tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post111421040306400916..comments2023-12-17T16:13:06.670-05:00Comments on In a Godward direction: Some Issues with Some Issues...Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-1115042146699781982005-05-02T08:55:00.000-05:002005-05-02T08:55:00.000-05:00I don't think there is any evidence that Paul woul...I don't think there is any evidence that Paul would have understood the concept of sexual orientation. So I think you are correct in how you describe Paul's reaction. Those who have a "defective" understanding of the nature of reality (i.e., the reality of God) will also have a defective understanding of nature.<BR/>It is, of course, impossible to say how Paul would react to the work of science and psychology regarding sexuality, or how he would react to a contemporary Christian explaining why he or she felt that Paul was mistaken on this matter.<BR/>So I think your explanation is a correct one: he is talking about behavior which a collapse of "common sense" and a "right view of the world" -- both of which are intrinsic to the idolatrous mindset -- leads to a collapse of "good order." He is not talking about "homosexual orientation," which is a concept he did not acknowledged.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-1115026557579295942005-05-02T04:35:00.000-05:002005-05-02T04:35:00.000-05:00"he (Paul) states that same-sex sexuality is a res..."he (Paul) states that same-sex sexuality is a result of the corruption engendered by idolatry. People who are all essentially heterosexual by nature, under the influence of the corruption caused having forsaken God for idols, have changed their natures -- they are behaving "contrary" to nature, both their own personal "nature" and "nature" as a larger construct (in which heterosexuality is the natural norm.)<BR/>This is what Saint Paul is saying; and I think it is fair to say he was in the large mistaken: idolatry is not the cause of homosexuality."<BR/><BR/>I'm confused. Are we speaking about homosexual orientation or not? If we're not dealing with orientation but with behaviour only, then couldn't we read Paul as saying that the consequence of the idolaters' idolatry was a collective position or sense that it is now OK to do these things. That is, he is not really speaking about deep inner compulsions (what we see as "orientation"), but about coming to the belief that they should have same-sex sex, and acting on that belief. Whether or not the individuals started out having exclusive physical attractions to the same sex or not, their actions and desires are now accelerated because they are freed to pursue things they may not have before.<BR/><BR/>This is where the societal context comes in, since any acts will flourish in an environment where they are welcomed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-1114382089905925632005-04-24T17:34:00.000-05:002005-04-24T17:34:00.000-05:00Yes, I agree it is unlikely Paul was familiar with...Yes, I agree it is unlikely Paul was familiar with Plato, though perhaps he may have known of the Aristophanes myth of origins from other sources. This is in part why it is all the more unlikely that Paul would have subscribed to a theory of "natural homosexual orientation." I surmise that were Paul to have been confronted with Plato (Aristophanes) on this he would simply have said, "What do you expect from idol worshipers."<BR/><BR/>The problem is that some (including N.T. Wright, point to Plato's <I>Symposium</I> as proof that "the ancients" understood and accepted the notion of an ingrained sexual orientation -- odd when there are many conservatives to this day who deny the possibility of such an orientation. Wright also shows this as proof that these ideas were "out there on the street" and Paul would have been familiar with them. (Wright advances these notions in a November 2004 interview with Stephen Crittenden.) On the contrary, Paul shows much more familiarity with the Stoics than with Plato, as you note.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-1114376680306526062005-04-24T16:04:00.000-05:002005-04-24T16:04:00.000-05:00Paul, apparently familiar with at least some of th...<I>Paul, apparently familiar with at least some of the Greek thinking, may even have been aware of Plato's (or Arisotphanes') story.</I><BR/><BR/>I think this is pretty unlikely. Plato wasn't read much that late in time. We tend to assume that Plato was the bee's knees throughout antiquity, but actually he wasn't read much at all within a generation after his death. Paul was surely aware of stoicism and possibly epicureanism, which were the dominant philosophical schools for something like six hundred years; these had longevity, but Plato did not.<BR/><BR/>(Nor was Aristophanes read; the old comedy is so Athens-specific and topical that it didn't make sense to keep it around. It's the new comedy [Menander] that lasts throughout antiquity.)<BR/><BR/>This doesn't mean that Paul couldn't have know of the myth that Aristophanes tells in the Symposium, but the evidence for it would have to come from elsewhere than the Symposium.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-1114370065973543452005-04-24T14:14:00.000-05:002005-04-24T14:14:00.000-05:00Yes, I fear this is a bit like a Bob Newhart routi...Yes, I fear this is a bit like a Bob Newhart routine! My assumption is that folks might have a copy of the original in hand to refer to. It is certainly well worth having for reference if nothing else!<BR/><BR/>To address the confusion: Gagnon, for example, tries to argue that Saint Paul knew perfectly well of "life-long committed homosexual relationships" and so he must have intended to condemn these relationships explicitly. It is hard to imagine someone involved in such a relationship without an "orientation" to it. Plato is often cited as an example that in the ancient world this opinion was available and accepted. Paul, apparently familiar with at least some of the Greek thinking, may even have been aware of Plato's (or Arisotphanes') story.<BR/><BR/>However, I think that the text of Romans 1 shows that even if Paul was aware of this notion -- that some people are naturally oriented towards persons of the same sex -- he clearly rejects it: he states that same-sex sexuality is a <I>result</I> of the corruption engendered by idolatry. People who are all essentially heterosexual by nature, under the influence of the corruption caused having forsaken God for idols, have <I>changed</I> their natures -- they are behaving "contrary" to nature, both their own personal "nature" and "nature" as a larger construct (in which heterosexuality is the natural norm.)<BR/>This is what Saint Paul is saying; and I think it is fair to say he was in the large mistaken: idolatry is not the cause of homosexuality. There were homosexual Jews in Paul's day, but he couldn't see them -- much as some leaders in Africa want to deny the presence of homosexuals in Africa (unless they are corrupted by foreign influences). One can read a lot about the "social construction" of homosexuality: some cultures can incorporate same-sex sexuality but it is not identified as such and so passes beneath the radar. Lesbianism, in particular, is almost completely invisible in the Hebrew tradition.<BR/>So, long story short, I think you are correct in stating that the Scripture does not attest to a Jewish/Christian awareness of homosexual orientation; and Paul's argument in Romans essentially contradicts the supposition that he knew about life-long committed relationships. Paul would likely not have accepted any same-sex couple, long or short term, since he did not think it was "natural" --- they had "perverted" their natures, either temporarily or permanently, to this unnatural state of life.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-1114320552400028062005-04-24T00:29:00.000-05:002005-04-24T00:29:00.000-05:00Wow. This is fascinating, Tobias . . . but rather ...Wow. This is fascinating, Tobias . . . but rather like hearing one side of a phone conversation (your notes on _Some Issues_)<BR/><BR/>This one confused me:<BR/><BR/>4.4.21 because it?s convenient now to argue that the idea that ?there was no awareness in the ancient world of the idea of homosexuality as an innate or congenital orientation,? the authors attack this straw-man. But what could all of the ?change? language that they take such pains to develop in sections 4.3.16 to 22 possibly mean ? Paul?s language of change. Change from what? If Paul did not believe that people were naturally heterosexual, why would he have all of that language of how people had changed their natures.<BR/><BR/>Are you saying that there *was* an "awareness in the ancient world of the idea of homosexuality as an innate or congenital orientation"? (As opposed to, perhaps, a metaphorical apprehension of the concept, ala in Plato's Symposium: the "2 heads, 4 arms" passage)?<BR/><BR/>I've been out and about (on-line, e.g. Thinking Anglicans site) defending an S, T, and R-affirmation of same-sex marriage, based significantly upon the idea that the Bible says *nothing* about homosexual orientation (and thus, doesn't/can't condemn persons who couple---in a marital fashion---in accord w/ their natural orientation). <BR/><BR/>If you're saying the above is INCORRECT, I want to know (before some yahoo reads your blog, and cites you to me, to make me look bad! *g*)<BR/><BR/>However, in trying to understand what you're saying is this correct? "If Paul did not believe that people were naturally heterosexual, why would he have all of that language of how people had changed their natures." Don't you mean "If Paul DID believe that people were naturally heterosexual . . ."???<BR/><BR/>I'm still reading your notes, and lovin' it---thanks for your efforts, at what was clearly an *excruciating* task!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com