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?

