
(radically Revisionist)
(4) Accept it as the indirect Word of God, in that it is a statement full of human error and sin, yet God intends it to stand in the Biblical canon. God wants it there because it is (oddly) the beginnings of a real care for women's welfare, and if it is omitted or diregarded, we lose the story of the liberation of women, and have no idea how far, with God's guidance, we have come.
(Revisionist)
So to return to the homosexuality question. As the story of God and God's people unfolds, a Revisionist reading might see a gradual widening out of our understanding of God's grace and inclusion. For the early Israelites, God was their tribal God, one among many. Every tribe had their god, but theirs was the best! Gradually, it dawns on them that the other gods aren't gods at all - there is only one God, and the others aren't real entities. Around the Exile they begin to consider that perhaps God is not just the God of their tribe, but wants to be God of all the nations. And then, with Jesus, and later Paul's mission to the Gentiles, that just explodes open, with formerly despised people being brought into the fold of God's kingdom. In such a narrative, it is not hard to see homosexual people as now being included in God's grace. In fact, God has included them all along - it is the slowness of human understanding which has always been the problem.
Now, this narrative understanding does not do away with the need to grapple with individual texts. The 'revisionist' position has had some success in debating whether the 'plain meaning' of such passages as Romans 1 is really so plain. It has also done some proof texting of its own, pitting such apparent condemnations of homosexuality against 1 John 4:16, for example, or pointing to stories such as David and Jonathan, or the healing of the Centurion's servant.
Partly as a result of some fairly successful refutations by the Revisionist argument, the 'traditionalist' position is not quite the same as it was even 15 years ago. You don't tend to get the 'against nature' argument so much now, for example: the argument is more likely to be along the lines of 'natural in a sense, but only in terms of fallen nature'.
Also, it now seems to be generally admitted that the usual proof texts cannot easily be left to stand on their own, but must be seen as part of an over-arching narrative! For the traditionalist position, however, that over-arching narrative is not the ever-widening grace of God, but the establishment of the institution of marriage as a model for all creation. So I guess the question becomes, which narrative do you choose? And how do you decide between them? And perhaps most importantly, are they necessarily mutually exclusive?
One last point at the end of an excessively long post (sorry). I have a great deal of sympathy with your view of Scripture as 'inerrant'. I too believe that all Scripture is God-breathed, along the lines of Option 4 that I describe above. But when stuck to interpret a passage, it has helped me to remember: what else is God-breathed? Why, we are! The same Holy Spirit that breathes life into the Word, breathed life into us. And so if the choice is between an interpretation of the Bible that liberates and an interpretation that crushes, there should be no problem deciding which one is right.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Ponderfactory,
If you look up at the top of the board where you find 'new topic', you will also see a settings box which says 'show threads from last thirty days', if you click on the up/down arrows on it, you can set it so its says 'show all threads', then press the Go button next to it.
Because Dead Horses includes legacy threads which started years and years ago, it's worth using this setting so you can see all the threads over the many pages. There has been a lot of discussion of the subject which interests you.
cheers,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
[ 15. May 2011, 00:40: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PonderFactory
Apprentice
# 16415
|
Posted
Thank you (all) so very much for your well thought out replies. I certainly have a lot to think about now. Until this point I was ignorant of all other ways to view and read the bible... it seemed sacreligious to even think about not accepting the plain reading of the text as the way it is.
I will chew on this some more and certainly come back to this thread.
Have you all applied similar textual arguments to issues of sex outside of marriage?
Posts: 25 | From: Brisbane | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
PonderFactory
Apprentice
# 16415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Ponderfactory,
If you look up at the top of the board where you find 'new topic', you will also see a settings box which says 'show threads from last thirty days', if you click on the up/down arrows on it, you can set it so its says 'show all threads', then press the Go button next to it.
Because Dead Horses includes legacy threads which started years and years ago, it's worth using this setting so you can see all the threads over the many pages. There has been a lot of discussion of the subject which interests you.
cheers,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
Thank you Louise ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 25 | From: Brisbane | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PonderFactory:
Have you all applied similar textual arguments to issues of sex outside of marriage?
Hi PonderFactory,
that used to be a Dead Horse and it isn't now, but to my surprise the main thread on it is still here. I think you'll find the same variety of approaches on all the threads!
So to avoid confusion, I've closed that thread, but kept it here on this board for you to read. If you want a new discussion then do feel free to start a new thread in Purgatory.
cheers,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
[ 15. May 2011, 01:15: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
It has also done some proof texting of its own, pitting such apparent condemnations of homosexuality against 1 John 4:16, for example, or pointing to stories such as David and Jonathan, or the healing of the Centurion's servant.
That was a great post Cottontail and a lot of worthwhile food for thought in general.
The only part I'd take issue with is the sentence above. I don't see how any of the three examples you give can be called proof-texts since none of them make any reference to homosexuality at all. In order for them to be marshalled as evidence for the acceptance of homosexuality a whole raft of other assumptions about those passages also have to be smuggled in.
Now, that cuts both ways. It is often pointed out that, with certain passages, the same sort of assumptions have to be imported in order to support the traditional position.
So I'm not saying that this 'decides it at all'. All such passages need careful study and a willingness (on both sides) to unpick some of those assumptions.
Nevertheless, I think that it is fair to say that there are proof-texts on the side of the traditional position but there are none on the other. As I said, that does not necessarily prejudice the outcome (for all the other reasons you pointed out) but I do think it is worth stating, for the record (as it were).
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
A few thoughts.
Since you were kind enough to give background, I'll self-disclose.
I grew up in a centrist to conservative PCUSA church where the topic of homosexuality wasn't discussed much...they seemed more concerned with unconditional love than who in particular was saved or damned...perhaps some residual Calvinism meant that if you were in the church being saved was just common sense. From there I went agnostic to liberationist (applying the term in hindsight) to something that might fall under neo-orthodoxy. The funny thing is that going to seminary has given me a higher view of scripture, but I cringe at "believes in the Bible" (as applied to myself) when what I believe in is the Christ revealed in the Bible. It's an important nuance to me.
Looking at your conundrum, I think maybe the issue is that you value the Scriptures a bit too highly. When push comes to shove for me, if it's a question of changing my interpretation or harming someone, I'll change the interpretation.
Doubtless some will disagree, but I think it's possible to follow Christ based on one's own experience, one that includes the Bible, without necessarily taking the Bible literally (according to the common use of "literal." I've seen enough people profoundly scarred by teachings on homosexuality to think that this isn't loving in any useful sense of the word. If it is not loving, or does not express the love of Jesus Christ for the world God intends to save, then it's not Christian.
Of course, some will say (as the question pops into my head) it might be possible to say lovingly "What you're doing there isn't technically a marriage." But given the fact that the operation of moderation marriage doesn't remotely resemble the ancient one, that battle was lost (for the betterment of all) at least 100 years ago. I'm also (as a dad who does a lot of "maternal" stuff in his day to day life) convinced that gender roles as such are socially constructed. They still exist, but are not bound (as they once were) to chromosomes. With adoption et al it is quite possible for two biological males to do most of what is necessary to raise a child, and with success (personal experience observing several cases.) For these reasons (and probably some more) I think that it's acceptable for a Christian to understand a modern marriage in a non-gendered way, given that the basic responsibilities of fidelity are adhered to, well, faithfully.
Hope this helps. And if anyone has questions, I'm open to them as schedule permits.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
I propose we re-name this thread:
'How can I shoehorn what the bible says into my worldview?'
I object, on grounds that everyone has a worldview that doesn't match "what the bible says." The Sabbath was made for humanity.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
You could always read "The Bible Condemned Usurers, too," if you wanted.
Or, simply read C.S. Lewis on the topic, short and sweet:
quote:
There is one bit of advice given to us by the ancient heathen Greeks, and by the Jews in the Old Testament, and by the great Christian teachers of the Middle Ages, which the modern economic system has completely disobeyed. All these people told us not to lend money at interest: and lending money at interest-what we call investment-is the basis of our whole system. Now it may not absolutely follow that we are wrong. Some people say that when Moses and Aristotle and the Christians agreed in forbidding interest (or "usury" as they called it), they could not foresee the joint stock company, and were only dunking of the private moneylender, and that, therefore, we need not bother about what they said. That is a question I cannot decide on. I am not an economist and I simply do not know whether the investment system is responsible for the state we are in or not This is where we want the Christian economist But I should not have been honest if I had not told you that three great civilisations had agreed (or so it seems at first sight) in condemning the very thing on which we have based our whole life.
And then wonder why the one thing - "lending money at interest" - is perfectly acceptable (and in fact rarely even questioned), while the other - homosexuality - fills people with all manner of dread and horror.
Stoker, I'm looking at you....
(Although I will add that the Bible doesn't really condemn "homosexuality" in the first place; it says something about male homosexuality but is silent - and yes, I know about Romans I, which is at best ambiguous - on lesbianism. And I actually don't think it's "weaseling out" to say so, sorry.)
[ 16. May 2011, 18:58: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PonderFactory:
Thank you (all) so very much for your well thought out replies. I certainly have a lot to think about now. Until this point I was ignorant of all other ways to view and read the bible... it seemed sacreligious to even think about not accepting the plain reading of the text as the way it is.
I will chew on this some more and certainly come back to this thread.
Have you all applied similar textual arguments to issues of sex outside of marriage?
You are a font of questions. To myself, extra-marital sex is much dodgier because of the fidelity thing (it includes a breach of contract) and the fact that (again, mostly experience) polygamous relationships are very, very hard to maintain in an equitable fashion. Usually either there's a chief couple and a bunch of hangers-on who get used, or it's an incredibly high-maintenance situation that can only be maintained in some kind of social vacuum with very particular personalities.
People who practice polygamy or polyamory may take offense at my view, but that has been my experience. I will gladly hear people out.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
It has also done some proof texting of its own, pitting such apparent condemnations of homosexuality against 1 John 4:16, for example, or pointing to stories such as David and Jonathan, or the healing of the Centurion's servant.
That was a great post Cottontail and a lot of worthwhile food for thought in general.
The only part I'd take issue with is the sentence above. I don't see how any of the three examples you give can be called proof-texts since none of them make any reference to homosexuality at all. In order for them to be marshalled as evidence for the acceptance of homosexuality a whole raft of other assumptions about those passages also have to be smuggled in.
Now, that cuts both ways. It is often pointed out that, with certain passages, the same sort of assumptions have to be imported in order to support the traditional position.
So I'm not saying that this 'decides it at all'. All such passages need careful study and a willingness (on both sides) to unpick some of those assumptions.
Nevertheless, I think that it is fair to say that there are proof-texts on the side of the traditional position but there are none on the other. As I said, that does not necessarily prejudice the outcome (for all the other reasons you pointed out) but I do think it is worth stating, for the record (as it were).
Thank you, Johnny. I take your point, and am happy to qualify the term, 'proof text'. Obviously, these texts are not being used in quite the same way that the traditionalist reading would use a 'proof text', because the whole hermeneutic has a different starting point. Nevertheless, just as the traditionalist interpreters can talk over-arching stories, so can the revisionists focus on specific texts.
The 1 John passage I think does work as a 'proof text' (with inverted commas!) - not specifically of the acceptance of homosexuality as such, I grant you, but of the wider reading of inclusion and grace that I described. Under such a reading, the line, "Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him", is easily read as entirely inclusive of loving homosexual relationships. In fact, the onus might be on the traditionalist interpreter to explain exactly why this verse cannot be applied to loving homosexual relationships.
Then the David and Jonathan story. What if the story was not from the Bible, but instead was found, say, in Plutarch or even Homer? Then, I should say, scholars would quite legitimately be debating whether the relationship was homosexual or not. There is more than enough in the text to provoke speculation, and if they couldn't say a definite 'Yes', then neither could they say a definitely 'No'. Therefore, the only reason such speculation is absolutely disallowed by a traditionalist reading is not because David and Jonathan couldn't have had sex, but because of the assumption that if they had had sex, then the Bible would explicitly have condemned this as a sin. On the contrary, given that the Bible praises and exalts their relationship, then the traditionalist assumption is that they cannot have had sex.
In other words, a hermeneutic (homosexual sex is always sinful) is being imported from elsewhere in the Bible to interpret this story. So again, we have an overarching story being applied to a specific event and/or verse. Like I said, both 'sides' do this, and it is not in any way an invalid thing to do. But take a slightly different over-arching story, and it opens up the possibility that David and Jonathan did have a homosexual relationship. Not proven, very speculative, not even essential to their argument, but possible. And this is no more speculative, no more an argument from silence, than is the assumption that they didn't have a sexual relationship, because the story would necessarily have condemned it.
It's pretty much the same with the Centurion's slave. The slave is obviously very dear to the Centurian, and knowing what we do about sexual relations between masters and slaves at the time, it would not be an odd assumption that theirs was sexual too. Perhaps the unusual thing here is that despite the power-dynamics, the relationship is not abusive, but seems actually to be loving. Again, we are in the realms of speculation - we cannot know for sure - but the point in question is whether such speculation is legitimate or not. (Btw, there has to be enough reason for speculation in the text - one cannot go imagining sexual relationships all over the place where there is no textual support at all. This applies to straight as well as to gay relationships.)
To the traditionalist reading, such speculation is illegitimate, because again, there is no record of Jesus condemning the relationship, and he does in fact commend the Centurian and heal his slave. Therefore they cannot have been in a gay relationship. In the revisionist reading, however, the speculation becomes legitimate, and the text opens up with another possibility. Sure enough, revisionists would be over-reaching themselves if they turned the speculation into a definite 'Yes' - so this is far from a 'proof text' in the absolute sense. But my argument is that the traditionalist reading is already over-reaching itself with its definite 'No!'
I hope that makes sense, and I await your corrective insights! I am very aware as I write this that I have focussed on the possibility of sexual relations in these stories, where the real importance is the indisputible models they offer of same-sex love. But I guess I'm just pleading for a greater awareness of hermeneutics all round. Maybe we should invent a new term - instead of 'proof text', perhaps something like 'illustration text' would be less loaded.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Thanks Cottontail for taking the time to engage with me.
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
The 1 John passage I think does work as a 'proof text' (with inverted commas!) - not specifically of the acceptance of homosexuality as such, I grant you, but of the wider reading of inclusion and grace that I described. Under such a reading, the line, "Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him", is easily read as entirely inclusive of loving homosexual relationships. In fact, the onus might be on the traditionalist interpreter to explain exactly why this verse cannot be applied to loving homosexual relationships.
I don't understand that - can you expand on it a bit?
Aren't you simply throwing it back to a discussion about a definition of love? I see no reason why this verse must include homosexual relationships.
For example, some heterosexual marriages are not loving but I don't think 1 John 4 undermines marriage because of that.
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
Then the David and Jonathan story. What if the story was not from the Bible, but instead was found, say, in Plutarch or even Homer? Then, I should say, scholars would quite legitimately be debating whether the relationship was homosexual or not. There is more than enough in the text to provoke speculation, and if they couldn't say a definite 'Yes', then neither could they say a definitely 'No'. Therefore, the only reason such speculation is absolutely disallowed by a traditionalist reading is not because David and Jonathan couldn't have had sex, but because of the assumption that if they had had sex, then the Bible would explicitly have condemned this as a sin. On the contrary, given that the Bible praises and exalts their relationship, then the traditionalist assumption is that they cannot have had sex.
I agree with you that sometimes the traditional position is that D&J cannot have had a sexual relationship and therefore they didn't. Although I'd point out that the reverse is equally the case - i.e. since it is an argument from silence one must assume that it is possible that they had a sexual relationship in order to read it into the text.
At this point I realise that you have no reason to take my word for it but, for the record, I'd like to say that I have no problem with the possibility that D&J had a sexual relationship. David had sex with just about anything with two legs and so the possibility of him using some boy for sexual gratification (or whatever) wouldn't have surprised me at all.
Rather my comment is on the text. There just isn't any evidence of a sexual relationship between them ... at all. None. Today in the Middle East it is common to see men holding hands and kissing one another. And yet in exactly the same cultures frequently homosexuality is punishable by death. Imagine the reaction in Saudi Arabia or Iran, for example, if you said that because two men kissed each other they must be gay?
So I agree that both sides often read their assumptions into the text. Therefore lets, as much as possible, stick with the text. The text gives us a very healthy (corrective to Western culture?) view of homophilic love but I see no evidence for homosexuality.
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
It's pretty much the same with the Centurion's slave. The slave is obviously very dear to the Centurian, and knowing what we do about sexual relations between masters and slaves at the time, it would not be an odd assumption that theirs was sexual too. Perhaps the unusual thing here is that despite the power-dynamics, the relationship is not abusive, but seems actually to be loving. Again, we are in the realms of speculation - we cannot know for sure - but the point in question is whether such speculation is legitimate or not. (Btw, there has to be enough reason for speculation in the text - one cannot go imagining sexual relationships all over the place where there is no textual support at all. This applies to straight as well as to gay relationships.)
To the traditionalist reading, such speculation is illegitimate, because again, there is no record of Jesus condemning the relationship, and he does in fact commend the Centurian and heal his slave. Therefore they cannot have been in a gay relationship. In the revisionist reading, however, the speculation becomes legitimate, and the text opens up with another possibility. Sure enough, revisionists would be over-reaching themselves if they turned the speculation into a definite 'Yes' - so this is far from a 'proof text' in the absolute sense. But my argument is that the traditionalist reading is already over-reaching itself with its definite 'No!'
A bit like with 1 john 4 I need further explanation please - how does this story function as biblical evidence for a positive view of homosexuality?
Leaving aside the fact that there is no evidence in the text that there was a homosexual relationship - how does the healing of Jesus commend it?
After all, with this reading we would need to come to John 8 and conclude that Jesus was in favour of adultery! Jesus accepted all who came to him, but also told all to 'leave their life of sin'. That applies to everyone, whatever gender or sexual orientation.
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
I hope that makes sense, and I await your corrective insights!
You know me, always happy to provide correction. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
I am very aware as I write this that I have focussed on the possibility of sexual relations in these stories, where the real importance is the indisputible models they offer of same-sex love. But I guess I'm just pleading for a greater awareness of hermeneutics all round. Maybe we should invent a new term - instead of 'proof text', perhaps something like 'illustration text' would be less loaded.
I'm with you on the 'greater awareness of hermeneutics all round'.
However, it is this hermeneutic of silence that I don't get. I don't see how it is helpful to focus on the 'possibility of sexual relations' unless there is actual evidence for them.
If we were to take this hermeneutic and apply it, for example, to Jesus' teaching about marriage in Matthew 19, then it would point strongly in the opposite direction.
If one argues that the Centurion probably had a homosexual relationship with his slave then I think that there is a far stronger case to be made that when a 1st century Jewish Rabbi strongly enforced heterosexual marriage he was assuming the prohibition of homosexuality.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
Well worth a read for those interested in the topic in general is a new book, "God Sex and Gender - an Introduction" by Adrian Thatcher. It takes a fairly balanced view of the whole topic of sex, sexuality, marriage, relationships etc within the Bible. In particular there is plenty of discussion of intersex individuals and the huge problems it presents the church with its focus on male and female and the traditional roles of those genders.
It also says the concept of there being two different sexes (male/female) is a fairly modern concept - for much of religious history there was only one 'sex' which took two different forms - male and female, but they were both 'men'. Interesting stuff, and it means that a lot of what we think we're reading may have had a very different meaning back then.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PonderFactory:
the design argument I still see in the bible, that marriage was defined by the Lord to be between a man and a woman.
Well, I don't know that this definition of marriage is as self-evident as you think, either.
When the Bible says 'for this reason' a man will leave his parents and get married, what's the reason? To me it's a reason that could just as easily apply to two people of the same gender. It's an expression of relationship.
Plenty of fundamentalists will argue that the purpose of marriage is to procreate, but I simply cannot see where that idea comes from. Yes, procreation should occur within marriage, but that's a very different thing from saying that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation. As far as I can see it exists for the purpose of relationship, commitment and intimacy.
PS I'm gay and finally came out after spending around 17 years thinking that homosexuality was sinful. Regular posters know my background so it's only fair I fill you in.
--------------------
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
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
One last point at the end of an excessively long post (sorry). I have a great deal of sympathy with your view of Scripture as 'inerrant'. I too believe that all Scripture is God-breathed, along the lines of Option 4 that I describe above. But when stuck to interpret a passage, it has helped me to remember: what else is God-breathed? Why, we are! The same Holy Spirit that breathes life into the Word, breathed life into us. And so if the choice is between an interpretation of the Bible that liberates and an interpretation that crushes, there should be no problem deciding which one is right.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif) ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Can I quote you, Cottontail?
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
It also says the concept of there being two different sexes (male/female) is a fairly modern concept - for much of religious history there was only one 'sex' which took two different forms - male and female, but they were both 'men'. Interesting stuff, and it means that a lot of what we think we're reading may have had a very different meaning back then.
That's very interesting. So the Romans 1 verse: "Men committed shameful acts with other men" may be read simply as "people committed shameful acts with other people" rather than anything more specific? Is this a possible interpretation of the greek text or just twisting the language? Does anyone have any more insight into this?
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
What Johnny S said. King David is no example for the morality of anything. Just read the book of Samuel.
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
It also says the concept of there being two different sexes (male/female) is a fairly modern concept - for much of religious history there was only one 'sex' which took two different forms - male and female, but they were both 'men'.
This seems such obvious bollocks I wonder how he could have written it. Maybe he meant something else by it? Though what I have no idea.
[ 18. May 2011, 13:19: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
It also says the concept of there being two different sexes (male/female) is a fairly modern concept - for much of religious history there was only one 'sex' which took two different forms - male and female, but they were both 'men'.
This seems such obvious bollocks I wonder how he could have written it. Maybe he meant something else by it? Though what I have no idea.
I'm guessing it's derived from Thomas Laqueur's idea of one-sex and two-sex theory.
From Wikipedia's account of Laqueur's hypothesis:
quote:
Prior to the eighteenth century, it was a common belief that women and men represented two different forms of one essential sex: that is, women were seen to possess the same fundamental reproductive structure as men, the only difference being that female genitalia was inside the body, not outside of it. Anatomists saw the vagina as an interior penis, the labia as foreskin, the uterus as scrotum, and the ovaries as testicles.
[ 18. May 2011, 19:23: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Buy thst is two sexes. Thats what sexes are. At least in mammals. No-one can seriously doubt that male and female genitals are different developmental versions of the same basic embryonic structures. And plenty of organisms have sexual differentiation thats far less obvious than ours.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PonderFactory
Apprentice
# 16415
|
Posted
This seems really rediculous to me. So far fetched it doesn't seem reasonable. I want reasonable discussion on how the bible can be informative in today's world on the issue of sexuality. I understand that will involve trying to understand passages in light of what we know now, but I have no respect for arguments that are so set on making the bible 'gay friendly' that they have to omit common sense. It doesn't help. Be open minded, but not so open minded that your brains fall out.
Posts: 25 | From: Brisbane | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PonderFactory:
This seems really rediculous to me. So far fetched it doesn't seem reasonable. I want reasonable discussion on how the bible can be informative in today's world on the issue of sexuality.
Well, we've had this discussion many times on this board; you might find something on one of the past threads on the topic.
In any case, the thinking is fairly straightforward. If you believe that the Bible sets a clear standard for marriage as "the union of one man and one woman" (I personally don't think this is obvious at all, but you might), then you have to ask some questions.
Such as: "Why?" "What's wrong with promiscuity?" "What's wrong with polygamy?" "Is this really the main or only standard for marriage, and if not, what else might be involved?" "What is the actual function of monogamous marriage?" "If God has set this as a standard, what might be the reason(s)?"
And you will see, fairly quickly and clearly I think, that the answers to these questions fit gay couples as well. If you're looking for a Christian take on gay relationships, I don't think it's much different from a Christian take on heterosexual relationships. One way you can easily look at it is that marriage is a "type" of the relationship between God and the soul - and that above all God asks for faithfulness. (For this, there IS clear Biblical evidence, BTW.)
Thus, monogamous marriage - in addition to being a good, stable environment in which to raise children, which I think most people would agree with - is also a model for, and imitation of, a person's (and in the Bible, a nation's) relationship with God.
There are other ways to see it, too - but to me this is a good and reasonable one.
(One of the other ways to view the thing, in fact, is that the New Testament actually puts forward celibacy as its ideal! And that all non-celibate relationships are accommodations. I actually sort of like this one, for one particular reason: it reminds people that nobody's "got it right" - that all have fallen short of the glory of God. And that can be helpful. But then there's Song of Songs, too - one of my favorite books in the Bible. And I do believe that human love and faithfulness are from God....)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
ken / PonderFactory,
I'm not defending Laqueur - I'm just flagging him up as the probable source of the idea referenced earlier on the thread.
My feeling is that Laqueur is only relevent if -
- St Paul's view on sex could be shown to be derived from an incorrect notion of biology; or
- The most obvious readings of St Paul are incorrect because they don't take into account his underlying concept of sex.
Neither of these seem particularly easy to demonstrate.
--------------------
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
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
It also says the concept of there being two different sexes (male/female) is a fairly modern concept - for much of religious history there was only one 'sex' which took two different forms - male and female, but they were both 'men'.
This seems such obvious bollocks I wonder how he could have written it. Maybe he meant something else by it? Though what I have no idea.
I'm guessing it's derived from Thomas Laqueur's idea of one-sex and two-sex theory.
From Wikipedia's account of Laqueur's hypothesis:
quote:
Prior to the eighteenth century, it was a common belief that women and men represented two different forms of one essential sex: that is, women were seen to possess the same fundamental reproductive structure as men, the only difference being that female genitalia was inside the body, not outside of it. Anatomists saw the vagina as an interior penis, the labia as foreskin, the uterus as scrotum, and the ovaries as testicles.
Yes, I think that's what the author said. I'll check later when I'm back home.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
PF--
I come from a similar background. I spent a lot of time in "don't know" land about homosexuality, picking up bits of info here and there.
What's helped me the most is deciding/realizing that it's like being left-handed. (Which was also traditionally considered to be bad.) Some people are born left-handed; some become left-handed due to injury to their right hand; and some experiment and find they like it.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
Aha, yes, Thatcher (God, Sex and Gender - an Introduction) has much detail on "how many sexes are there"? (Chapter 1).
"For the greater part of Christian history, it did not occur to anyone even to think that there were two distinct sexes". He goes on to set out the info he has on this over many pages, but (if I read it correctly) suggests that many ancient cultures did not expect there to be men and women in absolutely set forms, but saw it as a continuum/spectrum of sexuality with two basic body forms that were both often called "man", a language we still use today all the time "mankind" "we have sinned against...our fellow men" etc. "Men" was, and still sometimes is, meant to mean women as well, he says.
Worth getting the book, definitely.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nenya
Shipmate
# 16427
|
Posted
I would like to say how interesting and informative I've found this thread. I've just read it very thoroughly, taking notes.
--------------------
They told me I was delusional. I nearly fell off my unicorn.
Posts: 1289 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
