[PLUG-TALK] Credibility...

[Ronald Chmara]

On Jan 7, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Michael Robinson wrote:
> I am not a professional expert on the issue of whether or not  
> homosexual
> sex should be treated as normal by society.  I am not an expert on the
> "gay marriage" or "civil union" isuues.  However, I have pointed to  
> many
> experts from Catholic Answers and Narth.  Karl Keating, Scott Hahn,
> etcetera.

Not a single one has had reasonably respected academic credentials in  
the topics of sex, human culture, genetics, etc. They're arguing from  
theological standpoints, which is cool, for, uhm, theology, but not  
so great for domains outside their expertise.

The Catholic Church has also had... uhm....  a bit of a spotty record  
over the years on scientific issues. You might have heard about it.

> "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman," is pretty clear
> on it's condemnation of homosexual sex.

Well...., if you're a Jewish temple priest (that's the greater  
surrounding context to that phrase), it's pretty clear that shagging  
men, in the temple, is somewhat inappropriate for Jewish worship  
services. It seems that such things might, oh, disrupt the rest of  
the traditional Jewish services. Note that at the time, such  
activities were actively done in other temples, in other faiths, (sex  
and religion have had a long history together), so such a commandment  
helps to differentiate the kinds of "services" at the temple.

> "Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of  
> their
> hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies.  They exchanged the
> truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather
> than the creator, who is blessed forever.  Amen.  Therefore, God  
> handed
> them over to degrading passions.  Their females exchanged natural
> relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural
> relations with females and burned with lust for one another.  Males  
> did
> shameful things with males and thus received in their own person  
> the due
> penalty of their perversity." ( Romans 1: 24-27 New American Bible )

"Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged  
the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man  
and birds and animals and reptiles. "

That's Romans 22-23(NIV), (just prior to that passage you  quoted)  
which doesn't look so kindly on, oh..... say.... people hanging up  
crucifixes and worshipping God in the form of, oh....., a *human*  
hanging on a cross. Or, ya know, a "dove" as a symbol, or even a "fish".

You see, early Christians were kind of upset about the idea of  
worshipping god in the form of a man (or other "earthly" things), as  
that was a Gentile, pagan, custom. It wasn't until Arius's battle  
with Alexander of Alexandria, and the resulting Nicean creed/heresy,  
that Christians decided to, well, kind of ignore the issue, and  
declare that worshipping a man figure, *as* a part of God, was really  
just plain "ok".

But, moving on, what's the larger textual context of that specific  
set of phrases? This is all about the Romans, and their social and  
sexual culture in the first hundred years CE. Pretty brutal folks, to  
hear him tell it.

What should be done about this culture? Well, Paul/Saul goes on (NIV,  
again):
"They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed  
and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and  
malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant  
and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their  
parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although  
they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things  
deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but  
also approve of those who practice them."

Arrogant and boastful? (And disobey their parents, too!)

I guess that's worthy of a death sentence ("those who do such things  
deserve death") to an early  Roman?

(How about to a modern american?)

Hm. Paul/Saul was a bit of an angry man.

> The former passage condemns homosexual sex and it is in the New
> Testament.  It does not condemn homosexual feelings, it condemns
> actions.

...of the Romans.

It also condemns (with death) disobeying one's parents, and being  
arrogant (as noted).

If you spend a few years checking into the topic, you'll learn the  
Paul/Saul had a bit of an axe to grind (not that I blame him) with  
the Romans, indeed, a great deal of what currently makes up the "New  
testament" focuses heavily on the destruction of the Romans, and  
their empire, to free the Jewish people, under the guidance of their  
new messiah.

-Bop