From: RFaussette@aol.com
Date: Mon Aug 04 2003 - 15:00:03 EDT
In a message dated 8/4/03 9:52:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
rjschn39@bellsouth.net writes:
> I've kept silent during this latest round of notes on the topic, but
> George's comment spurs me to jump in. What follows is based on my reading
> of ancient literature and studies back during my long life as a classicist.
> I think it is more than likely that Paul and contemporaries had nothing like
> our modern understanding of sexual orientation. Ancient Greco-Roman society
> was built upon the structure of the family, and every male (certainly the
> first-born) was expected to marry and provide offspring to perpetuate the
> family and the state. Since men, around 30, were married (in arranged
> unions) to women half their age, it was not uncommon for young men of the
> upper classes in Greece to established erotic relationships with other males
> to provide the emotional bonding that was impossible with respectible women
> outside of marriage, before they married; but any sexual component was
> temporary. While I find it hard to believe that there were not men and
> women who had what we call a homosexual orientation (they did not have a
> term for it) they still would have been expected to marry; while there may
> have been same-sex long term liaisons, such do not turn up in the literature
> of ancient Greece and Rome. Among the Romans, sexual activity among persons
> of the same gender appear even more temporary and more of a promiscuous than
> a bonding nature, if the literature is any indication. But one of the
> problems here is that Greek and Roman literature rarely describes life among
> the lower classes. We don't have enough of a "spread" to make clear
> decisions about it.
>
So, what you are saying is that until we know what the lower classes did, we
can't make a clear decision about it. Is that what we need to round out our
decision making - the opinion of the lower classes?
> When I read Paul's description of lustful "homosexual" behavior in
> Romans 1, I think more of the behavior of upper-class Romans at their
> orgies; in our language, heterosexuals indulging in homosexual behavior.
> Other references by Paul in Corinthians, etc., seem to me to refer to male
> prostitution. While the interpretation of these passages continue to be
> arguable (as is evident from this recent list discussion), I would contend
> that given the conditions in the pagan societies of Paul's day, I am not
> convinced that any passage referring to same-sex behavior in the NT, or the
> OT for that matter, has anything to do with the phenomenon of our day:
> public same-sex long-term, monogamous, faithful partnerships that have more
> to do with relationship than sexuality. I think the church needs to face up
> to this matter and address it in a thoughtful and charitable way, rather
> than merely condeming it.
The Catholic church has faced up to it (I posted the Papal letter on the
sanctity of marriage and homosexual unions - I didn't expect you to obey it -
just read the excellent arguments). I thought the paper was logical, thoughtful
and charitable.
And in my mind that means the church needs to
> come to terms with centuries of unhealty attitudes and practices regarding
> human sexuality as a whole, beginning with the exaltation of celibacy during
> the early period, and recurring attitudes that in some way sex is dirty and
> sex in marriage is primarily for procreation. We Christians have not done a
> good job with opposite-sex unions, let alone same-sex, and we cannot
> effectively address the latter until we finally deal adequately with the
> former.
>
Note the transition - We're talking about the Church, then we're talking
about Christians. It is Christians who have not done a good job with opposite sex
unions and are no longer doing a good job suppressing sex for sex sake. But
that's Christians, not the church.
Are you pandering to the lower classes? The exaltation of celibacy had to
with people trying to recreate the self discipline of a Jesus Christ which the
Catholic priesthood is modeled after. Not easy, but do you modify the model,
because modern flesh is weak? As far as sex being dirty, that's not a theological
term is it, or is it just the term used by the lower classes? You should not
attribute it to a church. As far as unhealthy attitudes, AIDS would not have
become the pandemic it is without... you guessed it... homosexuality. Now
that's definitionally unhealthy, but you don't hear it enough. You hear "long
term loving unions" which does not characterize most homosexual behavior.
> While I'm at it, let me comment on this sudden spate of activity to pass
> legislation to define marriage as a union of a man with a women. The
> proponents claim that the purpose of such acts is "to defend marriage."
> How, I ask, would such legislation "defend marriage"? I am puzzled and
> would appreciate any thoughts about it. Marriage needs to be defended in
> our day, but not from same-sex unions. We have an epidemic of divorce,
> broken homes, spousal abuse and the abuse of children within the marriage,
> patriarchal marriages that fail to keep Paul's dictum to "be mutually
> submissive one to another" (Eph. 5:21). There are better ways to defend
> marriage, and they need to be done on the local, church community level.
>
> >> Grace and peace,
>> Bob Schneider
>>
>>
>>
>
We have an epidemic of divorce, broken homes, spousal abuse and the abuse of
children within the marriage and ALSO rampant homosexuality and coercion of
children to that life style in the media and in our schools. That's why we have
to defend marriage, because it's no longer a monopoly and the more young men
that are attracted to a homosexual life style, the less young men to maintain
traditional families. People are being coerced into any behavior they choose,
regardless of the consequences. The Christian churches maintain the
traditional nuclear family just as the ancient Greeks, Romans and Hebrews did (although
their effete upper classes took the road to decadence like we are - except
for the Hebrews which is why they are still around).
The Episopal bishop that's gay, for example. He divorced and broke up his
home to embrace the alternative life style, didn't he? I suppose he had kids, so
fails the "be fruitful and multiply" argument and I guess the wife he left
behind should accept his "religious" choice to abandon her and cleave to another
man. Why, had she become a raving militant feminist, maybe she might have
broken up the marriage before him. I wonder how she's bearing it.
Homosexuality is part of the epidemic of the sexual revolution that was
jammed down our throats in the '60s. You can't point to the failures of individual
Christians and say because of their sins the Christian institutions should
change the religion.
rich faussette
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 15:00:53 EDT