Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Moral reasoning (was Re: draft of Identity Task Force statement) Message-ID: Date: 19 Dec 90 09:53:37 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: /home/fsf/mib/.organization Lines: 88 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: 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_. Never fear, my comments were based upon the greek words, not the English. 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". What about Galatians 4:8? "When ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods". The word nature here is . The concept of natural law was nonexistent. 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. Now look at the preposition preceding . is not properly translated "against". is used to indicate "excess" or even "more than". In virtually all its uses it is only translatable as "beyond" (KJV tranlates it as beyond in the phrase "beyond God" when referring to Christ, for example). In all the Latin translations, the passage in Romans was translated beyond ("extra naturam" or "ultra natruae") and not "contra". > 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. Not true in the least. Do you have a reference? This has been little studied, unfortunately, but there isn't actually any real reason to believe that the Romans made homosexual behavior illegal until very late in the empire. Certainly not before Constantine. 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. The fact that stoics considered homosexual behavior is irrelevant, unless you are an adherent of stoic philosophy. There were also people who understood homosexuality as normal for them, and Paul could not have been ignorant of that. One may of course argue that Paul was simply wrong. But let's not twist the text! Please. When you can look at the text *without* the intervening centuries in an honest attempt to hear what it says, then this discussion is feasable. But the claim that, for example, the Romans made gay sex illegal is simply false, and without historical justification. -mib -- Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day, mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man. CARPE DIEM / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!