Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: ALLEN@mscf.med.upenn.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Biblical Sexual Morality Message-ID: Date: 14 Mar 91 08:48:25 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 81 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In I write: >> If anyone can honestly look at their Bible and give me another >>explanation that explains why only male homosexuality and female >>homosexuality should be condemned, I will reconsider my belief that >>homosexuality is not a sin, but I'm not going to hold my breath. I did make a typo in the paragraph above. It should read "why only male homosexuality and *NOT* female homosexuality should be condemned." In article , kenns@prism.cs.orst.edu (Kenn R. Stump) writes: > For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their > women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: I knew that someone would try to use this piece of scripture. This is one example where the choice of the translation no longer accurately represents what the author was trying to say. The word meaning "nature" in Greek was used to express what we would call "custom". Passages exist where this meaning is clearer, but I do not have them at hand. This passage would more accurately be translated For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the customary use into that which is against custom. Lesbianism is still seen as a vile affection simply because it goes against custom. Part of the problem with Biblical sexual morality comes from the fact that the concept of individuality was invented in the late Middle Ages. In classical Greece, Plato talked about the Forms which were idealizations of things in the world. Plato stressed the importance of shedding as much of the real world as possible to get as close to the Forms as possible. This leads to perfectionism. With first the identification of individuality in the Middle Ages and then recognition of individual differences in the work of Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwin. With this new awareness of the individual we realize that perfection is an impossible task. The task that we should be concentrating on is INTEGRITY. This is being true to oneself, loving oneself, accepting oneself so that one can love be true to God, love God, accept God and love others. This is the point of Christ's whole message. God is the God of LOVE not punishment. God loves us as we are. We are the ones who judge ourselves as not being worthy of God's love not God who judges us as being unworthy of God's love. We separate ourselves from God, God does not separate Herself from us. If accepting our homosexuality makes us feel whole (which is a very common feeling), then God rejoices with us in that wholeness. -- Hugs, John John Allen allen@mscf.med.upenn.edu --- B4/5 f t w s(-) k r /| *\ |*\ | \o*|/ "Light is the left hand of darkness" -- U. K. LeGuin --- [I took at look at the article on physis (the word being used for nature in this passage) in Kittel. This gives a history of usage in Greek documents, in earlier contemporary Jewish documents, and in the NT. Nowhere do they identify it as customary. The range of meanings seems to be similar to our word "natural". This is particularly clear in Paul, with uses such as Rom 2:27, the Gentile are by nature the foreskin, Gal 2:15, those who are Jews by nature (i.e. by descent), Gen 4:8 bondage to things that are by nature no gods. Rom 2:14 Gentiles who do the law by nature, Eph 2:3 people who were by nature children of wrath. In none of these cases does "custom" make sense. Further it is clear from the context that Paul considers homosexuality to be more than simply a violation of custom. 1:26 talks about degrading passions, and 1:27 shameless acts. I'll let those who are more familiar with the history of philosophy than I talk about the issue of individuality. I don't think your comments on that are right either, but I based this only on a fairly general feeling that in the prophets we can see a progression from emphasis on the community to emphasis on the individual. --clh]