Leviticus and Homo's

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I think there is wiggle room here for those who want to retain a gay friendly interpretation, which is that Paul draws an analogy between the Romans rejecting what is natural, which is realising that there is one true god, and instead retaining polytheism on the one hand, and on the other people rejecting what is natural sexually by engaging in same sex r ...[text shortened]... according to the nature of the individual.

There are many teleological counters of course.

That seems right. I was operating under the assumption that one arguing for the gay friendly interpretation wouldn't really bother unless they shared some of the background assumptions that typically inform doctrinal debates, like that Paul wasn't speaking in ignorance.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What about Romans 1:26?:

From Young's Literal Translation
Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature;[

It speaks of a change from "the natural use into that against nature".

I think there is a difference here between saying that some part of the anatomy is used unnaturally, and saying that somebody is acting contrary to their nature. But, I really don't care about this debate, since there is nothing wrong with homosexuality (whatever the Bible says).

Originally posted by bbarr
That seems right. I was operating under the assumption that one arguing for the gay friendly interpretation wouldn't really bother unless they shared some of the background assumptions that typically inform doctrinal debates, like that Paul wasn't speaking in ignorance.

I'm not sure about the scope of that background assumption. For example, what would liberal theologians bet that Paul would have answered if asked for a value of pi?

Originally posted by bbarr
I think there is a difference here between saying that some part of the anatomy is used unnaturally, and saying that somebody is acting contrary to their nature. But, I really don't care about this debate, since there is nothing wrong with homosexuality (whatever the Bible says).

That wasn't the point, but that's okay. I don't see anything wrong with homosexuality either.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I'm not sure about the scope of that background assumption. For example, what would liberal theologians bet that Paul would have answered if asked for a value of pi?

Sure, or if asked of the chemical composition of water. But "natural" is a normative term, as far as these debates are concerned, meaning "in accord with purpose or proper function". And I doubt many theologians would be O.K. with Paul being in error about normative considerations.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
That wasn't the point, but that's okay. I don't see anything wrong with homosexuality either.

Oh, sorry, I guess I didn't follow your point.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I think there is wiggle room here for those who want to retain a gay friendly interpretation, which is that Paul draws an analogy between the Romans rejecting what is natural, which is realising that there is one true god, and instead retaining polytheism on the one hand, and on the other people rejecting what is natural sexually by engaging in same sex r ...[text shortened]... according to the nature of the individual.

There are many teleological counters of course.

I would think Paul would be familiar with most practices of the known world as he traveled quite a bit for his time...

Originally posted by bbarr
Sure, or if asked of the chemical composition of water. But "natural" is a normative term, as far as these debates are concerned, meaning "in accord with purpose or proper function". And I doubt many theologians would be O.K. with Paul being in error about normative considerations.

Which gets us back to those teleological counters, which I'm afraid are the most plausible interpretation. In order to endorse the liberal interpretation on homosexuality, I think one would have to reject the notion that 'natural' in this context refers to the purpose or proper function of sex as procreative, and assume that 'natural' is being used to mean 'in accordance with the nature of the individual'. So homosexual activity is by default construed by Paul as unnatural for any individual because he assumed that by nature, everybody is heterosexual. His ignorance is thus rendered a matter of fact rather than in error about normative issues.

Sadly, I think this isn't very credible, the most internally consistent view seems to me to be the Roman Catholic one, but I'm open to persuasion.

Originally posted by galveston75
I would think Paul would be familiar with most practices of the known world as he traveled quite a bit for his time...

Maybe he was familiar with practices, but I doubt he was familiar with the current evidence on human sexuality.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Which gets us back to those teleological counters, which I'm afraid are the most plausible interpretation. In order to endorse the liberal interpretation on homosexuality, I think one would have to reject the notion that 'natural' in this context refers to the purpose or proper function of sex as procreative, and assume that 'natural' is being used to mea ...[text shortened]... y consistent view seems to me to be the Roman Catholic one, but I'm open to persuasion.

Right. An evangelical who took this line would have to re-examine his beliefs concerning birth control and contraception, not to mention heterosexual sodomy. If they refuse, they have their own issues to deal with concerning the teleological language Paul uses.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Which gets us back to those teleological counters, which I'm afraid are the most plausible interpretation. In order to endorse the liberal interpretation on homosexuality, I think one would have to reject the notion that 'natural' in this context refers to the purpose or proper function of sex as procreative, and assume that 'natural' is being used to mea ...[text shortened]... y consistent view seems to me to be the Roman Catholic one, but I'm open to persuasion.

Sadly, I think this isn't very credible, the most internally consistent view seems to me to be the Roman Catholic one, but I'm open to persuasion.

The Catholic Church does not have any definitive interpretation of this particular passage but it is true that the Church broadly endorses natural law theory. I think however both you and Bbar give Paul far too much credit in this case. Paul does not use the word 'nature' with the same philosophical significance as Plato. In other books, he describes the practice of men wearing long hair or women not wearing veils in church as unnatural. I think it would be bizarre to suggest any teleological reading in that case since even Paul would recognise that such practices are merely conventions and even the Scriptures can count many prophets with long hair.

I think in this case 'natural use' is just a rhetorical flourish. By 'unnatural', he does not mean to convey any specific teleology (not that he would disagree with teleology -- I just don't think he has, or intended to have, that level of philosophical clarity.) What he probably meant was something hyperbolic like 'monstrous' or 'horrendous', rather than anything philosophical like 'contrary to its proper function'. He is suggesting that, in turning to polytheism and rejecting the true revelation of God, people will only descend into perverse, abnormal behaviour.

I am not sure whether this could lend itself to a more positive reading for homosexuals. Even if we concede that Paul's use of 'natural' here is only rhetorical, it is still obvious that Paul believes homosexuality at least disgusting and a sign of faithlessness to God. A Christian may argue that belief in the inerrancy in Scripture does not commit them to share all the sentiments of the authors -- that is, a Christian could agree with Paul that rejection of God leads to sin and just treat the example of homosexuality as nothing more than a rhetorical example with no doctrinal import. But that would look very much like a convenient practice of picking and choosing.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Sadly, I think this isn't very credible, the most internally consistent view seems to me to be the Roman Catholic one, but I'm open to persuasion.

The Catholic Church does not have any definitive interpretation of this particular passage but it is true that the Church broadly endorses natural law theory. I think however both you and Bbar give Paul ...[text shortened]... that would look very much like a convenient practice of picking and choosing.[/b]

This seems right, but on your last point, couldn't it be counter argued that the prohibitionist interpretation has been a convenient cherry picking exercise on the part of those who had an interest in suppressing homosexual activity? Nobody is immune from the charge of picking and choosing are they?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
That wasn't the point, but that's okay. I don't see anything wrong with homosexuality either.

you two need to get a room.🙄

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Maybe he was familiar with practices, but I doubt he was familiar with the current evidence on human sexuality.

Of course he wouldn't know the extent of how this practice would be today but he would have known it existed in the past and in his day also.
He would also be familiar with God's teaching and laws and things that God did in the past as with the destruction Sodom and Gomorrah. A clear sign of a clear warning....

Originally posted by Lord Shark
This seems right, but on your last point, couldn't it be counter argued that the prohibitionist interpretation has been a convenient cherry picking exercise on the part of those who had an interest in suppressing homosexual activity? Nobody is immune from the charge of picking and choosing are they?

Yes, and in fact, I think there are two obvious textual clues which would suggest prohibitionist have taken this out of context. Firstly, Paul is addressing the issue of paganism, which will begin his discussion of the need for faith and grace for virtue and moral life. The focus of this passage therefore is paganism, not homosexuality. He is saying 'The pagans are wicked, they even practice homosexuality' not 'Homosexuality is wicked, look the pagans practice it.' By interpreting this as a teaching on homosexuality, some Christians are losing this focus and the whole point of the passage. The passage does not explicitly say homosexuality is sinful; it is only at beast a presupposition.

Secondly, the passage is clearly exaggerated. Not all people who reject the truth of God will 'burn with lust' for members of the same sex and I suspect many Christians would also be very cautious about the suggestion that God 'delivers them over' to these affections, suggesting that God has some causal role in people's sins. Obviously this passage cannot be taken literally. Catholic exegetes traditionally interpreted it to mean that in rejecting God, people will lose the grace to persevere against moral challenges so that they commit sins such as homosexuality. Obviously no Christian could seriously say that God deliberately forms every non-Christian into a homosexual.

This passage is in no way a simple teaching on the vice of homosexuality. At best, a Christian could argue that it presupposes that homosexuality is a sin but then again, why should presuppositions be believed? Couldn't a Christian just take the central point, that rejection of God leads to sin, without endorsing Paul's assumption that homosexuality is a sin?