“Part of the reason Paul never thought to make it a big issue was because there were no homosexuals at the time, no separately identifiable community demanding rights from the government. … Paul does seem to equate a sinful society with same-sex sex.”
This is a good discussion and one that’s been going on in my head for some time, as Steve & I visit various liberal churches in Seattle. Thanks for bringing it into real-life.
I don’t have anything brilliantly insightful to add. I just noticed, Grant, what you said about Paul’s view of homosexuals perhaps being different from the current situation of homosexual culture. I had always heard that in ancient Greek & Roman culture, homosexuality was a pretty common activity for men in general, not just those who identified themselves as exclusively homosexual. I found this site that sums up what I was thinking:
http://hometown.aol.com/GraceEACA/chapter2.html
(It’s an Anglican church’s website. I give no guarantees of its accuracy, but it seems pretty well laid out in historical terms. Jump to the Greek & Roman eras for Paul’s environment.)
It contains, for instance, this about Greeks: “The Greek military attitude toward homosexuality was that it brought a sense of comradeship. … Greek society only negatively defined homosexual activity when it was exclusive or related to prostitution by a citizen.?In nearly every other instance, homosexual conduct was considered acceptable and practical. … Women were restricted in their sexual activity because they were needed in order to bear children.?Men could have sex with either women or men, so long as they met their societal obligation to reproduce.”
And this about a typical Roman man: “Although one could easily have sex with his wife at home, a man in the baths, a prostitute in the brothel, and a slave in a dark corner, he would have only been criticized if he were not able to keep everything in its place.”
So what’s my point? I just wonder — if the homosexual activity Paul is thinking of is male bonding and/or temple prostitution (that required by pagan rituals), might his negative attitude toward homosexual activity be because of its promiscuous nature rather than its actual male-on-male/female-on-female nature?
Romans 1:27: “In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Romans+1 Then again, it says that men “abandoned natural relations with women,” suggesting that these are exlusive homosexuals?
And the Old Testament seems to condemn the act itself: “‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable’” (Lev. 18:22).
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Lev+18
And yet I can see where some homosexual Christians would argue that a loving, committed, marriage-type relationship is different from the promiscuous sexual encounters mentioned in Greek & Roman times.
Yup, really don’t have a point. Just wondering where to stand on this one. But I don’t want to be accused of not discussing the political issue, so onward: On the political end, I don’t see a reason to deny rights to any group of people, including adoption rights. There are so many children waiting for a home. Of course, does that mean I would deny adoption rights if there were a limited number of adoptable kids available and plenty of heterosexual couples or singles?
I think Christians’ lobbying against the rights of a group that they dislike is wrong. Should Christians then lobby for homosexual rights? Well, if it’s a question of gays and lesbians being denied basic human and U.S. rights, I think that would be a great thing for Christians to do. Maybe open to misinterpretation, but then so was Jesus. http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+11:19
(I’m Bible-quoting girl today! Can that be a new superhero?)
I’m not as certain in my heart as I am in my mind about these issues of political rights. I’ll admit, for instance, that it does seem…weird, for lack of a better word, to have a gay couple raise children. But what do I mean by that? I’m not going to come up with an answer at 1:30 in the morning, so I’ll quit for now.
amanda
Sep 28 2002
11:38 pm
“Part of the reason Paul never thought to make it a big issue was because there were no homosexuals at the time, no separately identifiable community demanding rights from the government. … Paul does seem to equate a sinful society with same-sex sex.”
This is a good discussion and one that’s been going on in my head for some time, as Steve & I visit various liberal churches in Seattle. Thanks for bringing it into real-life.
I don’t have anything brilliantly insightful to add. I just noticed, Grant, what you said about Paul’s view of homosexuals perhaps being different from the current situation of homosexual culture. I had always heard that in ancient Greek & Roman culture, homosexuality was a pretty common activity for men in general, not just those who identified themselves as exclusively homosexual. I found this site that sums up what I was thinking:
http://hometown.aol.com/GraceEACA/chapter2.html
(It’s an Anglican church’s website. I give no guarantees of its accuracy, but it seems pretty well laid out in historical terms. Jump to the Greek & Roman eras for Paul’s environment.)
It contains, for instance, this about Greeks: “The Greek military attitude toward homosexuality was that it brought a sense of comradeship. … Greek society only negatively defined homosexual activity when it was exclusive or related to prostitution by a citizen.?In nearly every other instance, homosexual conduct was considered acceptable and practical. … Women were restricted in their sexual activity because they were needed in order to bear children.?Men could have sex with either women or men, so long as they met their societal obligation to reproduce.”
And this about a typical Roman man: “Although one could easily have sex with his wife at home, a man in the baths, a prostitute in the brothel, and a slave in a dark corner, he would have only been criticized if he were not able to keep everything in its place.”
So what’s my point? I just wonder — if the homosexual activity Paul is thinking of is male bonding and/or temple prostitution (that required by pagan rituals), might his negative attitude toward homosexual activity be because of its promiscuous nature rather than its actual male-on-male/female-on-female nature?
Romans 1:27: “In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Romans+1 Then again, it says that men “abandoned natural relations with women,” suggesting that these are exlusive homosexuals?
And the Old Testament seems to condemn the act itself: “‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable’” (Lev. 18:22).
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Lev+18
And yet I can see where some homosexual Christians would argue that a loving, committed, marriage-type relationship is different from the promiscuous sexual encounters mentioned in Greek & Roman times.
Yup, really don’t have a point. Just wondering where to stand on this one. But I don’t want to be accused of not discussing the political issue, so onward: On the political end, I don’t see a reason to deny rights to any group of people, including adoption rights. There are so many children waiting for a home. Of course, does that mean I would deny adoption rights if there were a limited number of adoptable kids available and plenty of heterosexual couples or singles?
I think Christians’ lobbying against the rights of a group that they dislike is wrong. Should Christians then lobby for homosexual rights? Well, if it’s a question of gays and lesbians being denied basic human and U.S. rights, I think that would be a great thing for Christians to do. Maybe open to misinterpretation, but then so was Jesus. http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+11:19
(I’m Bible-quoting girl today! Can that be a new superhero?)
I’m not as certain in my heart as I am in my mind about these issues of political rights. I’ll admit, for instance, that it does seem…weird, for lack of a better word, to have a gay couple raise children. But what do I mean by that? I’m not going to come up with an answer at 1:30 in the morning, so I’ll quit for now.