theology eh?

[Eagleofmeaux]

<<I'm cool with the theology debate if you are>>

::Large Devious Grin:: Patrick, that makes two of us. I have made issues of homosexuality and theology the primary area of focus in my major, and I would Love to engage this debate on the theological level. I'd apreciate it if Patrick and any others with theological arguments on homosexual marraige or homosexuality in general post them here so that those of us who woudl like to adress them may. I agree with Ian that relgious views ought not determine our politics, but I also recognise that they often DO, and thus it can help us all to understand them as best we can. Let's start the discourse.

Keith

[Pattybar]

Sorry, but I have to jump on the concept that our religious views should not influence our political views...

If you elect someone to represent you and they have strong religious views, isn't it a bit strange to expect them to partition off their spiritual values when making a policy decision? I would contend (following Audi) that this is an unreasonable and impossible task for a rational politician. I would be worried about someone who says they are both spiritual and can segment thier spirituality-- they are either a) lying about one or the other or b)unstable..

As for the homosexuality and the Bible -- I had a student write an interesting paper for me last year about that topic... his basic argument is that the Bible was/is interpreted wrongly on that very subject. He left me a huge stack of his research materials... which I never read -- but there does seem to be considerable evidence to support his position (huge envelope... and I was busy moving and doing my own paper on Rawls...)

Patty

[jatkins]

Originally posted by tutakai
Why should we bar those who have religious views from political participation? It seems to me that those who have religious views have just as much right to political office and influence as atheists...

I know of no one who suggests disallowing political advocacy by religious leaders. Specific policies, however, should not be based purely upon religious ideology. Restriction of human behavior should be based upon a candid, open, political assessment of the costs and benefits of implementation, and not upon a statement of doctrine. In other words, the claim from a religious leader that we should pass a law "because God says so" is not enough justification to pass it.

Also, there are constitutional concerns with policy determined by religious ideology. The current interpretation of the establishment clause provides a threefold test to determine the constitutionality of a law perceived to be religious:

1) Does the law reflect a clearly secular issue for legislation?
2) The primary effect of the law must neither advance nor inhibit religion.
3) The law must avoid excessive government entanglement with religion.

Another difficulty is the fact that there is no set definition of religion. Are the Scientologists a religion? What about the Heaven's Gate cult? How are they any less a religion than mainstream Christianity? Assuming equal amounts of evidence produced by two different religious groups with opposing opinions, how are we to evaluate the validity of one against the other?

Such irresolvable questions necessarily require that religious ideology be severed from policymaking. Since we have no mechanism for evaluating religious claims, they should not be considered. Religious leaders can still advocate whatever they wish, but have to do so in the manner that we all do; by providing facts and data that support their positions. Whether the proposition is advocated by Christians or Atheists should have nothing to do with how we vote.

[steinguitar]

A little while back I was trying to find an old teacher of mine's e-mail adress. Though I couldnt find it through the web, I did stumble onto quite a bit of stuff involving his name, a portion of which dealt with homosexuality and judaism. His name's Rabbi Martin S. Cohen if you're interested in looking into him.

He's referred to in these articles:

(cites: Martin Samuel Cohen. "The Biblical Prohibition of Homosexual Intercourse," Journal of the History of Sexuality, 19.1, 1990.) (http://www.jfcs.org/Services/Individuals_and_Couples/Individuals_and_Couples_Resource_Library/Individuals_and_Couples_Articles/Judaism_and_Homosexuality.asp)

(cites: Rabbi Martin Cohen, "Putting Leviticus in context: Has Dr. Laura read her Torah?", The National Post, May 20,2000.) (http://www.prayerbook.ca/cann/2000/11/cann0183.htm)

Truth is, I don't know much about the subject, but this might give you some insight on the Jewish perspective if you so desire it.

And he writes pretty decent fiction (Martin S. Cohen (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Cohen%2C%20Martin%20S./104-0697033-3473565), and Martin Samuel Cohen (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Cohen%2C%20Martin%20Samuel/104-0697033-3473565)(he's listed under two names)

[jatkins]

Originally posted by tutakai
The Court has interpreted the First Amendment to mean that laws must have a legitimate secular purpose and may not be solely justified by religious views (because that would be tantamount to establishment of a state religion). Thus, religion may not be the objective context for a law.

But the Court does NOT prohibit politicians or political activists from expressing religious beliefs as a part of their personal statements of support or opposition to a law. That would be a burden on religion and a violation of the First Amendment. Thus, religious belief may provide the subjective context for how a law is perceived.

I don't think that you and I disagree on a fundamental level. I believe that people of religious conviction can and should say whatever they want. On the subjective level, you are correct; religion can no more be separated from policymaking than can the equally nebulous concept of morality.

My last post concerned the making of policy in an ideal setting. In a practical setting, it is the duty of politicians to at least try to weigh the issues in an objective manner. In my estimation, it is generally better to err on the side of caution when one finds oneself unable to separate the objective from the subjective. This mindset protects both the state and the church.

What bugs me is that while a law may have a secular purpose, those who voted for it may have done so for no other reason than their religious beliefs. Senator Gordon Smith's opposition to assisted suicide is an example of this; it wasn't until well after his first action supporting the Federal injunction against assisted suicide that he even came up with an argument that was not predicated solely upon his religious beliefs. There are plenty of arguments against assisted suicide, and plenty for it, that have nothing to do with religion, yet he chose to play the religion card, as though he were helpless to do anything other than blindly fall in line with his church's status quo. This is a cop out.

The selective application of religious morality also gets me. If assisted suicide and homosexuality aren't Christian, why is loaning money and charging interest (the basis of modern capitalism) allowed? That is usury, by the biblical definition. The one group of people Jesus reacts violently to in the Bible is the moneylenders/moneychangers in the Temple. It seems to me that the application of religion to policy discussions is more often than not used to compensate for a weaker objective argument. Thus, for a law to be considered, it should be at least debatable on secular grounds.

[Pattybar]

JAtkins writes:
What bugs me is that while a law may have a secular purpose, those who voted for it may have done so for no other reason than their religious beliefs. Senator Gordon Smith's opposition to assisted suicide is an example of this; it wasn't until well after his first action supporting the Federal injunction against assisted suicide that he even came up with an argument that was not predicated solely upon his religious beliefs.

My basic question is why does a lawmaker's motive matter at all? If you think assisted suicide is wrong because it leads to the degredation of end of life care and I am against it because I think only God should be deciding when and how people die -- what is the net difference in the end -- we both agree it is a bad idea, don't we?

It could be on another topic that you are concerned about the environment because of your sprirtual beliefs and I am concerned about net decrease in air quality -- either way, we come to the same conclusion. Again, why does it matter the path we take to make a decsion?

Patty

ps, can y'all tell I've changed ethical theories in my courses... now I'm no longer teaching Kant, but have started teaching consequentialism... :D

[pdano]

Um, I don't think it's right to say that most judges don't take into account the intent of those who write the laws. Many judges pore over the debate and the committee reports to try to derive what the intent of the law is; the aforementioned "textualism" from Scalia is noted mostly because he's the major proponent of the opposite school, not because he champions the only legal doctrine on the issue. It's one of the reasons that Members of Congress take the floor to speak; they want to make it clear to any future judges how Congress interpreted certain legislative provisions. The 14th Amendment debates have been exhaustively searched in equal protection and due process cases.

Further, presidents and many state governors have taken to including "signing statements" along with their signature on laws. These are further attempts to alter judicial interpretation through an explanation of what the creators/approvers saw as the meaning of the law. While many judges disregard these statements as meaningless, which is generally the attitude towards Bush's signing statements, it is common practice in many state judiciaries to abide by the governor's signing statement, and I believe (though I'm not sure) that it is the law to do so in a few states.

Dan

[thedancingbear]

Yes, a free society should allow people of any religious persuasion to express and practice their beliefs as they wish.

A free society must also place certain limits and restraints upon the majority to keep them from abusing minority rights. Should a gay couple in Georgia have marriage rights denied to them because of religious preferences in Maryland?

One of the basic assumptions of democratic theory is that they should not.

I wasn't advocating that people with religious beliefs should abdicate those beliefs before voting or holding office. Indeed, I am glad such a thing is impossible.

What I am advocating is that public policies should always be able to pass the Lemon test: does the law lack a secular purpose? Does it unnecessarily entangle government with religion? And does its principal and primary effect advance or inhibit religion? If the answer is yes to any of these three questions, then you are dealing with a law that probably violates the establishment clause.

In the case of environmental regulations where perhaps I support anti-dumping laws because I think they're a defilement of God's green earth and you support the same laws because they drive down property values, clearly everything is okay. The law has a secular purpose etc.

But when the primary and only argument for a given piece of legislation is "it's against my religious beliefs" then we're no longer okay. The reason that I mentioned entangling religion and government at all was because of just such a statement in the gay marriage thread.

Summary: I'm not anti-religion, just pro-Lemon

Cheers,
IS

[jatkins]

Originally posted by Pattybar
My basic question is why does a lawmaker's motive matter at all? If you think assisted suicide is wrong because it leads to the degredation of end of life care and I am against it because I think only God should be deciding when and how people die -- what is the net difference in the end -- we both agree it is a bad idea, don't we?

I guess my problem is that, if someone demonstrates a preference for religious, rather than secular reasons when justifying a debatable proposition, they tip their hand. From Smith's remarks about assisted suicide, it is clear that he weighs religious reasons above secular ones. Thus, given no knowable net benefit or cost to a particular policy, the deciding factor for Smith will be his religious convictions, if they apply. I'm not comfortable with that. I'm reasonably sure, also, that the weight he gives the dictates of his church has swayed him to take political stances unsupported by valid secular arguments (such as his support of the OCA's Ballot Measure 9, both times).

[Pattybar]

Jatkins writes:
I guess my problem is that, if someone demonstrates a preference for religious, rather than secular reasons when justifying a debatable proposition, they tip their hand. From Smith's remarks about assisted suicide, it is clear that he weighs religious reasons above secular ones. Thus, given no knowable net benefit or cost to a particular policy, the deciding factor for Smith will be his religious convictions, if they apply. I'm not comfortable with that.

OK, but -- if the law passes the Lemon test, then what is the difference? One Senator may vote against assisted suicide because of religious conviction, another votes against it because he sees a decline in care DA, and a third votes against it because he doesn't ever want to be on the same side as a fourth Senator... SO WHAT?

Granted, Smith may be making a decsion with a bad justification.. (as is Senator #3 above )but you still need to explain how the religious justification taints what could be otherwise justified -- and what passes the Lemon test. If you don't like how someone makes decisions, don't vote for them and/or work against their election, but once they are elected and are passing bills that make sense, there is actually nothing you can do....

In other words, think about it this way -- I may sit on a panel with several other judges. One of them votes on shoes and ties, another votes because gov used the word "plan" and I vote on the flow as I see it... now, I can say that each of them made the right decision for the wrong reasons.. but until it is made clear to me WHY intentions matter, I can't say their decision was somehow scary...

Patty

[jatkins]

Originally posted by Pattybar
If you don't like how someone makes decisions, don't vote for them and/or work against their election...

This is, in fact, what I do. I'm not a very experienced debater yet, but I'll try to defend my position as best I can, now that I seem to have provoked several reactions. I think that bad reasons for making policy necessarily result in bad policy. To extend your metaphor, the judge who makes her/his decision based on shoes and ties will inevitably make the wrong decision eventually, even if they make the right decision every once in a while.

I realize that I myself am biased. I very much try not to be when I debate the merits of a specific policy. The scary part, I guess, is when someone in a position of great power uses that power irresponsibly because of an oversimplified view of the world, predicated by their bias. For instance, President Bush's religious opposition to abortion caused him to cut off funding for AIDS prevention to all family planning clinics in Africa which provide abortion services. His religious stance has undermined his ability to weigh the costs and benefits of this policy. He sees the world in black and white, and that is a very dangerous thing.

Perhaps my problem is with that manichean view of the world, which seems more prevalent in religious thought than in most areas of inquiry. I honestly don't believe that I'm anti-religious.

[pdano]

"I may sit on a panel with several other judges. One of them votes on shoes and ties, another votes because gov used the word "plan" and I vote on the flow as I see it... now, I can say that each of them made the right decision for the wrong reasons.. but until it is made clear to me WHY intentions matter, I can't say their decision was somehow scary..."

The problem is that unless you trust the criteria by which the decision is made, you can never trust that they will act in a right manner in the future. The above example means that there are two judges wandering around that are making decisions on what you clearly consider to be a frivolous basis. This doesn't scare you? It scares me so much that I strike these sorts of judges whenever possible.

I'm disliking this consequentialist skein you're on, Patty... go back to Kant or Rawls, please...

Dan

[Pattybar]

Dan and Nate:

I was trying all along to get you to make the basic argument that you did --- namely that when the decision making calculus is wrong, then the decision is only accidentally right... the basic reason I am a Kantian and why I only teach consequentialism ;)

Generally, I would like y'all to realize how many times I had to ask the same basic question before y'all gave the good answer....

Now, the reality issue --- since there are generally more than one or two religious nuts making public policy, is there actually a net harm to having a religious reason to vote?

If something is good or bad for many reasons, one of them religious -- then it will get passed or rejected on those reasons AND the religious reasons. Why is this a problem?

Also, why is a religious reason to vote inherently a bad one? As long as the law passes the Lemon test, what is the harm?

Notice, the basic doctrine of separation of church and state does not preclude practice of religion, only that the state shall not establish A (one, the) state church... so, if there are many different religious beliefs represented.... what is the harm?

Patty

[jatkins]

Originally posted by Pattybar
If something is good or bad for many reasons, one of them religious -- then it will get passed or rejected on those reasons AND the religious reasons. Why is this a problem?

Also, why is a religious reason to vote inherently a bad one? As long as the law passes the Lemon test, what is the harm?

Notice, the basic doctrine of separation of church and state does not preclude practice of religion, only that the state shall not establish A (one, the) state church... so, if there are many different religious beliefs represented.... what is the harm?
Patty

I think I've already addressed your first question. When a religious reason is given influence over decisionmaking, even if just as a part of the process and not the whole thing, it will inevitably lead to some conclusions that would not have been reached in a secular approach.

Similarly, I think my answer to the second question is that the harm comes from the bad policies that necessarily stem from a bad method of policymaking (last post).

I believe that the establishment clause actually reads "the congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." This pretty clearly means that there cannot be one or more state religions.

Finally, the plurality of religious views does nothing to address the harms of bad policymaking. We have both now agreed that two of the three judges you used in your metaphor had poor reasons to vote, correct? Even if they disagree with each other, we still don't want policymakers making their decisions upon invalid grounds.

[AhhAlegra]

As interesting as this thread is at the moment I'm disappointed I'm not getting to see Keith go off on homosexuality and the Bible. Always so fun. So Keith, if you want to slip a rant about the meannig of "porneia" in here amongst the Lemons, feel free :)

[jatkins]

The main biblical prohibition of homosexuality is Leviticus 18:22. "Man shall not lie with man as he lies with woman, it is abomination." However, according to Leviticus, eating lobster, wearing cloth made of two different fabrics, and planting two types of crops side by side are also "abomination."

I know that homosexuality is addressed elsewhere in the Bible, for instance, in the story of Soddom and Gamorrah. I think in the new testament it's mentioned in Paul. Does anyone have the exact passages, chapter and verse?

[Pattybar]

I think I've already addressed your first question. When a religious reason is given influence over decisionmaking, even if just as a part of the process and not the whole thing, it will inevitably lead to some conclusions that would not have been reached in a secular approach.

First, notice the caveat I've been including... the proposal must pass the Lemon standard explained by Ian above. Second, just because the conclusions may not have been reached in a secular approach, does not ential that the CONCLUSIONS THEMSELVES ARE BAD. You need to deal with this aspect of the argument.

I believe that the establishment clause actually reads "the congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." This pretty clearly means that there cannot be one or more state religions.

But, you have yet to connect the religious basis for voting on a secular law with the "establishment of of one or more state religions" -- Were I a Buddhist, how would my voting on Buddhist principles be the establishment of a state religion? Am I requiring you to practice Buddhism? Am I somehow privilaging Buddhist in the society? Am I somehow punishing Hindus? As long as the bill passes the Lemon test, no matter how I arrive at the decison to vote, I am not establishing state religion(s).

I will grant that you may dislike/distrust the overall principles upon which someone makes a decision, based on fear of how they will vote on FUTURE issues, but you have still to explain why religious basis for voting is as irrational as the judges in my example voting on shoes and ties... and it seems to me that it would be a good idea to reflect on why it took an absurd debate example for me to get that far with the argument... now, make the next step :D

As long as there is A secular reason to support a bill, does it matter that there are also 100 religious reasons to do so? Can't a good secular reason be equivalent to a good religious reason?

Patty

[thedancingbear]

I want to hear Keith talk about the Bible and homosexuality, please. It sounds interesting. So, do it. Please. :)

Cheers
IS

[jatkins]

Originally posted by Pattybar
As long as there is A secular reason to support a bill, does it matter that there are also 100 religious reasons to do so? Can't a good secular reason be equivalent to a good religious reason? Patty

I am not advocating voting against a bill just because someone has attached a religious value to it. However, assuming the preponderence of secular evidence of net beneficiality one way or the other, a decision based upon religious considerations in favor of the weaker case is always possible so long as religion is a consideration. I don't like the idea of someone giving the Bible more weight than the actual foreseeable human consequences of their policies, and I see this all the time. I work at Oregon's state capitol. It's absolutely amazing what people think religion should be able to justify, despite the horrifying damage their policies would do.

Religious ideology is not inherently damaging to the decisionmaking process any more than moral preconceptions are. What is damaging is the maintenance of such black and white considerations in the face of strong, objective reasons contradicting them.

We agree that a judge weighing the degree to which debaters' ties match their shoes into a decision is innappropriate. Now, if the case was close enough that the judge can write another reason on the ballot, they can satisfy the tab room that they made their decision on something legitimate to the debate. However, they have still made the wrong decision. Ties and shoes shouldn't be given any weight, right?

Thus, even if a bill passes the Lemon test, it could still have been passed for invalid reasons as a result of the religious motivations of one or more of its supporters. Is that the "next step" you have encouraged me to make?

I am also not saying that I will not vote for religious people. Practically, the elimination of all bias is impossible, and strong, fundamentalist religious views are just one particularly notable form of bias. However, I don't believe that policymakers of religious background are incapable of separating their policies from their religion. Former Senator Mark O. Hatfield, for instance, was anti-choice his whole life, voted for a family planning funding package for Africa despite the knowledge that a part of that package was specifically earmarked to fund abortion services. He made his decision on the basis of net beneficiality, despite extremely strong religious convictions. Bush seems incapable of this same kind of thoughtfulness.

Maybe the moral of this story is that they just don't make Republicans like Mark Hatfield anymore. :(

[AhhAlegra]

I really, really recommend this site. Not just this page, but the whole site. They are very thorough, objective, and thoughtful.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

The key scriptures usually debated are:

Genesis 19 (Sodom and Gomorrah, which I believe is not about homosexuality)
Leviticus 18:22/Leviticus 20:13 (the latter is the one that condones excecution)
Romans 1:26-27 (central NT verse on the subject)
Timothy 1:9-10
Various others as detailed by the site.

As religious tolerace.org writes:
"Religious liberals have often interpreted other passages as condemning men who sexually abuse boys, men who engage in homosexual ritual sex in Pagan temples. They view the Bible as being silent on sexual behavior within a consensual, monogamous committed homosexual relationship."

And that, my friends, is one of the reasons I fit the definition of a religious liberal!

[thedancingbear]

This site looks really great. Thanks Andrea for the link, and Jason for the endorsement.

Cheers,
IS

[Eagleofmeaux]

Ask and it shall be given unto you…

This is my understanding of the issue of homosexuality with regards to the Christian religion.

All condemnations from a Xian standpoint stem from one of two areas, the old testament (Pre-Jesus) and the new testament (written post-Jesus). Most Old testament condemnations are fallacious at their core (in terms of application to today’s world) due to the construction of the old testament and the sociological phenomenons of the time.
Most condemnations appeal to the “holiness code” of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. This code forbids (at penalty of death) the wearing of shirts of two different fabrics, the planting of a field with mixed seed, or the pulling of a cart by an ox and a donkey simultaneously, as well as the eating of shellfish. The key purpose of the holiness code was to separate things in a very ridged way so as to separate the Israelite people form cultural assimilation and effectively identify members of the group form outsiders. With this in mind its obvious that forcing adherence to the old testament on any level is inconsistent at best, and out right impractical at worst. I should also be noted that Jesus himself regularly disobeyed the torah (the old testament) showing its status to be less than ironclad within Xianity.
The other source of condemnation via the old testament utilizes the example of the city of Sodom which god destroyed. An intriguing point with regards to this is that no instance of sodomy actually occurs within the text we have referring to Sodom. Furthermore, the true crime that was illustrated within the story is a refusal of hospitality and the threat of rape towards angels of god. The connection to a consensual monogamous homosexual relationship is nearly laughable.
The second source of condemnation, the new testament is also riddled with problems. Not the least of which deals with translation which has been less than ideal over the years.

There are over 500 condemnations of various heterosexual actions within the bible, and only 7 ambiguous condemnations of homosexuality. I think a preponderance of evidence is lacking in terms of the “evil” or “sinful” nature of different sexualities.

Now, to the line by line:

Romans 1:28
If we review the context of the event and look specifically to Romans 1:23 I think it becomes obvious that there is a larger issue here than sexual orientation or even self-identification. Verse 23 speaks of people" Chang the glory of the incorruptible god into an image, made like to the corruptible man, and to birds, and to four footed beats, and to creeping things" I believe the description of idolatry that this passage mentions is very clear. We also know historically that one thing that pagan Romans routinely engaged in was worship of idols via fertility rituals. The description which follows in the next 5 verses seems to describe this quite well. Individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, were engaging in homosexual, [i]and heterosexual activities with one another. What Paul certainly condemns is idolatry, and a pagan fertility ritual in the form of group sex dedicated to a pagan god. I think it is more than unwarranted, and verging on ludicrous to infer from this that a consensual, monogamous, loving, (monotheistic) homosexual relationship is wrong. (I have a LOT more info on this verse if people are interested, it probably the most interesting of the verses and I the only one which may potentially deal with lesbianism)

Leviticus and Deuteronomy

Post Jesus, much of the old testament law was preserved, Jesus himself states that he came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. This means that rather than throwing out the old testament traditions Christians seem to be intended to selectively modify them. I think the most appropriate way to determine what sections of the Old Testament law Christians today ought still keep is to look for consistency, and to examine the purposes of the laws. Leviticus and Deuteronomy both contain elaborate sets of laws designed to set the Israelites apart from other cultures of their time. Those tenants of the law that existed for this purpose are denoted by the Hebrew word “To’evah” This word literally means “ritual impurity” “Ziamah” another Hebrew word, used often within the Old Testament, is the literal word for sin. In order to be most consistent I would suggest that those things which are ritual impurities be discarded, but those which are sins be maintained. This allows things such a sowing a field with mixed seed and cross breeding livestock (Leviticus 19:19) to be continued, but serves to ban things such as murder and rape. Given this standard homosexuality, as condemned by Leviticus and Deuteronomy, would not be considered a sin but rather a ritual impurity Christians are not required to stand by as it is only refered to as being To’evah (despite our horrendous “abomination in the eyes of the lord” translation. One should also keep in mind that the old testament issues no condemnation of lesbianism, it only speaks of men having sex with one another and whether or not it even does that is a lengthy debate in and of itself), so regardless of whether or not you accept the above logic lesbianism is still legitimate under Deuteronimic and Levitical law.


Sodom and Gramorah (Genesis 19)

The only portion of the story that has anything to do with homosexuality involves an attempt at rape (of god’s angels no less). I don’t believe a condemnation of homosexual rape is a condemnation of consensual monogamous homosexual sex any more than a think a condemnation of heterosexual rape condemns a consensual, monogamous heterosexual relationship.


1Corintians and 1 Timothy – the same word (malakos) is used in both. The term is part of a laundry list both times. It literally translates as “soft” or if we were to be very liberal with the translation “effeminate,” but by no means homosexual. (we can get into a lot more translational stuff here and some interesting discussions of the thought of the time and what may have led Paul to list even these individuals, but that’s another 20 pages at least and I’m sure this monster post is more than enough as is)

I’d finally like to hit 1 Corinthians 6:9. The interesting thing about this verse is that our translations usually read “homosexual offenders,” or in some places just ”homosexuals.” The Greek word “Arsenokoiti” is a highly ambiguous term. Paul coins it, and our best translation of it is “a male that sexually molests young boys.” This was actually a common practice within the Roman Army. It highly likely that this is exactly the behavior Paul is condemning. I think this merits a rejection of child molestation, I don’t think it condemns a consensual monogamous homosexual relationship. Incidentally, as far as we can tell, early Christian authors who argued for condemnation of what they considered “deviant sexual practices” including by not limited to homosexuality did not reference this verse but rather appealed to Hebrew law via the old testament and the Talmud. That makes it highly unlikely that this verse ought indeed be translated as a condemnation of homosexuality.


Incidentaly, Jesus never breaths a word on this in any of the canonical or non-canonical gospels we have availible. kinda makes you wonder how big a deal the man himself might have thoguht it was. To muddle things even more, I might suggest reading the "Secrect Gospel of Mark." It may suggest that Jesus was actualy queer himself.

Them’s my thoughts. And that was my rant :)

Keith

[Eagleofmeaux]

(PS, religious Tolerance kicks ass, both in the abstract and the URL sense. It was one of the first places i foudn when I started examining this issue, and it was exceedingly helpful.)

Keith

[thedancingbear]

Keith:

Truly cool. You will have to teach me the correct pronounciations of the relevant words, but no laughing at my attempts to get Hebrew right allowed.

Post saved to hard drive for later reference,
IS

[scooter]

I might suggest reading the "Secrect Gospel of Mark." It may suggest that Jesus was actualy queer himself.

First, Kieth a nice analysis, and very inclusive of a number of the issues presented in the two texts. Of course, I was most intrigued with the Hebrew Bible parts (Torah-- and there are some references in the haf-Torah) Personally, I may not dig the later edition but your analysis of the Christian/Greek Bible sounds sound and I did find the above line quite interesting. It might be noted that some authors have noted that the additional relationships encountered by Ruth (slight suggestion) and more commonly (and heavily commented upon) Jonathan and David could imply the same-- either as a description or at least a non-condemnation of same sex relationships. Finally, and interestingly, some images from the Hebrew Bible in particular have been oft noted as iconographic of same sex relationships, perhaps the most famed of which is Jacob wrestling the angel (Dyer writes of this image extensively).

S

[mpls_saint]

What hap[pened to the nifty debate about the net results of secular vs. religious decision making? That was far more interesting than debate concerning a man that may or may have not been real.:D

[AhhAlegra]

1) We can have both discussions at once

and

2) If you think Jesus of Nazareth was not a real historical figure I would find that discussion very, very interesting to have. Me and Keith can go all Josephus on you (Jewish historian who mentions Jesus):D

[mpls_saint]

We should at least entertain one! I only suggested the former for personal reasons. I wonder if motive, when derived at by spiritual conviction as opposed to secular reasoning, is not lesser in value than the latter because of the selfishness inherent in that motive. Perhaps the morality of the motive is in fact the same whether derived from spirituality or secularism, but in so much as a politician is, in most cases, an elected representative, shouldn't there motive reflect their responsibility as a representative of their constituancy?

As for the existence of Jesus as a "historical figure", I think we would first necessarily define what "historical figure" means. Certainly a fictitious being can be a "historical figure". However, I forsee having to accept the existence of Jesus in one way or the other, so I will revert to what would have been my second issue of debate; did jesus die on the cross? :D

[Pattybar]

OK y'all, this could be a fun one...

Welcome!!!! Mpls_Saint... go for it ;)

As one of the NB moderators, I'd like to tell y'all that I'm pretty sure who Mpls_Saint is, and they aren't a) Jason or b) one of my debaters --- although if they were at St. Thomas, they wouldn't get much peace until they joined my team... As you will soon find out, this person has a few strong views... ;) and is generally a really fun person to talk to!

Patty

[scooter]

Well, there has been some funky writing on this topic. Personally, although several Jews take very differing notions, I think that the dude lived, like I think that some dude in England named Aelfred or some funky Saxon looking name like that who lived and that inspired the legend of King Arthur. Doesn't mean its fiction, just that it has a lot of layers of legend added to it. Thus, died on the cross? Maybe, I (obviously) just am not doing the God messiah thing.

Beyond that, I also read that he was one powerful manipulator who could be up there with some of the more coercive folks in history (John Haley's THe Power Tactics of Jesus Christ-- fun reading.)

S

[AhhAlegra]

If you (or Scooter, or anyone) is interested in having a historic discussion about the issue (whether Jesus of Nazareth survived crucifixion), I will open up another thread so as not bog down this one with too many different topics. I really like talking about this, as long as people provide their own theories with some evidence (I like to 'be opp' too :)...and anyway most scholars do think he was crucified, so I think there is at least some burden to explain an alternate theory.)

[scooter]

Dre et al:

That would kind of be a funky thread. You see, I don't (obviously) believe in the dude's divinity, but I do think that from a cultural standpoint, it is difficult to suggest that he had no impact (in whatever the definition of "he" might be, historical, legendary, etc.) As a communication scholar, I would say that the legend/belief in the death etc. ethos and discourse is kind of interesting. What is difficult from some Jews standpoint is the interest in dicussing a historical figure only to be told at the end of it "And that's why you should believe in him or go to hell" which is often not a very cool way to have a dicussion progress...

S

[AhhAlegra]

Aw, Scooter..

Do you really think I'd say that to you? :(

That's why I called it a historical discussion...I definitely do not think this is a good forum for proselytizing, nor do I even do any normally anyway. I was just going to post some historical/medical stuff for mpls_saint on Jesus's execution, but if it's not an appropriate discussion to have anyone can just backchannel me for the same thing...

[scooter]

Get real Dre! I would never think that about you! You're way too cool beyond that.

Let's chat, yes, in a thread! Definitely!

S

[mpls_saint]

I, for one, would be interested in such an historical discussion, if only for education purposes (mine, mostly).

As for Patty's kind introduction, what can I say other than, "I'm flattered." Not that I am undeserving...everyone who knows me hears about the best philosophy professor in the state. :D