From: John W Burgeson (jwburgeson@juno.com)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 13:19:09 EDT
George wrote, in part: "Perhaps I've misread you. Let's see. I think
there are basically 3 ways one
can argue that Paul's statements in Rom.1:26-27 do not condemn as sinful
all homosexual
activity.
A) Paul was just wrong & there's nothing at all wrong with such
activity. I
don't hear anyone on the list saying this.
B) Paul's statements refer to manifestly wicked people & not to decent
ones.
C) Paul is speaking here about various types of promiscuous
homosexuality & not
committed, loving, 1-1 homosexual relationships between adults, in part
because he (&
people in his culture in general ) were not aware that some people, apart
from any
choice they made, had homosexual orientations.
You - & many others - have argued for C. But the way you spoke in your
earlier
post about your friends sounded a lot like B."
In a later post you argued that Paul had in mind gentiles in general and
not a particular group and that, of course, not every gentile was guilty
of every one of the sins listed.
I had always thought Paul had in mind one particular group of gentiles.
From the context, I don't know how to resolve this with certainty. I
understand your argument that Paul was speaking of "gentiles in general."
In any case, I have been arguing B, as well as for C, of course. The
people I know are (mostly) Christians; a couple are Unitarians. And my
argument is that they don't fit the description Paul gives. Not even
close.
The "manifestly wicked" part in your comment is, of course, not the
particular sins that Paul lists, but the rejection of God in the first
place.
We may have beaten this part to death. <G> But I will say one thing more.
When I was a young Christian, I subscribed to the "Scottish Common Sense"
approach to scripture (I did not know that particular name). That is, I
thought that anybody could read scripture for themselves and gain, if not
a complete understanding, at least an accurate one. That attitude is
sometimes described in fundamentalist circles as taking scripture as "The
manufacturer's handbook," which implies that if one studies it carefully
enough, he or she will be led into all truth.
As I matured in the faith, this approach came to be less and less
believable. If it were true, then why so many different denominations --
so many different interpretations? The argument that "my group is right"
and "all others are either stupid, incompetent or malevolent" is an
absurdity. Gradually I realized that the Christian faith is not a search
for certainty, but an unended quest within a love relationship with the
divine. sort of like a Christian marriage. <G>
I also realized that my own scriptural interpretations were just that,
and that study of other ideas was necessary to grow in the faith at all.
And that disagreements in love were to be accepted with joy.
Finally, that all our words about the divine, God, Jesus, spirit, etc.
are necessarily metaphorical and can never go beyond that. Some people,
for instance, say Jesus is the son of God. Others say He is the
incarnation of God. Both are right -- and both are using metaphors --
models -- to express the inexpressible. Neither model is the reality.
And so it goes.
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 23 2003 - 13:41:46 EDT