Re: NO!

At 10:30 PM 5/29/2006, Don Nield wrote:

>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

@ Three people posted on the subject and you had no complaint about
it being "off-topic" for this group until I posted Holding's
irresistible counter to Burgy's claim that Paul did not address homosexuality.

Now if you believe that it isn't irresistible and think you can
refute his argument using sound biblical hermeneutics (rather than
making attempts at changing the subject to me using accusatory non
sequiturs), I would be interested in reading it.

I hope you understand that I just can't accept your personal
opinion/beliefs on the subject as "Scripture". My likes or
dislikes are irrelevant.

But you already knew that.

~ Janice

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
>
>
>--
>
>
Received on Mon May 29 23:30:01 2006