The idea that a "pro-gay" interpretation of the Bible is any more convenient than an 'anti-gay' interpretation of the Bible is laughable to the point of absurdity. I understand that you need something to demonize and crusade against--it's a very human need and I feel the same way--but there are real moral wrongs that could satisfy as targets.
I think this "most common sense" to which you refer seems like a rhetorical ploy. We can't have a debate if we're insulting the other's intelligence.
Is the march of history as written by the straight, white patriarchy a source of moral insight? I think not. It was not until the 1100s, after all, that Peter Cantor began his campaign against homosexual relationships between clergy members. "Contrary to all precedence, restricted the term sodomy to refer to same-sex acts and interpreted Romans 1:26-27 to refer exclusively to homosexuality" (Helminiak, 2007). As for the majority opinion, I see no reason to believe that biblical scholarism has a consensus on these passages. The number of alternate interpretations are staggering and they run the entire gamut from "pro-gay" to "anti-gay."
I never claimed that the homogenital acts described in this passage (and it clearly does describe homogenital acts) were those of heterosexuals. However, it is interesting that you are so quick to point out the distinction between gay sex and gay relationships. I think you know that there is no moral argument against loving, monogamous relationships between two consenting adults (regardless of their sex). I also never said that the homogenital acts described were pederasty.
As for Paul's use of the words "natural" and "unnatural" (and ultimately para physin), it must be understood that he is speaking literally about physical nature or nature as a tendency. In Galatians 2:15, Paul speak sof Jews and gentiles who were made as much by nature--by virtue of their birth. The literal reference to gentiles apparently reads "uncircumcision by nature." This is an example of how concrete the concepts of natural and unnatural are for Paul. In Romans 2:14, Paul talks about gentiles "who do not have the law, [and] do by nature things required by the law[;] they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law." Paul is illustrating how the gentiles act consistent with their nature. In Galatians 4:8, Paul writes, "Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods." Again, he is talking about what the idols are physically made up of. In 1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul asks, "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him?" According to Boswell and Countryman, and in the words of Helminiak:
"In all those cases, Paul uses the term "nature" to imply what is characteristic or peculiar in this or that situation. You would not expect a Jew not to be a Jew or the uncircumcised not to be uncircumcised. That is, you would not expect someone raised as a Jew to be ignorant of the Jewish Law, and you would not expect a Gentile to act like a Jew; that is not their 'nature.' According to the standard practice of Paul's day, you would not expect men to wear long hair; that is not what 'nature' requires. . .Once you know the true God of the universe, you would not believe the forces of this world are divine; that is not to be expected, for by their very 'nature' they are otherwise."
Furthermore, even if para physin was a stock phrase for homosexuality anywhere else in the Bible, that would not conclusively indicate that is its meaning here. Para physin is certainly a stock phrase for "contrary to" and in this case "contrary to nature" and as I've illustrated, Paul's use of the word physin does not mean that the acts are contrary to the laws of nature, but that they are unexpected or unusual. Therefore, the passage as a whole should be read to describe "sexual practices that were not the ones people usually perform" (Helminiak, 2007).
Let's not forget that Paul uses the same words to describe God. In Romans 11:24, Paul describes how God, in an unsual way, "cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree."
As I've said, there is considerable debate on the matter, of course. Some interpret Paul's use of the words para physin to actually mean "contrary to nature" but this view is derived from Stoicism. I don't think that contemporary Christians, who are overwhelmingly concerned with how they 'feel' about God and God's love (though they are blind to it when it concerns certain minorities) would want to align themselves with Stoic philosophy. If you believe that non-procreative sex is 'contrary to nature' then inevitably you would decry homogenital acts, but (you ought to do that) no more so than heterogenital acts that aren't for the purpose of reproduction. However, that does not seem to be your belief as you expressed that sexuality was something to be "enjoyed."
You should not be surprised that "impurity" would have no moral connotations for Paul. Growing up as a Jew, he was exposed to a specific culture of cleanliness as a matter of establishing 'Jewish-ness.' In Leviticus, specifically in the 'Holiness Code,' are described numerous 'impure' acts that had no moral connotations whatsoever. When the Holiness Code was written, no thought was given as to whether the 'impure' acts described were good or bad--the important thing was that they were non-Jewish. The sense in which they were non-Jewish is the sense in which they were impure--preserving Jewish identity was the point of the Holiness Code (said another way, the point was to preserve 'purity'--a dangeorusly fascist idea when taken to the extreme). As Christians, we should not be bound to Jewish cleanliness laws, and we certainly shouldn't misinterpret them to have moral significance.
It must, of course, be admitted that, at the time of writing Romans, "Paul had already understood Jesus' teaching that the only real uncleanness is uncleanness of the heart" (Helminiak, 2007). However, in contrast to the passages you cited where Paul links impurity with real moral wrongs, in Romans 1:24 Paul links impurity only with disgrace and shame, neither of which have an ethical connotation for him. There are other examples of impurity being used in the Jewish, and not the Christian sense, in the Bible: Matthew 23:27, Acts 10:14, 28, 11:8. With that in mind, we cannot say with certainty that the Christian sense is in use here.
It is important to grasp what Paul's purpose of writing this passage in the epistle is, and that is to teach the difference between ritual impurity and real moral wrong. Paul breaks up the passage into two sections in order to make this point. He first accuses the genitles of idolatry, which was an obvious moral transgression of theirs. "And what was the result of their idolatry? Paul says it was twofold. It resulted in uncleanness, and it resulted in real sin" (Helminiak, 2007). The two-part structure Boswell and Countryman propose is as follows: verses 24-27 are one part, in which Paul describes sexual acts as "degrading" and "shameless"; verses 28-32 are the second part, in which Paul describes real moral wrongs (e.g. envy, murder, and deceit) as [wicked], evil, and malic[ious].
We obviously disagree as to the purpose of Paul's epistle but I don't see what the rhetorical question "If we are free from the punishment from the law and justified by works, then our sin doesn't matter!?!" has to do with distinguishing ritual impurity from moral wrong. It doesn't sound like any Catholics would agree with your interpretation of Romans, as it allegedly discourages the "myth of justification by works."
I've never seen any evidence that the part of the Holiness Code that refers to having sex with a menstruating woman, offering child-sacrifice to Molech, and other concerns of sexual or asexual nature is of moral consequence. Regardless of whether or not there is real moral import from Leviticus, those are all (ritual cleanliness) laws of the God of the Israelites and only the Chosen People are bound to them. Only the ban on child-sacrifice to Molech was to apply to non-Jews (and then only in the land of Israel), which is supported, I think, by the uncommon use of 'ragam' instead of 'seqal' to describe the punishment of stoning for this act. For better or worse, you and I and the people for whom your article was written for are not the Chosen People bound to God by a covenant--a covenant that requires a cultural distinction between Jew and gentile (which outside of religion would be only pretension). It is probably for better that we do not worship the God of the Old Testament, actually--a blind God called Samael that is full of wrath (not that the Christian invention of hell is anymore pleasant).
Submitted by Kevin Endsley on Sat, 04/11/2009 - 12:31.
convenient, really?
I think this "most common sense" to which you refer seems like a rhetorical ploy. We can't have a debate if we're insulting the other's intelligence.
Is the march of history as written by the straight, white patriarchy a source of moral insight? I think not. It was not until the 1100s, after all, that Peter Cantor began his campaign against homosexual relationships between clergy members. "Contrary to all precedence, restricted the term sodomy to refer to same-sex acts and interpreted Romans 1:26-27 to refer exclusively to homosexuality" (Helminiak, 2007). As for the majority opinion, I see no reason to believe that biblical scholarism has a consensus on these passages. The number of alternate interpretations are staggering and they run the entire gamut from "pro-gay" to "anti-gay."
I never claimed that the homogenital acts described in this passage (and it clearly does describe homogenital acts) were those of heterosexuals. However, it is interesting that you are so quick to point out the distinction between gay sex and gay relationships. I think you know that there is no moral argument against loving, monogamous relationships between two consenting adults (regardless of their sex). I also never said that the homogenital acts described were pederasty.
As for Paul's use of the words "natural" and "unnatural" (and ultimately para physin), it must be understood that he is speaking literally about physical nature or nature as a tendency. In Galatians 2:15, Paul speak sof Jews and gentiles who were made as much by nature--by virtue of their birth. The literal reference to gentiles apparently reads "uncircumcision by nature." This is an example of how concrete the concepts of natural and unnatural are for Paul. In Romans 2:14, Paul talks about gentiles "who do not have the law, [and] do by nature things required by the law[;] they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law." Paul is illustrating how the gentiles act consistent with their nature. In Galatians 4:8, Paul writes, "Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods." Again, he is talking about what the idols are physically made up of. In 1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul asks, "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him?" According to Boswell and Countryman, and in the words of Helminiak: Furthermore, even if para physin was a stock phrase for homosexuality anywhere else in the Bible, that would not conclusively indicate that is its meaning here. Para physin is certainly a stock phrase for "contrary to" and in this case "contrary to nature" and as I've illustrated, Paul's use of the word physin does not mean that the acts are contrary to the laws of nature, but that they are unexpected or unusual. Therefore, the passage as a whole should be read to describe "sexual practices that were not the ones people usually perform" (Helminiak, 2007).
Let's not forget that Paul uses the same words to describe God. In Romans 11:24, Paul describes how God, in an unsual way, "cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree."
As I've said, there is considerable debate on the matter, of course. Some interpret Paul's use of the words para physin to actually mean "contrary to nature" but this view is derived from Stoicism. I don't think that contemporary Christians, who are overwhelmingly concerned with how they 'feel' about God and God's love (though they are blind to it when it concerns certain minorities) would want to align themselves with Stoic philosophy. If you believe that non-procreative sex is 'contrary to nature' then inevitably you would decry homogenital acts, but (you ought to do that) no more so than heterogenital acts that aren't for the purpose of reproduction. However, that does not seem to be your belief as you expressed that sexuality was something to be "enjoyed."
You should not be surprised that "impurity" would have no moral connotations for Paul. Growing up as a Jew, he was exposed to a specific culture of cleanliness as a matter of establishing 'Jewish-ness.' In Leviticus, specifically in the 'Holiness Code,' are described numerous 'impure' acts that had no moral connotations whatsoever. When the Holiness Code was written, no thought was given as to whether the 'impure' acts described were good or bad--the important thing was that they were non-Jewish. The sense in which they were non-Jewish is the sense in which they were impure--preserving Jewish identity was the point of the Holiness Code (said another way, the point was to preserve 'purity'--a dangeorusly fascist idea when taken to the extreme). As Christians, we should not be bound to Jewish cleanliness laws, and we certainly shouldn't misinterpret them to have moral significance.
It must, of course, be admitted that, at the time of writing Romans, "Paul had already understood Jesus' teaching that the only real uncleanness is uncleanness of the heart" (Helminiak, 2007). However, in contrast to the passages you cited where Paul links impurity with real moral wrongs, in Romans 1:24 Paul links impurity only with disgrace and shame, neither of which have an ethical connotation for him. There are other examples of impurity being used in the Jewish, and not the Christian sense, in the Bible: Matthew 23:27, Acts 10:14, 28, 11:8. With that in mind, we cannot say with certainty that the Christian sense is in use here.
It is important to grasp what Paul's purpose of writing this passage in the epistle is, and that is to teach the difference between ritual impurity and real moral wrong. Paul breaks up the passage into two sections in order to make this point. He first accuses the genitles of idolatry, which was an obvious moral transgression of theirs. "And what was the result of their idolatry? Paul says it was twofold. It resulted in uncleanness, and it resulted in real sin" (Helminiak, 2007). The two-part structure Boswell and Countryman propose is as follows: verses 24-27 are one part, in which Paul describes sexual acts as "degrading" and "shameless"; verses 28-32 are the second part, in which Paul describes real moral wrongs (e.g. envy, murder, and deceit) as [wicked], evil, and malic[ious].
We obviously disagree as to the purpose of Paul's epistle but I don't see what the rhetorical question "If we are free from the punishment from the law and justified by works, then our sin doesn't matter!?!" has to do with distinguishing ritual impurity from moral wrong. It doesn't sound like any Catholics would agree with your interpretation of Romans, as it allegedly discourages the "myth of justification by works."
I've never seen any evidence that the part of the Holiness Code that refers to having sex with a menstruating woman, offering child-sacrifice to Molech, and other concerns of sexual or asexual nature is of moral consequence. Regardless of whether or not there is real moral import from Leviticus, those are all (ritual cleanliness) laws of the God of the Israelites and only the Chosen People are bound to them. Only the ban on child-sacrifice to Molech was to apply to non-Jews (and then only in the land of Israel), which is supported, I think, by the uncommon use of 'ragam' instead of 'seqal' to describe the punishment of stoning for this act. For better or worse, you and I and the people for whom your article was written for are not the Chosen People bound to God by a covenant--a covenant that requires a cultural distinction between Jew and gentile (which outside of religion would be only pretension). It is probably for better that we do not worship the God of the Old Testament, actually--a blind God called Samael that is full of wrath (not that the Christian invention of hell is anymore pleasant).