- Chanel Patent Red Ballerina Flats
- Chloe Deep Coffee Handbag
- Christian Louboutin Red Metallic Simple Pumps
- Bally Patent Patent Red Jana Tote
- Chloe Red Handbag
- Herve Leger Grey Bandage Skirt
- Gucci Blue Messenger Bag
- Hermes Blue Shoulder Bag
- Jimmy Choo Black Tassel Bag
- Louis Vuitton Suhali Leather Grey Lockit PM
- Louis Vuitton Monogram Idylle Speedy 30
- Herve Leger Orange Sleeveless Bandage Dress
- Louis Vuitton Monogram Canvas Pegase 55
- Louis Vuitton Monogram Vernis Purple Coin Purse
- Dior Homme White Low Top Sneakers
- Chanel Pink Ballerina Flats
- Louis Vuitton Damier Azur Canvas Totally GM
- Chloe Wheat Handbag
- Marc Jacobs Golden Mouse Flats
- Louis Vuitton Monogram Multicolore Eugenie Wallet
- Herve Leger Yellow Bandage Dress
- Chanel White Ballerina Flats
- Chloe Light Coffee Paddington Wallet
- Louis Vuitton Monogram Vernis Red Heart Coin Bag
- Lanvin Golden Ballerina Flats
- Alexander Wang Black Rocco Mini Duffle
- Louis Vuitton Monogram Leopard Stephen
- Givenchy Coffee Shoulder Bag
- Chanel Green Quilted Flap Bag
- Fendi Sky Blue Zucca Spy Bag
- Gucci Apricot Babouska Medium Boston Bag
- Jimmy Choo Deep Coffee Crystal Star Bag
- Givenchy Royal Blue Melancholy Tote
- Cartier Red Shopping Bag
- Loewe Yellow Handbag
- Jimmy Choo Patent Blue Zero Sandals
- Cartier Black Shopping Bag
- Marni White Handbag
- Christian Louboutin Lady Bow Slingbacks
- Gucci Yellow Cruise Joy Handbag
- Louis Vuitton Monogram Vernis White Brentwood
- Louis Vuitton Monogram Miroir Silver Speedy 30
- Cartier Red Shoulder Bag
- Manolo Blahnik Black BB
- Jimmy Choo Red Perforated Ornament Zulu Clutch
- Giuseppe Zanotti Multi Buckled Boots for Balmain
- Alexander Wang Black Donna Hobo
- Marc Jacobs Deep Coffee Keylock Shoulder Bag
- Louis Vuitton Mahina Leather Deep Coffee Lunar GM
- Dior Homme Black Loafers
Same Sex Marriage February 9. 2005
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
"Many people base their fear on the bigoted misinterpretations of the bible."
When you were studying the Hebrew language, did you look at Paul's letter to the Romans? In particular, the first chapter. I'm curious to know if that has been reinterpreted as a "hospitality" issue as well, or as something else. 1 Cor 6, too.
When you were studying the Hebrew language, did you look at Paul's letter to the Romans? In particular, the first chapter. I'm curious to know if that has been reinterpreted as a "hospitality" issue as well, or as something else. 1 Cor 6, too.
It was greek and there are revials of interpretation that bring the text of Romans which in turn helps interpret Corinthians back to its original interpretations. Romans 2:1 is the reason Paul writes Romans 1. It is a "therefore" statement like a "if p and q therefore"
Sometimes the chapter and versing system in the bible does not do the text justice. Many church scholars from the early church up until John Chrysostom do not interpret Romans 1 as anything more than what you could in fact call hospitality (the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians getting along and not claiming superiority over each other).
There are also arguments by many scholars about the meaning of the greek words used by Paul in these passages but that is for another day. In essance Pauls is not talking about modern same-sex issues but rather antient modes of interacting in the plurality of Roman pagan society.
Here is a Catholic interpretation of Romans 1
http://www.courage.org.uk/articles/Romans1.shtml
(it's late and I just got back from Utah... I hope I'm making sense)
Sometimes the chapter and versing system in the bible does not do the text justice. Many church scholars from the early church up until John Chrysostom do not interpret Romans 1 as anything more than what you could in fact call hospitality (the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians getting along and not claiming superiority over each other).
There are also arguments by many scholars about the meaning of the greek words used by Paul in these passages but that is for another day. In essance Pauls is not talking about modern same-sex issues but rather antient modes of interacting in the plurality of Roman pagan society.
Here is a Catholic interpretation of Romans 1
http://www.courage.org.uk/articles/Romans1.shtml
(it's late and I just got back from Utah... I hope I'm making sense)
I'm halfway through that page, hopefully I'll get to finish it tonight or later today. Initially: He begins by saying that Augustine found no condemnation of homosexuality other than female to male anal intercourse. "This means that no Catholic is under any obligation to read this passage as having something to do with lesbianism."
So I've put it on my to-do list to figure out where exactly Augustine makes the statement he's referring to. I'm still a bit sketchy on the suggestion that Paul was basically saying "hey, you know those pagans who do weird stuff, and ultimately become pretty vice-filled people? well take care to not become vice-filled yourself too!" But that could be how it turns out to be. That all those "weird things" are simply that, and not wrong. Does that capture the essence of the argument?
So I've put it on my to-do list to figure out where exactly Augustine makes the statement he's referring to. I'm still a bit sketchy on the suggestion that Paul was basically saying "hey, you know those pagans who do weird stuff, and ultimately become pretty vice-filled people? well take care to not become vice-filled yourself too!" But that could be how it turns out to be. That all those "weird things" are simply that, and not wrong. Does that capture the essence of the argument?

