Where do I go from here?
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:53 pm
Alright, So I posted this in a different sub forum before realizing there was an entire area specifically dedicated to this topic... So I'm re-posting it here (with some edits as I noticed I made some late night connections that I didn't go into enough detail on in my other post).
So I've found through numberous discussions about this topic that they all tend to break down at the same point. I'll take you through what have become my 4 primary points when discussing this (obviously I diverge when needed, but these four are the points I always try to flesh out the most because I think they are the most important to understanding the issue). I won't go into crazy detail as I'm more concerned with why the discussion breaks down where it does as opposed to rehashing this point yet again (though I'm not entirely opposed that's what people want (yet again) or if you think I need to go into further detail somewhere to better answer my question).
1) The bible appears to be far more concerned with a Love Ethic than it does a Sexual Ethic. The bible is full of sexual mores, but these are more practices of the time than they are rules by which we must live. The sexual practices accepted and looked down on are constantly evolving throughout scripture right up to today (I'm fairly sure that the majority of Conservative Christians would not be cool with the idea of Levirate Marriage). I mean it seems to enforce a Love Ethic right down to how Jesus engages with Scripture and makes a point of constantly stressing the importance of the character of ones being as opposed to the strict rules they think everyone should follow (The Pharisees anyone?). Whether or not they agree with this point isn't super important as it's more meant to give a little context and insight into how I read the bible.
2) Regardless of where you personally stand on the issue, how the church has traditionally approached the issue is very detrimental to everyone involved and we need to change how we approach this issue. I'm more so just trying to garner a little sympathy with this quote because the church has historically not led the best example of a body under a being that claims to love unconditionally.
3) This is where the argument tends to take a more theological/exegetical turn and more often than not that leads to Paul... And more importantly Romans 1:26-27... I have two issues with this text and the second is where most of my debates tend to be cut short.
a) Romans 1 cannot be understood (in my opinion) without Romans 2... It is a one-two punch, a common literary strategy used by speakers and preachers even today... One of drawing the audience in, feeding them lines they already agree with and then throwing them a curve ball to make them second guess those firm beliefs they had mere moments ago. Romans 1 basically goes, 'look at all these bad things and bad people, we would never do that, shame on them... etc' Followed by Romans 2 which basically goes 'But wait a second, What did Jesus tell us to do? Oh that's Right... Not To Judge!' Which I like to imagine is met by a 'Oh Paul, You clever rascal... You got me! I'll try and be more aware of that in the future' from the reader.
b) but even more importantly than that, is the language Paul uses... Because inevitably I get the 'But he still alluded to it being bad' Yes, but even if you take that route of twisting Paul's intent it still doesn't matter because what he is talking about is very likely not what we know as Homosexuality. What we know as homosexuality would have been quite foreign to Paul, that is same sex loving relationships between two consenting adults. What Paul is talking about here is likely temple supported male prostitution (I mean he even used the term 'ἀκαθα�σία' not two chapters earlier hearkening back to the Septuagint/Old Testament speaking out against shrine prostitution putting the image square in the readers mind).
And in his other mentions of the topic, like those in Timothy or Corinthians, The word Paul uses here (ἀ�σενοκοίτης) is a fairly uncommon word in the Greek language that we can only really guess at the true meaning of (some people even think Paul just straight up made up his own word here, it's that uncommon guys)... The general consensus is that what Paul is referring to are acts of Pederasty or once again shrine prostitution... Again not the same sex consensual adult relationships we've seen develop more recently (in fact the term homosexual didn't even exist in the bible until I think 1949 with the RSV Translation. But given that there are other more common Greek words for same sex (ίδιου φ�λου), more encompassing terms, and given that how sex was talked about back then was generally framed in specific acts not all encompassing terms, why do we assume that the moment he decides to be quite specific with his wording (to the point of potentially making up his own word) that he is condemning an entire orientation as opposed to a particular act?
And if the argument from there becomes that they did not use language that way back then, then is it not a reasonable assumption that what we have now come to know as 'homosexuality' is not a concept that Paul would have been familiar with as if he had one would expect him to use similar language? (This paragraph here is a new addition to the argument, I haven't really fleshed this one out yet, feel free to help me develop that one too as I'm basically trying to guess at where the discussion would go from there if it didn't always end).
Anyways, it is around that point above when I start getting nice and exegetical, bringing up Greek translations and things of the sort that people tend to respond with the cold shoulder and end the conversation instead of continuing the discussion beyond there. I really want to know why because the only reason my argument has developed to where it is is because people keep giving me counter points that I then have to go to research and return with how I might respond to said point through my lens of biblical understanding. Through discussion after discussion my points get fine tuned and honed in to say exactly what I want them to say... But now that I've got it to this point people just tend to disagree and that's the end of it... Nothing more to say... How do I respond to that? (which isn't actually the question I started with but another one I'd be curious to hear thoughts on none-the-less).
So I've found through numberous discussions about this topic that they all tend to break down at the same point. I'll take you through what have become my 4 primary points when discussing this (obviously I diverge when needed, but these four are the points I always try to flesh out the most because I think they are the most important to understanding the issue). I won't go into crazy detail as I'm more concerned with why the discussion breaks down where it does as opposed to rehashing this point yet again (though I'm not entirely opposed that's what people want (yet again) or if you think I need to go into further detail somewhere to better answer my question).
1) The bible appears to be far more concerned with a Love Ethic than it does a Sexual Ethic. The bible is full of sexual mores, but these are more practices of the time than they are rules by which we must live. The sexual practices accepted and looked down on are constantly evolving throughout scripture right up to today (I'm fairly sure that the majority of Conservative Christians would not be cool with the idea of Levirate Marriage). I mean it seems to enforce a Love Ethic right down to how Jesus engages with Scripture and makes a point of constantly stressing the importance of the character of ones being as opposed to the strict rules they think everyone should follow (The Pharisees anyone?). Whether or not they agree with this point isn't super important as it's more meant to give a little context and insight into how I read the bible.
2) Regardless of where you personally stand on the issue, how the church has traditionally approached the issue is very detrimental to everyone involved and we need to change how we approach this issue. I'm more so just trying to garner a little sympathy with this quote because the church has historically not led the best example of a body under a being that claims to love unconditionally.
3) This is where the argument tends to take a more theological/exegetical turn and more often than not that leads to Paul... And more importantly Romans 1:26-27... I have two issues with this text and the second is where most of my debates tend to be cut short.
a) Romans 1 cannot be understood (in my opinion) without Romans 2... It is a one-two punch, a common literary strategy used by speakers and preachers even today... One of drawing the audience in, feeding them lines they already agree with and then throwing them a curve ball to make them second guess those firm beliefs they had mere moments ago. Romans 1 basically goes, 'look at all these bad things and bad people, we would never do that, shame on them... etc' Followed by Romans 2 which basically goes 'But wait a second, What did Jesus tell us to do? Oh that's Right... Not To Judge!' Which I like to imagine is met by a 'Oh Paul, You clever rascal... You got me! I'll try and be more aware of that in the future' from the reader.
b) but even more importantly than that, is the language Paul uses... Because inevitably I get the 'But he still alluded to it being bad' Yes, but even if you take that route of twisting Paul's intent it still doesn't matter because what he is talking about is very likely not what we know as Homosexuality. What we know as homosexuality would have been quite foreign to Paul, that is same sex loving relationships between two consenting adults. What Paul is talking about here is likely temple supported male prostitution (I mean he even used the term 'ἀκαθα�σία' not two chapters earlier hearkening back to the Septuagint/Old Testament speaking out against shrine prostitution putting the image square in the readers mind).
And in his other mentions of the topic, like those in Timothy or Corinthians, The word Paul uses here (ἀ�σενοκοίτης) is a fairly uncommon word in the Greek language that we can only really guess at the true meaning of (some people even think Paul just straight up made up his own word here, it's that uncommon guys)... The general consensus is that what Paul is referring to are acts of Pederasty or once again shrine prostitution... Again not the same sex consensual adult relationships we've seen develop more recently (in fact the term homosexual didn't even exist in the bible until I think 1949 with the RSV Translation. But given that there are other more common Greek words for same sex (ίδιου φ�λου), more encompassing terms, and given that how sex was talked about back then was generally framed in specific acts not all encompassing terms, why do we assume that the moment he decides to be quite specific with his wording (to the point of potentially making up his own word) that he is condemning an entire orientation as opposed to a particular act?
And if the argument from there becomes that they did not use language that way back then, then is it not a reasonable assumption that what we have now come to know as 'homosexuality' is not a concept that Paul would have been familiar with as if he had one would expect him to use similar language? (This paragraph here is a new addition to the argument, I haven't really fleshed this one out yet, feel free to help me develop that one too as I'm basically trying to guess at where the discussion would go from there if it didn't always end).
Anyways, it is around that point above when I start getting nice and exegetical, bringing up Greek translations and things of the sort that people tend to respond with the cold shoulder and end the conversation instead of continuing the discussion beyond there. I really want to know why because the only reason my argument has developed to where it is is because people keep giving me counter points that I then have to go to research and return with how I might respond to said point through my lens of biblical understanding. Through discussion after discussion my points get fine tuned and honed in to say exactly what I want them to say... But now that I've got it to this point people just tend to disagree and that's the end of it... Nothing more to say... How do I respond to that? (which isn't actually the question I started with but another one I'd be curious to hear thoughts on none-the-less).
You'd probably be better off picking A church and working on THAT ONE church to make it an example simply because 'the church' is too large, too segregated, too varied in its beliefs for you to get what you're looking for IMO.