Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Moral reasoning (was Re: draft of Identity Task Force statement) Message-ID: Date: 17 Dec 90 03:41:44 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia Lines: 70 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu I *really* don't want to get into the topic of homosexual behaviour; I strongly dislike the hate mail one tends to receive. PLEASE bear in mind that this posting is ONLY concerned with the (ab)use of concordances and how to interpret a text. In article , mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes: > Quiz question: In all other passages, how does > Paul use the word "nature"? Hmm...we find, with the aid of any > concordance, that "nature" is used in the NT to describe one's > personal nature, which is also often termed sinful. There certainly > isn't any concept of nature as the source of moral rightness, or of > any kind of impersonal abstract "nature" which applies to everyone. Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Paul, of course, didn't use the word "nature" at all, and unless you use a GREEK concordance your word study is going to be at serious risk of misleading you. (The big NIV concordance is a splendid place to start. There are several Greek concordances keyed by English headwords.) People who just want to read the Bible and take its lessons to heart for themselves don't need all this apparatus, but people who want to teach others, and especially people who want to tell others that what they believe is wrong, ought to prepare _thoroughly_. Several different words are translated "nature" in the NIV. The one Michael I Bushnell appears to have in mind (because it is often paired with the word "sinful") is , meaning "flesh", "body". The word "form" is sometimes translated "nature", as in the reference to Jesus having the "nature" of G-d and putting on human "nature". Now the word "natural" in Romans 1 is a completely different word, "natural", and is used in Romans 1, 2 Peter 2:12, and (a related word) Jude 1:10. It means "produced by nature, according to instinct, guided by nature, inborn". "nature" is even used in the phrase "divine nature" in 2 Peter 1:4. "natural" is also used to contrast with "cultivated"/"artificial". Looking at the dictionary entry for , the conclusion seems inescapable that when Paul talks about men who "abandoned relations with women" he is implying or assuming that the inborn human instinct is to behave heterosexually. As for nature as a source of moral rightness, Romans 2:12 "... do by things required by the law" 1 Corinthians 11:14 "does not the very of things teach you that..." shows that Paul DID use the concept of natural as a source of moral information. > What to make of Romans 1? Not too tough here. There were quite a few > in the ancient world who were so lustfilled that they abandoned > *their* natural passion for ones unnatural *to them*. Paul here > doesn't say *anything* about someone whose natural passions differ > from heterosexuality. This interpretation won't fit the text, or the background. The background is the Roman world, and homosexual behaviour was _illegal_ in Roman law. Paul's thought is said to have some contact with Stoic thought, and the Stoics (such as Musonius Rufus) were quite clear that homosexual behaviour was "unnatural" (contrary to the inborn nature of all human beings). It is highly unlikely that Paul's readers would have thought that there was a category of people to whom such behaviour was , and given Paul's Jewish background, it is incredible in the extreme that he could have meant any such thing. One may of course argue that Paul was simply wrong. But let's not twist the text! -- The Marxists have merely _interpreted_ Marxism in various ways; the point, however, is to _change_ it. -- R. Hochhuth.