From: Graham E. Morbey (gmorbey@wlu.ca)
Date: Wed Jul 09 2003 - 12:23:08 EDT
I am very much in agreement with both Burgy and George where they
demonstrate uncommon love for gays and lesbians over against hardened
prejudices and proof -texting. But Burgy's comments on texts to explain
what Paul did or didn't mean is also a kind of proof-texting, I suggest.
Paul is not so ignorant as Burgy portrays him. It is highly likely that
Paul knew a lot more about human sexuality and homosexuality than Burgy
credits him for. He was a learned man steeped in the things of his
faith, knowledgable about the philosophies/theologies/sciences of the
surrounding cultures of his day and with a deep sense of history. He
was also a travelled man who could wax poetic to grasp truth (eg.
Colossians 1:15-20). A distorted view of Paul could be the occasion for
a distorted view of sexuality.
Graham
John W Burgeson wrote:
>George commented (in part): "I think you are reading Romans too narrowly.
> 1:18-31 is not about one group of
>manifestly bad people as distinguished from a group of better people who
>don't do
>obviously bad things. It is about the fundamental sin of idolatry -
>i.e., violation of
>the 1st Commandment. ... This is just the beginning of a section that
>continues
>through 3:20 & that concludes that all are sinners. "
>
>I disagree that I am reading Romans too narrowly, for I agree with your
>point above. What I am doing is simply using it as a measure, pointing
>out that it cannot be used as a warrant for the position that same-gender
>domestic living arrangements are necessarily sinful. That's all. A very
>narrow argument.
>
> "... the fact that all persons sin stems from
>a tendency to wickedly suppress the truth - i.e., in one way or another
>to put something
>other than God ahead of God. That's true of me, you, and your friends,
>independently of
>our sexual activities."
>
>Yes.
>
> "Now Paul may indeed have had in mind only particular types of what we
>call today
>homosexual practices and he probably did not have the concept of
>"homosexual
>orientation" as it's developed in recent years."
>
>I'd word it a little more strongly than that, (the word "probably" I'd
>not use). Otherwise, agreed.
>
>" (& by the same token one can't argue that he intended to _omit_
>homosexual acts within a committed loving relationship from the negative
>statements he does make about same-sex relationships.) "
>
>I did not argue this. Only that we have no warrant for insisting that he
>did intend to include them The subject is simply not addressed. When
>people argue that he DID intend to include them, they are, IMHO, guilty
>of adding to scripture -- of reading into scripture their own
>preconceived ideas.
>
>The defenders of slavery 150 years ago were guilty of this. With much
>"clearer" scriptures to cite.
>
>BTW, I will agree that we are all prone to do this, me as much as
>(perhaps more than) anyone. That is one reason I dislike proof texts as
>reasons for taking a position on moral matters.
>
> "But I think it's clear that he lists homosexual activity, to the extent
>that he was aware of it, as one
>of the sins consequent upon the fundamental Sin."
>
>Again, agreed. The operative phrase is "to the extent he was aware of
>it." Most of us (me included) have been fed a distorted view of the
>gay/lesbian community. Gay men in movies are generally "soft," limp
>wristed, pansies. Not the ones I know. Lesbians are "dykes." Not the ones
>I know. When I saw and heard the Denver Gay Men's Choir at a service in
>Montview Presbyterian Church last month, they looked (to me) like a bunch
>of ordinary folks. Of the 50 or so in the choir, I don't think even one
>resembled the Hollywood image. Not one I would have "suspected" of being
>gay. Just normal men, black, white, Hispanic, young, old, short, tall,
>bearded, clean shaven, stocky, skinny, etc. All in love with Jesus Christ
>and His church.
>
>It is highly unlikely that Paul had any concept of homosexual activity
>beyond that which was a daily "feature" of the local pagan temples. Which
>is justly condemned.
>
>Peace
>
>John Burgeson (Burgy)
>
>www.burgy.50megs.com
>
>
>________________________________________________________________
>The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
>Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
>Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 09 2003 - 12:24:19 EDT