Originally posted by stellspalfieno there is a problem with promiscuity. So how is it not a problem again? Homosexual lifestyle brought the problems, same as did a promiscuous lifestyle. so how is it not a problem again?
if std's are at an all time high for british hetrosexuals is there a problem with hetrosexuality?
you seem to think homosexuality, anal sex and sexual health are one and the same thing. they are three separate issues.
aids in africa effects a bigger percentage of hetrosexuals than it does homosexuals in britain. does this mean hetrosexuality is a problem?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyou used the aids stats in the uk as proof homosexuality is a problem. africa has the same problem but for hetrosexuals. so before we move on you answer why in relation to the above comparisons hetrosexuality is or isnt a problem?
no there is a problem with promiscuity. So how is it not a problem again? Homosexual lifestyle brought the problems, same as did a promiscuous lifestyle. so how is it not a problem again?
Originally posted by sonship[/b]Yes. Genesis and 1st Chronicles seem to be the only places that it is used as a proper name, all pertaining to the same person. There are, by my count, 45 instances of enosh in the Tanakh altogether: the 6 Genesis references are all to the person, plus the one reference in 1st Chron.—“The basic meaning of 'enôsh is "man" in the sense of "mankind." The word can refer to an individual only in the most general sense (e.g. "blessed is the man who does this Isa 56:2) and thus lacks the specificity of 'îsh.” [From the Hebrew Lexicon in Hermeneutica BibleWorks.]
Enosh is the name of an individual man in [b]Genesis 5:9-1 you can see that this did not forbid it from being a personal name of an individual.
Originally posted by divegeesterI’m doing this one brick at a time, so to speak. As I noted before, I have not argued (yet) that homosexual behavior is in no case condemned (see my post on p. 5 here), but that the condemnations are limited and restricted, not general. I am relying on noted scholars in the field as well, and I do not assume that Paul cannot be wrong.
I think Paul of Tarsus was a fairly good reader of Hebrew (a Hebrew of Hebrews and expert in Hebrew law) and with respect probably more experienced in it than yourself; he concurs with the OT stance on homosexuality.
—Side note: Although context is important, one needs to be careful about reading from context into the case-text what really isn’t there. If Paul is reading out of the Hebrew texts only what is clearly there, then that needs to be shown from those Hebrew texts themselves, and not just assumed. There is an argument from the Christian point of view that the NT texts are “lenses” through which to properly interpret the HS—in which case, the HS are contextualized by the NT. I don’t do that, and simply accept impasse when that argument is made. But one needs to decide which way that kind of contextualization runs, and not try to have it both ways.
On the other hand, I am dealing here specifically with Genesis 19 (Sodom). From recall, I do not think that Paul said anywhere that the sin of Sodom (or even a main sin of Sodom) was homosexuality per se; but I might be wrong.
I intend to address the question of inferring from special cases to general statements (and vice versa) next, though, and will use Ezekiel 16:49 as an example that relates directly to Sodom. (I’ll get that today hopefully.)
[I think I have hit on a strategy to shortcut the larger enosh versus ish/ishah project, by a strategy of screening, but it is still a longer-run project.]
Originally posted by vistesdNot the approach I thought you might take, but interesting nonetheless. I tend to look at things from outside-in whereas this is more from inside-out.
The Hebrew the sin of the Sodomites in Genesis 19 is [b]not homosexuality or homosexual behavior.
The misconstrual comes from either ignoring the distinction of the Hebrew terms (whether through bias or not), or relying on translations that (however good they may be otherwise) use terms that, in English, do not show the distinction. The word o ng that a man should face death rather than permit his wife or daughters to be so abused.[/b]
Here are some observations:
Even if one takes 'enoshim' to be only men, the phrase 'all the people from the farthest reaches' would include women anyway.
What also needs to be considered is the reason the angels were sent in the first place which was to find ten righteous so that Sodom might be spared. All the people of Sodom would have had to have been present, i.e., including women and children, for the angels to have made that determination. In turn, what did these men, women and children want to do with the angels? From what I gather, there is some debate as to what was meant by 'know'. Furthermore the sins of Sodom that lead to their destruction were not because of whatever perceived sins that may have been committed that night. Rather it would have been the sins that were committed that led to the angels being sent in the first place.
In Ezekiel 16 God provides some detail on what those sins were:
49“Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. 50“Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it.
Note that when God details the sins, there is no mention of homosexuality. Therefore it clearly cannot one of the primary reasons. The primary reasons are highlighted in bold above. What's more, only a prejudicial interpretation of 'abominations' necessitates the inclusion of homosexuality as one of the lesser reasons. Furthermore, if any of those lesser reasons were of real consequence, then it seems reasonable to assume that they would have been detailed.
With regard to my discussion with JW which brought S&G up, the claim that the mere mention of the judgement of S&G by Jesus implies a moral judgment of homosexuality by Jesus is complete nonsense. The only way that might hold water would be if homosexuality were not only the primary reason for the judgment, but the only reason. The context in which Jesus mentions S&G only requires that the listener be familiar with the level of judgment of S&G, so that he could have a frame of reference for the higher level of judgment due others.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneGood comments. Yes, I am doing more of an inside-out analysis;* and my Ezekiel 16 analysis (almost done) does that as well. But an outside-in approach is valid too. And I think you will see that my inside-out analysis of Ezekiel (based on specific rabbinical rules for inference) will coalesce quite well with your comments on it here.
Not the approach I thought you might take, but interesting nonetheless. I tend to look at things from outside-in whereas this is more from inside-out.
Here are some observations:
Even if one takes 'enoshim' to be only men, the phrase 'all the people from the farthest reaches' would include women anyway.
What also needs to be considered is the r so that he could have a frame of reference for the higher level of judgment due others.
____________________________________
* EDIT: largely because it fits with my studies right now.
Originally posted by vistesdI'll be looking forward to reading your results.
Good comments. Yes, I am doing more of an inside-out analysis;* and my Ezekiel 16 analysis (almost done) does that as well. But an outside-in approach is valid too. And I think you will see that my inside-out analysis of Ezekiel (based on specific rabbinical rules for inference) will coalesce quite well with your comments on it here.
____________________________________
* EDIT: largely because it fits with my studies right now.
The Risks of Inference
Imagine a conversation like the following—
“Hey, I just found out from a credible source that John did something rotten!”
“Wow. I wonder what that could have been?”
“Well, did you hear about those murders in Neartown? That’s right where John lives.”
“Yeah, but that doesn’t prove—“
“You have to admit that murder’s a rotten thing.”
“Sure, but that—“
“What other rotten thing do you think John did?”
“I don’t know, but—“
“Right! You don’t know! It’s murder, that’s what it’s got to be! John’s a murderer.”
That simplistic and facetious example (one could change it to a more complex and serious one) illustrates how one can infer from a general case (something rotten) to a particular case (murder) in a way that leads to a faulty conclusion (John’s a murderer). [John may be a murderer, of course, but that does not logically follow from the fact that (a) he did something rotten, and (b) murder is a possibility, simply based on the fact that a particular series of murders occurred where he lives.]
____________________________________________________
The risk if that kind of inference is why rabbinical hermeneutics has rules and guidelines about inferring from the particular to the general (part-gen), from the general to the particular (gen-part), and more complex cases (e.g., gen-part-gen). Without such interpretive rules/guidelines, one can infer almost anything, even without citing cases. Examples—*
1. klal u-prat (gen-part): When a generality is followed by particular case(s), only those cases are included in the rule . For example, “They were immoral (general), and committed incest (particular case)”. In this example, only additional cases of specifically sexual misconduct could be inferred.
2. prat u-klal (part-gen): When particular case(s) are followed by a generalization, the rule applies to any case in the generalization, and is not limited to the mentioned cases. For example, “They practiced incest (particular case), and did other immoral things (general)”. In this case, any cases of immorality—including those acts that are not sexual in nature—can be added/inferred.
3. klal u-prat u-klal (gen-part-gen): When there is a generality, followed by particular example(s), followed by another generality, the generalization applies—but only for cases similar to (like) the specified example(s).
For example: from Deuteronomy 14:26 – “spend the money for anything that you want [auva]—oxen, sheep, wine, strong drink, or whatever your soul desires [shalekha]”. Other specifics can be added/inferred, but only if they are concretely similar to the listed specifics, i.e. food and drink.
________________________________________
The last rule would apply, for instance, to Ezekiel 16:49-50 which reads—
“Only this** was the iniquity [avon: guilt, iniquity, offense, ruin] of your sister Sodom:
Arrogance! She and her daughters had excess of food, and prosperous tranquility [shalah], but did not aid the poor and needy. They haughtily did a detestable thing [toevah] before me; therefore I swept them away, as you have seen.”***
The pattern is: Iniquity (general) => easily able but did not help the needy (particular) => detestable thing (general).
Therefore, under klal u-prat u-klal, the generality—“iniquity”, “detestable thing”—can only include inferences to things similar to the listed specific(s), in this case, acts of injustice, such as cheating with a false scale (Proverbs 11:1). That is, it can’t be just anything (any particular) that might be covered by the generalities “iniquity” and “detestable thing”, but is limited.
So, the questions are:
1. Is rape or sexual abuse (of any kind) sufficiently similar to refusal to help the needy?
2. Is homosexual orientation/behavior per se (in any kind of relationship) sufficiently similar to refusal to help the needy?
I would argue that for 1., the answer is yes: rape is an injustice. I would argue that for 2., the answer is no: a consensual homosexual relationship, for example, is not an act of injustice. Under standard rabbinical hermeneutics, one cannot conclude by inference that Sodom’s “iniquity” or “detestable act” in this text refer to homosexuality per se; but one can conclude that they refer to an act of (gross) injustice such as rape.
_____________________________________________________
* Can be found here, as well as other sites: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/10873/where-can-i-find-examples-of-r-yishmaels-13-talmudic-rules. R. Ishmael’s rules are the most commonly used, but there are other, similar, schemas.
These are not, of course, the only possible rules for such inferences; they are standard ones in rabbinical hermeneutics. But they do illustrate here how such rules can limit inferences, so that they do not become willy-nilly.
** The Hebrew demonstrative zeh; in the actual verse, it is prefixed by heneh, which is sometimes translated as “lo!” or “behold!” or “here is”—it adds to the emphasis. Even without that, “In contrast with the definite article, . . . the demonstrative adds . . . a mark of specificity and uniqueness: “this”, “precisely this”, “this and not something else”. [Betty Rojtman, “The Sense of the Demonstrative” in Black Fire on White Fire: An Essay in Jewish Hermeneutics, from Midrash to Kabbalah, University of California Press, 1998. The JPS (Jewish Publication Society) translates as “only this”, and I have followed.
*** My translation, but I also consulted others, including NRS, YLT, NJB and especially JPS—it is following the JPS that I attached arrogance to their refusal to help the needy from their ease and abundance, but one could list it as another specific.
Originally posted by vistesdDoesn't really answer the challenge that Paul was more of an expert on Hebrew law then yourself and condemns homosexuality.
I’m doing this one brick at a time, so to speak. As I noted before, I have not argued (yet) that homosexual behavior is in no case condemned (see my post on p. 5 here), but that the condemnations are limited and restricted, not general. I am relying on noted scholars in the field as well, and I do not assume that Paul cannot be wrong.
—Side note: Altho ...[text shortened]... sus ish/ishah project, by a strategy of screening, but it is still a longer-run project.]
Originally posted by divegeesterIn Conclusion
Doesn't really answer the challenge that Paul was more of an expert on Hebrew law then yourself and condemns homosexuality.
1. I argued (p. 5 of this thread, and the cite that I referenced there for extended argument) that homosexual orientation/behavior is not per se forbidden or condemned in the Torah/Tanach (the Hebrew Bible). I recognize that reasonable counter-arguments can be made from the texts, and have been.
2. I argue far more strongly (probably more strongly than I ever have from the Hebrew, which some folks who were around a few years ago might recall) that the Sodom story in Genesis 19 cannot be taken as a condemnation of homosexual orientation/behavior per se, but is a strong condemnation of rape/sexual abuse (as well as other violations that I did not focus in on). [p. 18 of this thread]
3. The conclusion in 2. is supported, albeit only peripherally, by the parallel story in Judges 19.
4. The conclusion in 2. is strongly supported by Ezekiel 16:49-50, especially—but not exclusively, as ToO’s own “outside-in” analysis shows—according to some standard rabbinical hermeneutical (interpretive) principles of inference. Further, those principles serve the purpose generally of limiting what can (and cannot) be inferred from this or that. (Again, these principles are not exclusive; and I would not argue against different inferences that are reasonably drawn.)
I noted some caveats and asides in my posts; likely I missed some that should have been noted. I want to note that I do not think that homosexuality is itself unnatural (either in orientation or behavior in consensual, committed, caring relationships). I tried here, though, to work strictly from the Hebrew texts (“inside-out”, as ToO says).
Originally posted by vistesdI accept that you are well read, that is not in question.
[b]In Conclusion
1. I argued (p. 5 of this thread, and the cite that I referenced there for extended argument) that homosexual orientation/behavior is not per se forbidden or condemned in the Torah/Tanach (the Hebrew Bible). I recognize that reasonable counter-arguments can be made from the texts, and have been.
2. I argue far more strongly (p ...[text shortened]... ips). I tried here, though, to work strictly from the Hebrew texts (“inside-out”, as ToO says).[/b]
Are you claiming that your understanding and interpretation of ancient Hebrew is better and more insightful than Paul's?
Originally posted by divegeesterThat's why I don't just make this stuff up, but also rely on scholars in Hebrew and textual analysis. I have cited some as I went along. That's why it takes me so long to do the work.
Doesn't really answer the challenge that Paul was more of an expert on Hebrew law then yourself and condemns homosexuality.
You can take Paul as an authority against all comers, of course. I did at least hint at the difficulty of inferring homosexual orientation/behavior per se from such generalites as "unnatural lust".
If you want to argue from Paul, though, it's incumbent on you to make the argument from Pauline texts, and to show that he means homsosexuality per se. It's not really incumbent on me to go searching them out.
Originally posted by divegeesterI understood that you weren't being snarky, divegeester. I don't think my understanding is better/more insightful than Paul's. I sometimes might think Paul is wrong, but I draw on scholarly sources in my studies to come to a conclusion like that.
I accept that you are well read, that is not in question.
Are you claiming that your understanding and interpretation of ancient Hebrew is better and more insightful than Paul's?
I didn't intend my last post to be snarky either; hope it didn't come out that way. I've been working on this last piece on scriptural inference since last night, with not a lot of sleep.
Originally posted by vistesdThen equally it is not incumbent on me to accept your interpretation.
That's why I don't just make this stuff up, but also rely on scholars in Hebrew and textual analysis. I have cited some as I went along. That's why it takes me so long to do the work.
You can take Paul as an authority against all comers, of course. I did at least hint at the difficulty of inferring homosexual orientation/behavior per se from such genera ality per se. It's not really incumbent on me to go searching them out.
That's a bit
A read through the book of Romans gives a clear view of Paul's thoughts on the subject and he being and expert in Hebrew law I am assuming he new what he was saying and why. The fact that some disagree with him or find his views unpalatable is irrelevant.
Originally posted by divegeesterIs there anybody's reading that you would accept if they disagree with Paul? Would you accept arguments that are well-reasoned even if drawn from someone that you might not think has Paul's knowledge, etc. (i.e, applying your own reason to the matter? I mean, there would be no sense in my doing any research on Paul--including citing other knowledgeable experts--if we're already at impasse on that issue.
Then equally it is not incumbent on me to accept your interpretation.
A read through the book of Romans gives a clear view of Paul's thoughts on the subject and he being and expert in Hebrew law I am assuming he new what he was saying and why. The fact that some disagree with him or find his views unpalatable is irrelevant.
Of course it's not incumbent on you to accept my conclusions.