Lewes bonfire, and gays in the church

Originally posted by vistesd
Is there anybody's reading that you would accept if they disagree with Paul? 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.

Of course it's not incumbent on you to accept my conclusions.

I accept that some would claim that Paul had been mistranslated (although I would take a lot of convincing), but I would not accept that a modern day observer understands ancient Hebrew or Hebrew law better than Paul.

Originally posted by vistesd
[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]

Vistesd, over the years I too have read alternative interpretations of Genesis 19.

I recall a case being made that it was violation hospitality which so angered God.

I have also noted that references elsewhere to Sodom was to their sin of too much idleness. I am familar with some of these opinions. However I don't find them convincing that God was not judging the homosexual excess there.

Now, I have notice that in the law of Moses it was specifically the act of a man lying with a man for sex which was condemned. I am willing to note that the physical act was spoken about there and not the orientation. I can see that.

I can also see that the relationship of Jonathan to David has been questioned as being a Jonathan's homosexual attraction to David. There is some reason there for the suspicion I suppose.

But as the Law of Moses went after the physical act in matters of adultery and fornication Jesus' teaching did touch the inner motive which gives rise to the outward act.

Murder is now anger with the brother without cause.
Adultery is now to look upon a woman with lustful intentions.
So orientation, if not touched in the law of Moses, is touched in the New Testament.

Now a few questions for you on Genesis 19:

1.) Why did Lot say to the people outside the door - "Please, my BROTHERS, do not act so wickedly." (19:7)

Doesn't that imply he was concerned about the MALE's behavior ?

2.) Why did he offer two of his daughters instead - "I have here two daughters who have not known a man. Please, let me bring them out to you, and do to them as is fitting ..." (v.8)

While there are some things about this which astound me and I do not fully understand, it appears that the intention is that Lot would furnish for the "brothers" a more typical route of sexual release - the FEMALES.

The strong implication is - "Here, take the girls and be satisfied. But don't take these men visitors of mine."

3.) I think you have to admit that the New Testament doesn't support your revision. The strange or different flesh which Jude says the Sodomite went after should mean - physical bodies not accustomed to the use for which they would have used them.

Ie. Male with male sexual union -

"How Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, who in like manner with these gave themselves over to fornication and went after different flesh, are set forth as an example, undergoing the penalty of eternal fire." (Jude 7).

I think "different flesh" there must mean different from what would be typically and naturally expected - IE. male with female flesh.

Your case is also not helped that Paul specifically speaks of " ... males, leaving the natural use of the females, burned in their craving toward one another, MALES WITH MALES committing unseemliness ..." (Romans 1:27 my emphasis)

I think as Paul was writing Romans 1 he had opened before him the book of Genesis (either actually or conceptually). It is apparent that "male with males" committing "error" he must be deriving from his knowledge of the story of Lot in Sodom.

Your point eloquently presented, I think, doesn't hold.

Originally posted by sonship
Vistesd, over the years I too have read alternative interpretations of Genesis 19.

I recall a case being made that it was violation hospitality which so angered God.

I have also noted that references elsewhere to Sodom was to their sin of too much idleness. I am familar with some of these opinions. However I don't find them convincing that God was Sodom.

Your point eloquently presented, I think, doesn't hold.

On what you raise about Sodom, I believe I have already answered those objections pretty thoroughly. Any argument that the sin of Sodom is specifically (or even mainly) homosexuality is so weak that it can just be discounted (and you ought to know as well as anybody here that that is not the kind of strong stand I usually take on the Hebrew—and I think it might have been me that made the “hospitality” argument a couple of years back 🙂 ).

On the general issue of homosexuality in the Hebrew scriptures, I have presented an argument while conceding that reasonable counter-argument is there (though I disagree).

On St. Paul: I don’t recognize his authority, and therefore he brings no closure to the matter. With that sais, however, even with the Romans text (which is stronger than the one from Jude) why do you infer that necessarily refers to what we think of as homosexuality today?

Here is a site that makes the argument that you are wrong about Paul; I’m not sure his arguments are the strongest in the field, but they do challenge that notion of “necessary” inference when the text could refer to something else—or even some specific homosexual relations that Paul might be talking about. When someone makes reasoned arguments (as you tend to do), but is willing to say “I might be wrong (but I don’t think so)”—which you have done in the past, then I am happy at a cordial and respectful impasse. (How could I reasonably not be?)

http://www.inclusiveorthodoxy.org/ (click on the homosexuality tab and download the free PDF file)

EDIT: I would not question your sincerity, honesty, or erudition in any of this. Nevertheless, I have to say that it is the NT that makes the revision (if indeed that is there), not I as I restrict myself to the Hebrew texts.

Originally posted by divegeester
I accept that some would claim that Paul had been mistranslated (although I would take a lot of convincing), but I would not accept that a modern day observer understands ancient Hebrew or Hebrew law better than Paul.

…but I would not accept that a modern day observer understands ancient Hebrew or Hebrew law better than Paul.

Well, we simply disagree on that point.

I do think Paul is a profound Talmudist, but the Hebrew “law” (I assume you mean halakhah, and not torah here—but either way&hellip😉 seldom reaches a black and white conclusion. That is a misunderstanding (perhaps based on not understanding the Jewish conception of what is translated as “law”?).

The Hebrew “law”, while drawing from the written Torah, depends also on the Oral Torah (traditionally, also given at Sinai; there is a reference to torot, plural: torahs). The Oral Torah is evolutionary and ongoing (I am really short-cutting here); I can certainly see Paul as part of that, but it is a violation of the Judaism that Paul claims to come out of (his reference to having studied under Gamaliel) to put closure on some aspect of the “law” because Paul (or Hillel—an older contemporary of Jesus—or Akiva, who was contemporary with Paul) or any other rabbi, including those contemporary with Paul, says so. If Paul knew the rabbinical Judaism (including the “law” ) of his time, then he knew that too.

But, okay, let’s look at some of the players of that time (not modern). The following are on the question of “messiah”—but your claim is just that Paul knows Hebrew/Hebrew “law” better (at least than any “modern day observer”, presumably on any relevant issue. So, how are you going to make your argument that Paul was such a better Hebraist/Talmudist than these guys (for example) that his view ought to be accepted on that score?

—Rabbi Hillel (110 B.C.E. to 10 C.E.) said: “ Israel need not look for the advent of messiah, since Isaiah’s prophecy about him was already fulfilled in King Hezekiah.” Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, 98b. Well, either Hillel is right or Paul is right, no? I know you have faith in Paul—but tell me on what basis do you assume that Paul had a better knowledge of Hebrew and the Hebrew “law” than Hillel? How would you argue that that is what makes Paul right (not “Paul is right, so he must know better” )?

—Or here: “Rabbi Akiva was rebuked by Rabbi Jose, the Galilean, for ‘profaning the Divine Presence’ by teaching that the messiah occupies a throne alongside God. (If miracles are to be performed, God alone will perform them. The messiah’s advent will not change the course of nature.)” Tractate Hagigah, 14a.

Remember the question is not whether Paul or Akiva is right—but how Paul must be right because he understands Hebrew/Hebrew “law” better? You see what happens? You not only have to defend Paul’s conclusions based on his expertise vis-à-vis moderns, but on the whole continuing tradition. It is that tradition that modern scholars (and myself) draw on, just as Christians draw on Christian tradition (by which I would include the NT writings themselves).

Originally posted by sonship
Vistesd, over the years I too have read alternative interpretations of Genesis 19.

I recall a case being made that it was violation hospitality which so angered God.

I have also noted that references elsewhere to Sodom was to their sin of too much idleness. I am familar with some of these opinions. However I don't find them convincing that God was ...[text shortened]... Sodom.

Your point eloquently presented, I think, doesn't hold.

Jay,

On re-reading your post, I realized that I gave short-shrift to your “orientation as opposed to acting it out” points. I’m about ready to pack it in (too drawn out to think well on this anymore right now), but I suspect I might recast that in terms of loving relationships versus not . . ., something like that.

BTW: When Paul uses the terms “burning with craving” (I think it is also rendered as “burning with lust” ) do you think that is the kind of term he would use for loving heterosexual love? If not, then why assume that such terms would apply to similar homosexual love—as opposed to some other kind of “lustful” coupling?

Also, in the Jude quote: please explain the necessary linkage between “strange [or “other” ] flesh” and homosexuality.

On St. Paul: I don’t recognize his authority, and therefore he brings no closure to the matter. With that sais, however, even with the Romans text (which is stronger than the one from Jude) why do you infer that necessarily refers to what we think of as homosexuality today?

Thirteen or so of the 27 New Testament books are written by Paul.

All the believers are "saints". I do not refer to "Saint Paul" in the way you do because to be a believer in Christ is to be a saint. It is not an elite group of believers so elevated to be "St. So and so."

And it comes back to me now plainly why you and I are likely not to agree on any of these issues. I regard "brother" Paul as understanding the Old Testament to an exceedingly deep degree.

But you regard, I suppose, that you know more about the Hebrew Bible than Paul did. I could not possibly go along with you in that estimation.

Originally posted by vistesd
Jay,

On re-reading your post, I realized that I gave short-shrift to your “orientation as opposed to acting it out” points. I’m about ready to pack it in (too drawn out to think well on this anymore right now), but I suspect I might recast that in terms of loving relationships versus not . . ., something like that.

BTW: When Paul uses the terms “burn ...[text shortened]... : please explain the necessary linkage between “strange [or “other” ] flesh” and homosexuality.

BTW: When Paul uses the terms “burning with craving” (I think it is also rendered as “burning with lust” ) do you think that is the kind of term he would use for loving heterosexual love? If not, then why assume that such terms would apply to similar homosexual love—as opposed to some other kind of “lustful” coupling?

Other passages in my English version, not particularly about homosexuals, speak of "unbridled greedy lust".

Heterosexuals , of course, may be carried away by "unbridled greedy lust".

(I am reading through the comments backwards from last to first. This is probably not too good a method. But it is late).

Originally posted by stellspalfie
im still confused as to why the people on here who are calling homosexuals unnatural and therefore wrong, are not also denouncing all other unnatural human activities. why is it only homosexuals that are being singled out?

You sound like the JWs being singled out as a cult. Do you really feel singled out by this discussion?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ok well apart from the obvious issue with trying to divide the world into natural and unnatural
and then committing the naturalistic fallacy of saying that "nature good, un-nature bad"....

I have to bring you up on your reasoning the homosexuality is inherently bad from a species standpoint.

First it should be said that evolution is a messy proce ...[text shortened]... he same DNA.


This topic is comprehensively dealt with in Dawkins "The Selfish Gene".

Professing to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:22 NKJV)

Originally posted by sonship

On St. Paul: I don’t recognize his authority, and therefore he brings no closure to the matter. With that sais, however, even with the Romans text (which is stronger than the one from Jude) why do you infer that necessarily refers to what we think of as homosexuality today?

Thirteen or so of the 27 New Testament books are written by Pau e Hebrew Bible than Paul did. I could not possibly go along with you in that estimation.

And it comes back to me now plainly why you and I are likely not to agree on any of these issues. I regard "brother" Paul as understanding the Old Testament to an exceedingly deep degree. But you regard, I suppose, that you know more about the Hebrew Bible than Paul did. I could not possibly go along with you in that estimation.

I already responded to that accusation from divegeester. I can pose the counter-question—

Do you “regard” that you know more about the Hebrew Bible than Hillel did? Than Abraham Joshua Heschel did? Than present-day rabbis and scholars (some of whom I cite, here and elsewhere)? Do you “regard” that you know enough to know how Paul’s knowledge compares to theirs? Or is that something that you take on faith?

I really don’t want an answer, and I doubt that I’ll read it if posted. I would never have thought to ask them if it hadn’t been thrown at me that way. It’s too bad that a sincere attempt at debate with serious and close exegesis of the Hebrew Scriptures on my part, as well as addressing the question of appropriate inferences, as well as responding to challenges on the Sodom case—it’s too bad that the fact that I dare to disagree with what you apparently view as the Christian position, and that I do so from a non-Christian framework, means that the conversation apparently has to move so quickly to insults, rather than staying with the arguments themselves.

Or perhaps you are simply offended that a non-Christian would not assume that whatever Paul says about the Hebrew Bible and Torah generally must be right. I don’t know why you mention how many books Paul wrote; I am not making the kind of “Jesus versus Paul” argument that others on here have made.

[The reason I asked about “unbridled greedy lust” is that if that is the sin and “unseemliness”, and it can apply to heterosexuals as well, then the inference that Paul would also object to a loving homosexual relationship (but not a loving heterosexual one) is not as tight as you seem to assume thus far. You might make the case, and I won’t argue it, but I am being far less assumptive about the texts than others seem to be—I would think that that kind of close look would be welcome, even in the course of debate. Perhaps I was wrong to think that.]

I didn’t expect to “win” an argument here. But as I think I said (maybe you’ll see it if you backward far enough) I considered it a mitzvah for me to at least make the effort. I have done that. If there’s any information in it that is useful, or that you just turn over in your mind for future reference, great. But I frankly don’t think that you’re even going to pay much attention. And don’t imply that I simply dismiss the Christian scriptures without ever having considered them—you know, as do some other on here (e.g., Freaky and epiphenehas), that I worked sincerely and seriously there for years as well.

I’m sorry it ended this way, but I am not willing to play a game where snarky insinuations about how I regard myself, or what I think I know about the Hebrew Bible(aside from what I am able to demonstrate) are used as substitutes for, or are imagined to be part of, serious engagement.

Originally posted by sonship
Vistesd, over the years I too have read alternative interpretations of Genesis 19.

I recall a case being made that it was violation hospitality which so angered God.

I have also noted that references elsewhere to Sodom was to their sin of too much idleness. I am familar with some of these opinions. However I don't find them convincing that God was Sodom.

Your point eloquently presented, I think, doesn't hold.

Because of the teachings of Jesus, you state -- "Adultery is now to look upon a woman with lustful intentions."

I believe that it should be made more clear that traditionally adultry had been thought to occur when the one that was married had sexual relations with someone that he or she was not married to. So Jesus was pointing out that the adultry actually started with the man's lustful desire to have sexual relations with a woman other than his wife. I do not believe Jesus meant it was wrong to have lustful sexual desires for one's own wife or that to have lustful sexual desires for women in general before marriage is the same as adultry.

P.S. Jesus referred to this as adultry in the heart.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]…but I would not accept that a modern day observer understands ancient Hebrew or Hebrew law better than Paul.

Well, we simply disagree on that point.

I do think Paul is a profound Talmudist, but the Hebrew “law” (I assume you mean halakhah, and not torah here—but either way&hellip😉 seldom reaches a black and white conclusion. That is ...[text shortened]... as Christians draw on Christian tradition (by which I would include the NT writings themselves).[/b]

Your academic bandwidth is as always, as impressive as your determination not to allow yourself to be dragged into the bickering and banter that occurs on this site. And whilst I do like involve myself in the fun and whilst I do not claim to be an expert in Hebrew law or indeed any sort of academic, I still give considerable space to examine the opinions and beliefs I hold.

I don't consider myself to be immovable in and I do accept your broader points here that there can be more than one 'expert' on a particular subject. But as I am not an expert and as you do not (I am assuming as you have not explicitly said so) respect the spiritual authority of the scriptures, then ultimately your pitch to me is still founded on a basic platform

- i.e. that you are correct and that a contemporary of early Christianity, the apostles, a Hebrew of Hebrews and accepted expert in Hebrew law is wrong. You are comfortable in your beliefs based on your academic self assurance that the apostolic founder of Christianity worldwide to be mistaken, and you on the other hand are correct.

That is no reason for to believe you are indeed correct, and in fact I caught myself being naive in expecting you to respect Paul's academic knowledge and 1st hand contemporary experience; you not doing so does give me a little ammunition to do the same to you. In retrospect perhaps you have an strongly held opinion and you are exercising your considerable passion for academic research to prove it to be right.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]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 r ...[text shortened]... usal to help the needy from their ease and abundance, but one could list it as another specific.[/b]

The interpretive guideliness seem reasonable with the caveat that they only serve to yield a list of possible cases and that of that list, no specific case necessarily applies.

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.

You lost me here. Seems like 'acts of injustice' is overly broad. That the 'specific' in this case would be an unwillingness to share an abundance with the needy. In which case, 'rape' would not be within the list of possible (as explained above) cases. Why do you interpret the specific so broadly unlike your example from Deuteronomy?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The interpretive guideliness seem reasonable with the caveat that they only serve to yield a list of possible cases and that of that list, no specific case necessarily applies.

[b]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 cases. Why do you interpret the specific so broadly unlike your example from Deuteronomy?

[/b]Points well made, and I will take them under advisement.

Take care.

Originally posted by divegeester
Your academic bandwidth is as always, as impressive as your determination not to allow yourself to be dragged into the bickering and banter that occurs on this site. And whilst I do like involve myself in the fun and whilst I do not claim to be an expert in Hebrew law or indeed any sort of academic, I still give considerable space to examine the you are exercising your considerable passion for academic research to prove it to be right.

This is my last post here.

That is a considered and considerate reply, and I thank you. The following is not for argument, only for some explication.

There is a divide between Judaism and Christianity—especially sola scriptural Protestant Christianity. Judaism is the religion of the Dual Torah: the written Torah and the Oral Torah (which also predates the 1st century C.E.). The Oral Torah not only includes the portions written down (e.g., in the Talmuds and the Midrash: to prevent forgetting of the arguments of the ancient sages), but the methodology as well. The Oral Torah is continuing, ongoing. It includes the principle that I must engage the Torah from my own torah (my own existential condition), wrestling and challenging: this is incumbent on not just the highly learned, the scholars (whom I also draw upon), but on pretty much everyone.

The authority is in the process, as well as the text. I draw upon, say, Hillel, and grant him some scholarly authority—but I am free to question and to argue. Traditional Torah study takes the form of argument; it is dialogic—in fact, it could be said that Torah itself is dialogic. And the real Torah (of which the written Torah, and the thus-far recorded oral Torah are part) is not complete until all have brought their torot (torahs) into the dialogue.

Now, with respect, I can recognize the torah of Jesus, the torah of Paul, of James . . . as their torahs; and I can recognize them in the same way as, say, Haninah ben Dosa. But no final authority rests with them—as it does (and perhaps must) for you; and I don’t mean that as criticism, just as a recognition. The same is true of the idea of messiah (Christos in Greek, including the Septuagint: e.g. Isa 45:1)—the Jewish concept is multi-vocal (and the term refers to multiple historical personages in the Hebrew Bible); the Christian concept, as I understand it, is singular and final. Therefore, both messiah (for you, Jesus) and the scriptures represent a final authority in Christianity that they do not in Judaism. That was the basis both for my reluctance to debate over what the New Testament says (preferring to let Christians do that), and my saying that they hold no [final or conclusive] authority for me.

I knew that divide is there; I perhaps failed to pay it due attention as I focused on making my own argument, strictly from a Jewish perspective, in whose multi-vocality I also fit. I did not/do not mean to argue for my side of that divide—only from it.

Be well.