If you are against gay marriage, you are a bad Christian. v2

Pulse check!

Alive	36.4%	[ 4 ]
Dead	0.0%	[ 0 ]
Robot	9.1%	[ 1 ]
Zombie	18.2%	[ 2 ]
RaptorJesus	36.4%	[ 4 ]
Total Votes:			[ 11 ]

This poll closed on March 4, 2014.
No longer accepting new votes.

[Elf Lord Chiewn]

Periphrastic Morphology

Oh boy, I am absolutely ready for a scrap right now. biggrin

Good. Sadly, I've missed this.

Periphrastic Morphology

Quote:

Incredibly assumptive. That's post hoc eisegesical autogratification.

First of all, let me just put the verse up in big fat bold letters.

Quote:

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

This is what you're telling me - you're telling me that the source of the godlessness was not manifest in the act itself. That the homosexuality was completely irrelevant to Paul's condemnation. Yet look at the verse - the men committed shameful acts with one another, "and received themselves in due penalty for their error. What was their error? It was the unnatural homosexual acts. What did they receive penalty for? The homosexual acts. It is completely dishonest to cast this off as mere "godlessness" without referencing the godless act itself. The verse makes it crystal clear exactly what this was - so no, it is not wrong per se to give that interpretation, but then to disassociate it from the homosexuality that's mentioned in the very same sentence as the result of that godlessness, and for which Paul is condemning the men, is ridiculous. "Assumptive?" In the same way it's assumptive that the Bible says Jesus exists, maybe.

Ahem.

I'm going to take those big bold letters and underline one sentence you're overlooking.

Quote:

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Romans 1:25, the passage immediately preceding this one, explains their error in brief, and this is also discussed in 1:20 and the following verses. What they're doing with each other as a result of the lusts YHWH gave them over to in 1:26 is God's way of sticking it to them for being disloyal and ungrateful little punks.

Periphrastic Morphology

Quote:

Prove or concede.
In fact, prove that this is the crux of Paul's reference and that we should be taking Paul's word for it if that is the case while you're at it.

Do you admit that:

(1) The verse calls homosexual sex "shameful lusts"

Actually, the Greek might be more literally interpreted as "dishonorable feelings". Despite Paul's incredible lack of specificity, let's assume for the moment that we're talking about incredible, flaming gay sex. Which part of this is an indictment of gay sex? We've already identified the actual offense to YHWH, which is something else entirely, and the dishonor might well be Paul's projection or an acknowledgement that being forced to do something you don't like is punishment indeed.

Periphrastic Morphology

(2) The verse says that men were inflamed with lust for one another

Burned with appetite, yes. Covered by my points above.

Periphrastic Morphology

(3) This lust was unnatural

In Europe.
Sure, according to Paul. But this isn't really relevant to the point of the passage. For all I know or care, "unnatural" reflects Paul's understandable bias or an understanding that they wouldn't have done any of that by choice.

Periphrastic Morphology

(4) The acts they committed were shameful, and they received due punishment for these acts?

The acts probably were shameful to them, and that was their due punishment. That's the point.

Periphrastic Morphology

I cannot make it any clearer than that. You can simply say "prove or concede" to anything you like - how about giving good reason to do a 180 on what the text actually says?

Hey, claims require proof. As I've demonstrated, the text doesn't support the basis for your argument.

Periphrastic Morphology

Quote:

Murder is by definition unlawful, so that's a pointless hypothetical.

Then you don't understand the point of the hypothetical. Take any morally sickening act - if you claim that someone is being godless, shameful, etc. in virtue of committing it, you cannot simply dissociate the blame form the act itself. The act itself is already what makes it shameful. I.e., if I do something morally abhorrent, like murdering someone, it is not a valid point to say "the murder wasn't wrong, it was the fact that you behaved evilly!"

It's still irrelevant. First, context is always a factor. Second, the cause of the behavior - whatever the ******** it is - in Romans and the behavior itself are not the same.

Periphrastic Morphology

Quote:

You.
Got any other stupid rhetorical devices?

I would like to pause for a moment and note that you literally have not made a single point yet - and that you're response to this will likely be "I'll start when you start."

I wrote the OP, actually, and supported it.
Considering you've made several claims, the burden's still on you to verify your assertions.

Periphrastic Morphology

Quote:

Context rape. Nobody said the Romans and Greeks were a society.

A direct quote from the post I'm criticizing is context rape?

Quote:

The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexual relationships to be quite natural.

Unless by this you mean the society that is the specific target of the epistle, which includes both Roman and Greek people, in which case you need to make that clear, as the post clearly does not.

That much should be apparent, since Paul's audience was limited to a fairly small group. But yes, it isn't clearly spelled out.

Periphrastic Morphology

Quote:

Irrelevant, but I'd like to see you prove this too.

rofl

Prove that there's a debate regarding the status of Greek homosexuality? I hope this isn't the only rhetorical tool in your box.

No, just the most obvious. You referred to a "huge scholarly debate". I want to know what you're referring to. I could hold up a [citation needed] sign instead if that's what floats your boat.

Periphrastic Morphology

Quote:

Again, irrelevant and misleading. Classical Athens existed between 508 and 322 BC, which is as useless to this argument as honeybees.

Also, pederasty? Really? That isn't what we're discussing here at all. Do try to keep up.

I agree, irrelevant. Which is why you cant simply assert that the Greeks believed that homosexuality was natural, or even (in the softer claim that you now appear to be trying to defend, though I can't be sure, because there's literally nothing in these replies but "prove it!" and "nope!" wink that the society Paul was writing to saw it that way. You asserted that homosexuality was just considered natural in general - you prove it. Attitudes towards sexual relations are never that simple, and it's dishonest to claim that.

It's less a case of considering it natural and more a case of not considering it to be unnatural. Ananel's treatment here is hypersimplified for a forum audience: consider that Paul's audience would have been aware of accepted homosexual behavior and relationships. The consistent stigma would have been that of a passive/receiving sexual role within the relationship. Start here:

Brent Pickett

As has been frequently noted, the ancient Greeks did not have terms or concepts that correspond to the contemporary dichotomy of ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’. There is a wealth of material from ancient Greece pertinent to issues of sexuality, ranging from dialogues of Plato, such as the Symposium, to plays by Aristophanes, and Greek artwork and vases. What follows is a brief description of ancient Greek attitudes, but it is important to recognize that there was regional variation. For example, in parts of Ionia there were general strictures against same-sex eros, while in Elis and Boiotia (e.g., Thebes), it was approved of and even celebrated (cf. Dover, 1989; Halperin, 1990).

Probably the most frequent assumption of sexual orientation is that persons can respond erotically to beauty in either sex. Diogenes Laeurtius, for example, wrote of Alcibiades, the Athenian general and politician of the 5th century B.C., “in his adolescence he drew away the husbands from their wives, and as a young man the wives from their husbands.” (Quoted in Greenberg, 1988, 144) Some persons were noted for their exclusive interests in persons of one gender. For example, Alexander the Great and the founder of Stoicism, Zeno of Citium, were known for their exclusive interest in boys and other men. Such persons, however, are generally portrayed as the exception. Furthermore, the issue of what gender one is attracted to is seen as an issue of taste or preference, rather than as a moral issue. A character in Plutarch's Erotikos (Dialogue on Love) argues that “the noble lover of beauty engages in love wherever he sees excellence and splendid natural endowment without regard for any difference in physiological detail.” (Ibid., 146) Gender just becomes irrelevant “detail” and instead the excellence in character and beauty is what is most important.

Nobody is suggesting the kind of black-and-white nonsense where everyone in the land is entirely for or against something.

Periphrastic Morphology

Quote:

This entire line of incoherent rambling is your own.

Am I talking to an amnesiac?

Quote:

What would have been considered unnatural to the Romans would specifically have been something where a citizen was ‘on bottom.’ Such a position degrades the citizen’s status and was considered to be a horrible thing.

Natural, not...oh, for ******** sake. The modern conception of "natural/unnatural" doesn't exactly apply here. There was a significant stigma attached to that role, which is the point here. They wouldn't have been surprised to learn that a couple of men or women were intimately involved.

Periphrastic Morphology

Quote:

If you're still confused, look up the word exegesis, loosely translated as "analysis without forcing your shitty assumptions on the outcome".

Yes, silly me, assuming that someone calling homosexuality unnatural and then proceeding to say that people were duly punished for the mistake of participating in it has a negative connotation. So many assumptions!

I never said they were punished because they engaged in homosexual acts.

Periphrastic Morphology

Quote:

Are you naturally this obtuse or is it deliberate? Re-read what you quoted. This has already been beaten to death several times.

He seems to make it perfectly clear to me - why is a reference to the Levitical law needed? Where doe that assumption come in?

Because that law is either out the window with Yeshua or it isn't. If it isn't, we're back to not wearing cotton-polyester blends. If it is, we're back to loving YHWH and one's neighbor.

If it is, then I don't see how homosexuality has any bearing on anything.

Bear in mind also that Paul's assumptions can be expected to derive from the old law.

Periphrastic Morphology

If the people were familiar enough with a stigma surrounding homosexual sex, then mentioning it would be enough to trigger their alarm bells - you do not accept this interpretation because you have assumed, without argument that they all saw homosexuality as natural (a ridiculous claim that I doubt you can even begin to support) and so the only alternative must be that it has something to do with being disrespected as a citizen, something mentioned nowhere in the text at all, while homosexuality is.

*headdesk*
The overwhelming number of assumptions in your post make it next to impossible to respond to this point usefully.

This is still a pointless line of argument, since I have already addressed your most fundamental presupposition.

Periphrastic Morphology

Quote:

Four, the fact that we have women doing things with women instead of men and that we have men doing things with men instead of women is clear from what Paul says in verses 26-27. However, Paul does not at any point say what is being done.

I understand - this is a ridiculous assertion, because he says that they burned with lust for one another and exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones (the unnatural meaning going after one's own gender). What more do you want - a description of how long each man's p***s was, how long it took him to orgasm?

I'd settle for less repetitive verbiage and a clear explanation of which people he is referring to, as well as what they were doing. It's almost as though he goes out of his way to use the least descriptive language possible through the entire chapter.

Periphrastic Morphology

Your claims in regards to this seem to be trying to cast doubt on whether the nature of the activity was sexual at all, yet the passage itself outright states that the nature of the incident was sexual. So to say that he doesn't say what was going on is completely dishonest.

But he doesn't say what was going on. At times, he is extremely specific. Why should we presume to know which activities he is presenting, when he doesn't come out and say anything unmistakably?

Besides, even if it were between - for example - intercrural and a**l sex, that would prevent us from determining either one as the cause of anything. That presents a problem when it comes to a clear statement in the text, which is a major component in most Christianity-derived arguments against gay marriage.

Periphrastic Morphology

Quote:

Ananel's Thesis

A "thesis" requires "research" and "peer review" and "criticism."

And the longer form of the text is such a thesis.

Periphrastic Morphology

This topic has none of the first

Really?
We've been getting into the ******** Greek and Hebrew up in this b***h for years now.

Periphrastic Morphology

and is absolutely unwilling to consider the second two.

Which is totally why this is in a debate forum. Fail harder.

Periphrastic Morphology

But that would have to take place off the internet, where you need credentials and the capacity to back up claims rather than simply asserting opinions. rolleyes

Actually, I don't need s**t for credentials to back up my claims, so why bother making appeals to authority?
As has been stated before, this is an evidentiary debate and the topic is supported opinion. Anyone who's been around long enough (to read the OP completely) will be able to tell you that the arguments and claims here occasionally change. I say occasionally because every time someone verifies an opposing point in this thread, an angel gets its wings. It's very exciting for all of us when it happens every other century or so.

I'm prepared to slap anyone who took those last two sentences literally.

[Elf Lord Chiewn]

Periphrastic Morphology

Quote:

This isn't a single argument about a passage. It's a treatment of the problems with the usual "oh, it must mean gay stuff is bad" approach to the passage.

How does this address the blatant discrepancy in those two claims - on the one hand, that there's not enough evidence to say that the verse has sexual connotations, and on the other, that there is enough evidence to claim that the sexual connotations come from bottoming in sex being disrespectful, rather than homosexuality? You do see the conflict here, yes?

I see what you're saying.
What's being argued here is akin to a catchall: if an argument hinges on one point or another, there are counterarguments to be had. If we were to assume that the verses refer to sex, what would persuade us to believe that the sexual top was dishonored?

False Dichotomy

How would you label someone who is against it morally, but supports it from a secular/political standpoint?

Someone with the capacity for rational thought.

[Elf Lord Chiewn]

rmcdra

Elf Lord Chiewn

rmcdra

I think it should be mentioned that the passage Romans 1:26-27 is missing in Marcion's version of Romans. The Church fathers accused him of removing passages but here's the kicker. Marcion rejected the Poets so was against idolatry in his sect and his sect was also recognized as being ascetic. Why would he remove a passage that would support his theology? More than likely the unnatural lust was an interpolation if we consider that Marcion's version of Romans was probably an original. I mean his father was a direct student of Paul's after all.

It certainly merits exploration. Marcion got a lot right as it was; I'd be inclined to trust his scholarship over the accusations of the other bishops. (That said, I disagree with the heavy weight he assigns to Paul, given Paul's biases.)

What I'm saying is that a better refutation of Romans 1:27-28 is that Paul probably didn't write it at all. Based on a reconstruction of Marcion's version of Romans, verses 1:19-28 are completely absent, Marcion interlinear Romans.

The only reason I haven't taken this approach from the beginning is that very few are willing to question the inclusion of verses in the canon at all. I usually end up stonewalled.

Still, in light of the recent rebirth of this thread, I think it might make sense to add this point to the OP.

Periphrastic Morphology

MP does have a point, even if it doesn't out right condemn all instances of homosexual sex, it still paints certain cases in a negative light. If you did want to go the apologetic route and accept that Paul did write this passage though, your best bet then would be point out that Paul painted all sexual activity as not good (evidence: Marcion and Valentinus) and that to undermine this, documents attributed to Paul had to be constructed to counter this stance namely, 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy.

Fair enough. I've certainly fallen back on this line of reasoning before; I suppose I should consider adding these pieces as well.

Periphrastic Morphology

I think a better approach would be to stop making excuses altogether for ridiculous beliefs and abandon trying to interpret a text that has nothing to do with anything. Because it doesn't matter what Paul wrote or meant.

But that's just me.

I have no such liberty to abandon interpretation in this thread, since it presupposes Christianity.
However, I do have the ability to make a strong case against discrimination in secular politics on the basis of religious conviction.

[I Refute Berkeley Thus]

Quote:

Romans 1:25, the passage immediately preceding this one, explains their error in brief, and this is also discussed in 1:20 and the following verses. What they're doing with each other as a result of the lusts YHWH gave them over to in 1:26 is God's way of sticking it to them for being disloyal and ungrateful little punks.

What does this do to show that the verse is not condemning homosexuality? If anything, it seems to make things worse.

Quote:

Actually, the Greek might be more literally interpreted as "dishonorable feelings". Despite Paul's incredible lack of specificity, let's assume for the moment that we're talking about incredible, flaming gay sex. Which part of this is an indictment of gay sex? We've already identified the actual offense to YHWH, which is something else entirely, and the dishonor might well be Paul's projection or an acknowledgement that being forced to do something you don't like is punishment indeed.

I don't see how the alternate translation, even if justified, makes any difference.

I wouldn't call

Quote:

Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men

a "lack of specificity." Unnatural sexual relations involving men leaving women behind and being inflamed with lust for one another. Where is the lack of specificity? You keep referring to it.

It seems to me that your argument at this point is that God is punishing them by giving them over to shameful lusts for another offense unrelated to it, that being their punishment - not that they were punished for these shameful lusts in themselves, yes? If gay sex is hunky dory, why would that be an appropriate bizarre punishment for their actions? If it has to do with shameful lust in general, why not make them have straight sex? There's clearly an implication that homosexual sex is worse or wrong, regardless of the interpretation. Refusing to accept that, I think, is willful blindness. And that's even assuming your (clearly ideologically charged) interpretation is correct, which you have yet to really argue for rather than merely assert.

Or did God make people go against their sexuality because that's just so darn funny and humiliating?

Quote:

Sure, according to Paul. But this isn't really relevant to the point of the passage. For all I know or care, "unnatural" reflects Paul's understandable bias or an understanding that they wouldn't have done any of that by choice.

So are we chucking Paul's opinions out the window now? I want to be sure about what you're saying here. If you want to disregard his personal beliefs, then are you admitting that his personal beliefs include disapproving of homosexuality?

Since you love context so much, let me quote from the end of the chapter.

Quote:

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

These things are mentioned pretty much in the same breath as homosexuality, given to the people for the same reasons the homosexuality was, and are said to deserve death. Again, God gave them over to these things, yes, but here the negative connotations are all incredibly obvious. Why, if God gave them over to both these and the homosexual lust, do you get to enact special pleading for the former? Is it perhaps because you disapprove of all these things but not homosexual sex? What about these separates them in context? Or are you going to say that these too are not intended to be shown as actually wrong by Paul's chastising? It seems extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, for you to have it both ways.

Quote:

The acts probably were shameful to them, and that was their due punishment. That's the point.

Just as the wickedness and evil were?

Quote:

It's still irrelevant. First, context is always a factor. Second, the cause of the behavior - whatever the ******** it is - in Romans and the behavior itself are not the same.

My point was that here you seem to be ignoring context, saying the people were wrong and punished, but the fact that this came in the form of homosexual sex somehow doesn't matter, and doesn't cast homosexuality in a negative light. This seems impossible to swallow.

Quote:

No, just the most obvious. You referred to a "huge scholarly debate". I want to know what you're referring to. I could hold up a [citation needed] sign instead if that's what floats your boat.

Nope, you don't get to shift the burden of proof. You said they thought homosexuality was natural. Further, you now seem to be backpedaling on this by claiming they would have thought the acts were shameful, hence the punishment. So some evidence for the first claim and some clarification on its apparent contradiction with the second would be nice.

Quote:

It's less a case of considering it natural and more a case of not considering it to be unnatural.

I've actually read those two paragraphs before, and no I do not buy this, because there are in fact Greek texts that say homosexuality is unnatural.

This, for example, is from the first book of Plato's Laws.

Quote:

And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.

And Plato himself elsewhere spoke approvingly of pederasty. So no, there is no case for the Greeks "not considering homosexuality unnatural" even in golden age Athens, which is where homosexuality was supposedly openly tolerated. How, then, can you extrapolate from this broken basis to all of Greek and Roman society? Bunk.

Quote:

Because that law is either out the window with Yeshua or it isn't. If it isn't, we're back to not wearing cotton-polyester blends. If it is, we're back to loving YHWH and one's neighbor.

If it is, then I don't see how homosexuality has any bearing on anything.

Jesus talked about plenty besides the two greatest commandments - this is a false dichotomy. And Paul is apparently supposed to be some sort of authority for Christians too, though why you people care about him I will never know. So it's Romans we need to discuss. And it paints homosexuality very negatively, Old Law or no.

Quote:

I'd settle for less repetitive verbiage and a clear explanation of which people he is referring to, as well as what they were doing. It's almost as though he goes out of his way to use the least descriptive language possible through the entire chapter.

I can think of a lot less descriptive ways to say that. "Unnatural bodily things were going on." "Women were doing weird things to each other." Does he say that? No, he says they abandoned natural sexual relations for unnatural ones with members of their own gender.

Quote:

But he doesn't say what was going on. At times, he is extremely specific. Why should we presume to know which activities he is presenting, when he doesn't come out and say anything unmistakably?

He says it was sexual.

Quote:

Besides, even if it were between - for example - intercrural and a**l sex, that would prevent us from determining either one as the cause of anything. That presents a problem when it comes to a clear statement in the text, which is a major component in most Christianity-derived arguments against gay marriage.

The focus seems to be on the fact that they are of the same sex, not whether they are penetrating.

[Elf Lord Chiewn]

Periphrastic Morphology

Quote:

Romans 1:25, the passage immediately preceding this one, explains their error in brief, and this is also discussed in 1:20 and the following verses. What they're doing with each other as a result of the lusts YHWH gave them over to in 1:26 is God's way of sticking it to them for being disloyal and ungrateful little punks.

What does this do to show that the verse is not condemning homosexuality? If anything, it seems to make things worse.

*facedesk*

What part of that was unclear? The entire chapter is not about something gay but about something not gay that made YHWH mad. QED.

If your entire argument seriously hinges on Paul referring negatively to something involving feelings and sexuality, that's a pretty weak basis for an argument.

Periphrastic Morphology

Quote:

Actually, the Greek might be more literally interpreted as "dishonorable feelings". Despite Paul's incredible lack of specificity, let's assume for the moment that we're talking about incredible, flaming gay sex. Which part of this is an indictment of gay sex? We've already identified the actual offense to YHWH, which is something else entirely, and the dishonor might well be Paul's projection or an acknowledgement that being forced to do something you don't like is punishment indeed.

I don't see how the alternate translation, even if justified, makes any difference.

I wouldn't call

Quote:

Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men

a "lack of specificity." Unnatural sexual relations involving men leaving women behind and being inflamed with lust for one another. Where is the lack of specificity? You keep referring to it.

Really? The ambiguity of this passage is on par with "thingie" for all it actually tells anyone. If I wrote a report with this kind of language, I'd be torn apart, and with good reason. Maybe it had a very specific meaning at the time, or maybe he just sucked at writing anything remotely explicit involving sex. I don't know for sure, but it's a moot point now.

He never actually says what happened. Ever. The Textus Receptus speaks of some change in the sexual use of women being changed, but again, who actually knows what the ******** that means?

Periphrastic Morphology

It seems to me that your argument at this point is that God is punishing them by giving them over to shameful lusts for another offense unrelated to it, that being their punishment - not that they were punished for these shameful lusts in themselves, yes?

You do catch on eventually.

Periphrastic Morphology

If gay sex is hunky dory, why would that be an appropriate bizarre punishment for their actions? If it has to do with shameful lust in general, why not make them have straight sex? There's clearly an implication that homosexual sex is worse or wrong, regardless of the interpretation.

Assuming that it's gay sex, sure.
But worse or wrong for who?

Periphrastic Morphology

Refusing to accept that, I think, is willful blindness.

Hey, if I wanted to piss someone off, all I'd need to do is make them suddenly desire the people they desire the least. I don't see how this is implausible given the context.

Who knows why Paul assumed his readers would understand the punishment? For all we know, they were as uptight as he was, or he was referring to a specific group of people in an area where same-sex relationships were derided or outlawed.

Periphrastic Morphology

And that's even assuming your (clearly ideologically charged)

Well poisoning.

Periphrastic Morphology

interpretation is correct, which you have yet to really argue for rather than merely assert.

Already presented several arguments in the OP, with quite a bit of room for debate. I'm really not inclined to put together new ones just because you want me to.

Periphrastic Morphology

Or did God make people go against their sexuality because that's just so darn funny and humiliating?

Wouldn't surprise me in the least. Hell, I still think it's funny.

Periphrastic Morphology

Quote:

Sure, according to Paul. But this isn't really relevant to the point of the passage. For all I know or care, "unnatural" reflects Paul's understandable bias or an understanding that they wouldn't have done any of that by choice.

So are we chucking Paul's opinions out the window now? I want to be sure about what you're saying here. If you want to disregard his personal beliefs, then are you admitting that his personal beliefs include disapproving of homosexuality?

Actually, I think Paul's writings pretty clearly indicate a bias against sexuality in general. Bear in mind also that indictments of temple prostitution and the like would cover even greater ground, and this would be present in his Jewish upbringing.

I'm not suggesting we jettison his opinions without evaluation, but I am suggesting we critically read them if we're going to base anything off of them.

Periphrastic Morphology

Since you love context so much, let me quote from the end of the chapter.

Quote:

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

These things are mentioned pretty much in the same breath as homosexuality, given to the people for the same reasons the homosexuality was, and are said to deserve death. Again, God gave them over to these things, yes, but here the negative connotations are all incredibly obvious. Why, if God gave them over to both these and the homosexual lust, do you get to enact special pleading for the former? Is it perhaps because you disapprove of all these things but not homosexual sex? What about these separates them in context? Or are you going to say that these too are not intended to be shown as actually wrong by Paul's chastising? It seems extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, for you to have it both ways.

Note the "furthermore" (καί καθώς), which frames this distinct last bit as a case for what was done to their minds. It also refers to them as without understanding, oathbreakers, and without affection. They were all these beforehand as well, so my best assessment here is that Paul is stating all this for emphasis. Yeshua's teachings don't lend themselves particularly well to appeals to consequence, and the list elements appear haphazard, so I would take this with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Periphrastic Morphology

Quote:

The acts probably were shameful to them, and that was their due punishment. That's the point.

Just as the wickedness and evil were?

Depends on whether he made them as stupid and unwise as Paul seems to have painted them.

Periphrastic Morphology

Quote:

It's still irrelevant. First, context is always a factor. Second, the cause of the behavior - whatever the ******** it is - in Romans and the behavior itself are not the same.

My point was that here you seem to be ignoring context, saying the people were wrong and punished, but the fact that this came in the form of homosexual sex somehow doesn't matter, and doesn't cast homosexuality in a negative light. This seems impossible to swallow.

Again, assuming gay sex (in an unqualified modern sense, which is itself quite a leap), it doesn't explain why it would have been a punishment. I can understand how it might have been considered uncouth at the time, though.

Periphrastic Morphology

Quote:

No, just the most obvious. You referred to a "huge scholarly debate". I want to know what you're referring to. I could hold up a [citation needed] sign instead if that's what floats your boat.

Nope, you don't get to shift the burden of proof. You said they thought homosexuality was natural. Further, you now seem to be backpedaling on this by claiming they would have thought the acts were shameful, hence the punishment. So some evidence for the first claim and some clarification on its apparent contradiction with the second would be nice.

Let me get this straight. You made a claim and now you won't back it up but you'll claim that I'm not providing evidence for what I've already cited and clarified?

Feel free to step back at any time if you can't produce a simple piece of evidence upon request. Tu quoque won't make me forget that you still haven't coughed this one up.

Periphrastic Morphology

Quote:

It's less a case of considering it natural and more a case of not considering it to be unnatural.

I've actually read those two paragraphs before, and no I do not buy this, because there are in fact Greek texts that say homosexuality is unnatural.

This, for example, is from the first book of Plato's Laws.

Quote:

And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.

And Plato himself elsewhere spoke approvingly of pederasty. So no, there is no case for the Greeks "not considering homosexuality unnatural" even in golden age Athens, which is where homosexuality was supposedly openly tolerated. How, then, can you extrapolate from this broken basis to all of Greek and Roman society? Bunk.

First, you're again citing exclusively from a period that does not coincide with Paul. Second, even if we ignore the issues with translating physis as nature and the fact that Plato's sharp words and devices for any kind of sexual conduct not consistent with procreation were not only largely ignored but largely irrelevant to the question of homosexuality as a concept, you're also talking about someone who espoused forming armies of same-sex lovers and who employed a variety of rhetorical devices for parroting fanciful nonsense. Atlantis is another concept described by Plato, and as with so many others, here we are thousands of years later and it has yet to be substantiated.

Periphrastic Morphology

Quote:

Because that law is either out the window with Yeshua or it isn't. If it isn't, we're back to not wearing cotton-polyester blends. If it is, we're back to loving YHWH and one's neighbor.

If it is, then I don't see how homosexuality has any bearing on anything.

Jesus talked about plenty besides the two greatest commandments - this is a false dichotomy.

He talked about plenty that was instructive or meant to convey wisdom.
He also didn't refer to everything else as the law.

Periphrastic Morphology

And Paul is apparently supposed to be some sort of authority for Christians too, though why you people care about him I will never know.

Us people?
And you wonder why I call you overly assumptive.

Periphrastic Morphology

So it's Romans we need to discuss. And it paints homosexuality very negatively, Old Law or no.

If you make a given series of assumptions, yes, it does.
So?

Periphrastic Morphology

Quote:

I'd settle for less repetitive verbiage and a clear explanation of which people he is referring to, as well as what they were doing. It's almost as though he goes out of his way to use the least descriptive language possible through the entire chapter.

I can think of a lot less descriptive ways to say that. "Unnatural bodily things were going on." "Women were doing weird things to each other." Does he say that? No, he says they abandoned natural sexual relations for unnatural ones with members of their own gender.

I can think of plenty of less descriptive ways as well. That doesn't make him particularly useful or clear.

Periphrastic Morphology

Quote:

But he doesn't say what was going on. At times, he is extremely specific. Why should we presume to know which activities he is presenting, when he doesn't come out and say anything unmistakably?

He says it was sexual.

Because that couldn't have multiple meanings.

Periphrastic Morphology

Quote:

Besides, even if it were between - for example - intercrural and a**l sex, that would prevent us from determining either one as the cause of anything. That presents a problem when it comes to a clear statement in the text, which is a major component in most Christianity-derived arguments against gay marriage.

The focus seems to be on the fact that they are of the same sex, not whether they are penetrating.

Not at all. The focus is on those who knew YHWH but merely pretended to follow him.

[rmcdra]

Periphrastic Morphology

I think a better approach would be to stop making excuses altogether for ridiculous beliefs and abandon trying to interpret a text that has nothing to do with anything. Because it doesn't matter what Paul wrote or meant.

But that's just me.

[rmcdra]

Elf Lord Chiewn

The only reason I haven't taken this approach from the beginning is that very few are willing to question the inclusion of verses in the canon at all. I usually end up stonewalled.

Still, in light of the recent rebirth of this thread, I think it might make sense to add this point to the OP.

Understandable. Most Christians don't like thinking that their texts could have been modded or that the Church Fathers could have been lying about some things. Scholars like Karen King and April DeConick have been showing that to be often the case.

Quote:

Fair enough. I've certainly fallen back on this line of reasoning before; I suppose I should consider adding these pieces as well.

Just saying that's all. You don't have to but it would make your argument stronger especially when the person in question here does have a point. If he could deduce it on his own, then more than likely someone else will too.

Correction after reading: Did have a point.

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Elf Lord Chiewn

(καί καθώς)

Actually, "and since", or "and just as". και in Greek means "and".

[Bane of Ezekiel]

False Dichotomy

How would you label someone who is against it morally, but supports it from a secular/political standpoint?

Conflicted.

[jaden kendam]

Periphrastic Morphology

Let me also point out how ludicrous it is to claim on the one hand that there is not even enough evidence to say that Romans 1:26-7 is even about sex and then on the other to claim enough support for the interpretation that it is not only about sex, but about bottoming during a**l sex being humiliating to a Roman citizen. How do you reconcile these two ridiculous assertions? If there's bad evidence for the former, there's absolutely none for the latter, so you can't have your cake and eat it.

I know you like doing this sort of thing, but verses before 26 mention idolatry, so here is a little test. Please prove that all homosexuals were idolaters before becoming gay. Thank you kind sir and have a wonderful day.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

False Dichotomy

How would you label someone who is against it morally, but supports it from a secular/political standpoint?

Cowardly.

[I Refute Berkeley Thus]

rmcdra

Periphrastic Morphology

I think a better approach would be to stop making excuses altogether for ridiculous beliefs and abandon trying to interpret a text that has nothing to do with anything. Because it doesn't matter what Paul wrote or meant.

But that's just me.

You will have the last laugh, no doubt, while you dwell in eternal bliss as an endless aeon. Elf Lord will be chilling with the Lord in heaven. You can visit me roasting below if you'd like to rub it in - compared to hell, it won't be that bad, and I know when I'm beat.

[I Refute Berkeley Thus]

jaden kendam

Periphrastic Morphology

Let me also point out how ludicrous it is to claim on the one hand that there is not even enough evidence to say that Romans 1:26-7 is even about sex and then on the other to claim enough support for the interpretation that it is not only about sex, but about bottoming during a**l sex being humiliating to a Roman citizen. How do you reconcile these two ridiculous assertions? If there's bad evidence for the former, there's absolutely none for the latter, so you can't have your cake and eat it.

I know you like doing this sort of thing, but verses before 26 mention idolatry, so here is a little test. Please prove that all homosexuals were idolaters before becoming gay. Thank you kind sir and have a wonderful day.

I really don't see what relevance that has. Can you explain?

[I Refute Berkeley Thus]

Quote:

*facedesk*

What part of that was unclear? The entire chapter is not about something gay but about something not gay that made YHWH mad. QED.

Again, you are attempting to remove this from context. Just because God was mad about lizard statues or whatever doesn't mean that you can say the verse has nothing to do with homosexuality. Their punishment was being given over to unnatural lust (homosexual desires). It's painted in an obviously negative light and mentioned as a punishment right alongside evil, wickedness, and so on, to which God also gave all of them over.

Quote:

If your entire argument seriously hinges on Paul referring negatively to something involving feelings and sexuality, that's a pretty weak basis for an argument.

Hey, you're at least not completely in denial anymore. You're admitting that Paul is referring negatively to homosexuality. Maybe in time!

Quote:

Really? The ambiguity of this passage is on par with "thingie" for all it actually tells anyone. If I wrote a report with this kind of language, I'd be torn apart, and with good reason. Maybe it had a very specific meaning at the time, or maybe he just sucked at writing anything remotely explicit involving sex. I don't know for sure, but it's a moot point now.

He never actually says what happened. Ever. The Textus Receptus speaks of some change in the sexual use of women being changed, but again, who actually knows what the ******** that means?

Why does it matter what happened exactly when the level of specificity (that gay sex was going on) matches the level of specificity required for the debate (whether gay sex is approved or not by the bible?) If you want to debate whether oral sex is wrong or something, then no, it is not specific enough. But you cannot simply appeal to vagueness in general to make a point without considering to what extent a passage needs or doesn't need to be vague to make a point.

Quote:

Assuming that it's gay sex, sure.
But worse or wrong for who?

For the people involved in it, just as all those other nasty things Paul lists are. Again, this just seems like special pleading to me.

Quote:

Hey, if I wanted to piss someone off, all I'd need to do is make them suddenly desire the people they desire the least. I don't see how this is implausible given the context.

Who knows why Paul assumed his readers would understand the punishment? For all we know, they were as uptight as he was, or he was referring to a specific group of people in an area where same-sex relationships were derided or outlawed.

There is no indication that it was "sudden," like a plague of gay. It seems to me to be referring to a societal habituality, just as idolatry and deceit are.

There also seems to be an unchecked assumption in your argument, which is that when Paul refers to the situation as a punishment, it's something like being stoned - something horrible only because you don't like it yet not against God's will or bad in itself. This does not seem to me to be the case. Namely because Paul specifically mentions all these things happening as a result of the people not adhering to God's word. What happens when you don't obey God's Word? You do things that are against it, including a laundry list of things the Old Testament God would have flipped his s**t over - among them, homosexuality. Why do we get to turn it around suddenly and act like homosexuality can be divorced form the rest of these punishments as being okay in normal circumstances by God?

Quote:

Well poisoning.

It's true, isn't it? You have an obvious agenda that your interpretation fits with, in my opinion poorly. This would be more a personal appeal to the author of the argument to give up the indefensible ideology rather than worry your head over how to interpret your way out of these endless prima facie contradictions.

Quote:

Wouldn't surprise me in the least. Hell, I still think it's funny.

You're not Christian, are you? If you were that wouldn't be a nice thing to say.

Quote:

Actually, I think Paul's writings pretty clearly indicate a bias against sexuality in general. Bear in mind also that indictments of temple prostitution and the like would cover even greater ground, and this would be present in his Jewish upbringing.

I'm not suggesting we jettison his opinions without evaluation, but I am suggesting we critically read them if we're going to base anything off of them.

I agree that Paul doesn't like sex in general, but here he is comparing homosexual and heterosexual sex to each other and painting the former in a more negative light. As for examining his opinions, given that Scripture is inspired (or whatever liberal Christians think, I have no idea anymore), how do you separate between those verses that are Paul's mere opinion and those that are him stating opinions that reflect divine inspiration? Clearly, all of it comes from his mouth - is there a systematic way of deciding what you're going to ignore and what you're not besides ideology?

Further, you originally didn't seem to think that the verse was problematic at all, and hence we had no need to ignore anything about it. Are you changing that position, or was that impression mistaken, or...?

Quote:

Note the "furthermore" (καί καθώς), which frames this distinct last bit as a case for what was done to their minds. It also refers to them as without understanding, oathbreakers, and without affection. They were all these beforehand as well, so my best assessment here is that Paul is stating all this for emphasis. Yeshua's teachings don't lend themselves particularly well to appeals to consequence, and the list elements appear haphazard, so I would take this with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Yeah, but God "gave them over" to this in the same way he gave them over to homosexuality, in the same context. Why do you get special pleading for the homosexuality, where this is blatantly negative?

I don't understand why you are showing me the Greek translation for "furthermore" or what difference that makes. Are you trying to imply that this somehow separates these mental afflictions qualitatively from the homosexuality? I don't see why.

Those healthy doses of skepticism liberal Christians are so fond of...I don't know how they work, except that they always result in the reader's opinion remaining unchanged, no matter what.

Quote:

Let me get this straight. You made a claim and now you won't back it up but you'll claim that I'm not providing evidence for what I've already cited and clarified?

Feel free to step back at any time if you can't produce a simple piece of evidence upon request. Tu quoque won't make me forget that you still haven't coughed this one up.

Absolutely not. Your original claim was that the society Paul was writing to saw homosexuality as natural. You have now backpedaled and said they "didn't see it as unnatural." My point about the debate was only in response to this, a claim which is ludicrous and you have as of yet provided no support for. I do not need to justify the second claim in order for you to be required to provide evidence for the first. Capiche?

Quote:

First, you're again citing exclusively from a period that does not coincide with Paul. Second, even if we ignore the issues with translating physis as nature and the fact that Plato's sharp words and devices for any kind of sexual conduct not consistent with procreation were not only largely ignored but largely irrelevant to the question of homosexuality as a concept, you're also talking about someone who espoused forming armies of same-sex lovers and who employed a variety of rhetorical devices for parroting fanciful nonsense. Atlantis is another concept described by Plato, and as with so many others, here we are thousands of years later and it has yet to be substantiated.

I'd say Plato's otherwise positive view of homosexuality is only going to hurt your case - homosexuality was such a complicated concept in Ancient Greece that even people who were in support of homoerotic war machines and pederasty still thought it was unnatural in other contexts. This example was merely to illustrate that no such sweeping statement can therefore be made about Greek society as a whole. The Atlantis comparison is moot, as this is an opinion, not a documentation of a historical event.

How are you going to show that the people Paul were writing to didn't see homosexuality as unnatural? That seems a massive claim to make with no evidence, considering that the default across the world and throughout history has been the opposite.

Quote:

Us people?
And you wonder why I call you overly assumptive.

Ugh. I've seen enough internet arguments with religion nerds. Best I can generalize is that if you stay on the internet long enough, suddenly everyone who believes anything else than you do about Christianity is a ******** idiot who doesn't understand context. When do we talk the text's word? When are we skeptical about it? Who knows? I'm just glad you take the time to condescend to speak to anyone else, given that we're apparently so stupid that you have to bang your head on the desk in frustration just to hold a conversation. May the rest of the world come to the enlightened position that Lord Yahweh doesn't hate them gays. Amen.

Gotta have something to cling to, I guess.

Quote:

If you make a given series of assumptions, yes, it does.
So?

So you're retracting the false dichotomy regarding the Old Law, then?

Quote:

I can think of plenty of less descriptive ways as well. That doesn't make him particularly useful or clear.

Gay sex is what we're talking about. Gay sex is what he talked about.

Quote:

Not at all. The focus is on those who knew YHWH but merely pretended to follow him.

And suffered the consequence of having gay sex as a result, just as the consequence of:

-wickedness
-evil
-greed
-depravity
-envy
-murder
-strife
-deceit
-malice
-gossiping
-slandering
-God-hating
-insolence
-arrogance
-boasting
-evil-inventing
-disobedience

I mean, woah, murder?

And don't try to tell me they did these things before and Paul was merely recapitulating that.

What are we going to say about verse 24, anyway? What are all these things under, as a heading? Sinful desires of their hearts. And sexual impurity is even mentioned specifically.

[rmcdra]

Periphrastic Morphology

You will have the last laugh, no doubt, while you dwell in eternal bliss as an endless aeon. Elf Lord will be chilling with the Lord in heaven. You can visit me roasting below if you'd like to rub it in - compared to hell, it won't be that bad, and I know when I'm beat.