Re: NO!

I think that this subject should be ruled off- topic for this group.
Before it is ruled out of order I will briefly make two points, the
first of which is the more important.
The same sort of argument that Janice makes to justify the condemnation
of homosexual behaviour can and has been made to justify anti-Semitism,
slavery and the subjugation of women.
I interpet "farcical exegesis" as used by Janice to mean exegesis whose
conclusions are disliked by Janice.
Don

Janice Matchett wrote:

> At 06:48 PM 5/29/2006, Carol or John Burgeson wrote:
>
>> Debbie wrote, in part: " Romans 1 says that homosexuality, and other
>> sins, are due to the fact that men who knew God chose to turn away
>> from God."
>>
>> *That was Paul's argument* --*/ but he did not address
>> homosexuality/*..... ~ Burgy
>
>
> *@ Really????
>
> The Gay Blade
>
> Romans 1:27, *1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10,* and Homosexuality* James
> Patrick Holding http://www.tektonics.org/qt/romhom.html
>
> No, we're still not going to muck around in the social aspect of this
> question; here, we'll just be asking the simple exegetical question,
> "What relevance does Romans 1:27-8, 1 Cor. 6:9, and 1 Tim. 1:10 have
> to homosexuality?"
>
> Let's start with *Romans*, that makes sense:
>
> And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
> burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that
> which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of
> their error which was meet.
>
> There's plenty of *farcical exegesis* floating around which claims
> that this verse is not addressed to everyday homosexual behavior but
> to temple prostitution, and non-homosexuals engaging in homosexual sex
> against their own nature.
>
> The latter point, though perhaps an "out" for some exegetes (including
> Byrne, whose commentary on Romans is our primary source) begs the
> question of reading modern understandings into an ancient text; and
> whether indeed homosexuality is a natural inclination, an argument
> that is beside our mission statement to evaluate.
>
> However, taken within the historical and social context, there is
> simply no way that one can read this as a slam against only "temple"
> acts which permits a "non-religious" homosexuality.
>
> *In fact, such a position puts the politically correct cart in front
> of the exegetical horse.
>
> *As Byrne points out [65-9; see also Dunn, Romans, 65-6] Paul here
> draws upon a "conventional polemic against the Gentile world and its
> idolatry."
>
> The Jews regarded homosexuality for whatever reason as a sin -- period.
>
> It was regarded as shameful because it "blurred the all-important
> distinction of gender role."
>
> This leads to *a conclusion that cannot be got around:* Since Paul
> drew on this conventional polemic, there is no way that this can be an
> "against temple sex only" position, *because according to Jewish
> thought, this sort of homosexual behavior was a symptom of Gentile
> idolatry*. It is because they were idolaters that they engaged in the
> sinful homosexual act, which was sinful completely apart from
> religious considerations.
>
> *That's the simple fact of the matter, and while one could
> theoretically get around this with a proposition of homosexuality
> being inborn, practically speaking there is no getting around the
> clear message of Paul -- via his Jewish forebears -- that the
> homosexual act as a choice is manifestly a sinful one.
>
> *Now for Corinthians (and Timothy, which we need not quote for it just
> uses a word found in Corinthians):
>
> /Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of
> God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
> adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, /
> /Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
> extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God?
>
> /There's also a lot of conspiracy-mongering claiming that
> understanding "effeminate" in terms of homosexuality is misleading and
> that the word means "soft" or "vulnerable" and probably refers to
> those who are unreliable or lacking in courage.
>
> That's certainly not supported by other uses of the same word
> (/malakos/): Witherington's Corinthians commentary [166] notes uses of
> it referring to a "young male prostitute". Lexicons like BAGD, as Wold
> notes in /Out of Order/ [189], clearly say that the word is used of
> "men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually" and
> cites "numerous examples from Greek literature" of the word used this
> way.
>
> Critics argue in reply that the word has no specific referent for the
> homosexual act, just having feminine characteristics, but of course
> the "passive" partner in such a relationship DOES act out that very
> sort of characteristic.
>
> In addition, Wold notes [192] that at Paul's time, the common
> preference for a "passive" homosexual partner WAS one that was
> effeminate (whereas prior to the 5th century BC, the preference was
> for a /masculine /partner).
>
> Finally, other Greek terms for the passive partner, clearly used in
> homosexual contexts, are words that have no "inherent" homosexual
> meaning but are borrowed words used to describe the passive
> homosexual. Critics have a substantial burden to carry before they can
> simply dismiss this word.
>
> The reference to "abusers of self with mankind" uses a word also found
> in 1 Tim. 1:10 (/arsenokoitai/). Critics try to make some issue of
> this being an "obscure" or "uncertain" word for Paul's use of it seems
> to be the first ever use of it.
>
> The idea that it means male-female sex is a desperate move; the two
> parts of the word mean "male" and "sexual intercourse," and Paul
> hardly needed to invent a word male-female sex.
>
> Furthermore, the word is clearly derived from the LXX translations of
> Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 <http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lev18.html>, which
> used the words /arsenos koitin/ and /arsenos ou koimethese/.
>
> *Paul is merely creating a compound word from two clear words used of
> homosexual relations in Leviticus.
>
> *It also ought to be noted that with these two words Paul would cover
> the "passive" and "active" role in the male homosexual relationship
> [Wold, 191] recognized by classical Greek writers.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> More: *Does Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 Flat-Out Condemn
> Homosexuality? http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lev18.html
>
> *~ Janice
>

--