Not Again !

16791112

Comments

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Can we get back to the 'gay issues' themselves, please? You're making far more of the establishment issue here than I am!!!
    Sorry, Steve, but it’s pretty near impossible for anyone to make more of the establishment issue than you do.

    Which is why it's rather worrying when somebody does. They must be uneasy about it!!
  • I look forward to watching Croesos arrive at the pearly gates and try to persuade Jesus that he "can't have meant" that marriage is a male-female thing.
    Wow.

    Consider the possibility that Jesus just might say to you, “Well you certainly missed the point.”

  • Nothing more pleasurable than fantasizing about how God is going to deal with the people with whom you disagree!

    But by tradition, isn't St. Peter supposed to be the one enforcing velvet rope discipline at the pearly gates?
  • You see, not only does the all compassionate, omniscient all loving God hate proofs, he hates people not hating poofs as well.

    And they wonder why we don't take threats of eternal divine queer-bashing seriously...
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    You might want to rethink the false claim that those who disagree with your homophobic, contrary to the Gospel nonsense are merely courting "popularity with the nation".

    Those darned scientists who insisted that the Earth and the planets went around the Sun despite the perfectly clear Scriptural indications that the Earth was at the centre of the universe. Populists, the lot of them.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I look forward to watching Croesos arrive at the pearly gates and try to persuade Jesus that he "can't have meant" that marriage is a male-female thing.
    Wow.

    Consider the possibility that Jesus just might say to you, “Well you certainly missed the point.”

    Hmmm! Thing is, if someone is an atheist or of another religion, or of one of the unitarian or liberal forms of Christianity which don't really regard Jesus as authoritative anyway, well I guess they can make what they like of the text. But if one takes seriously the notion that the Mark/Matthew text records God Incarnate commenting on his own earlier OT words, it's a bit different, at least if one is thinking God/Jesus is competent enough to actually be trusted.

    Essentially, to leave room for even the idea of a same-sex marriage, Jesus would really need to have chosen some other OT text to make his point, a text which was not so absolutely beginning to end about the male-with-female-ness of marriage. I don't know what that alternative text would be, but definitely not the one he actually used.
  • Just stop, please. I think Jesus is authoritative and to be trusted, and I think most if not all others who have posted here do as well.

    I do not, however, think you are authoritative, and I frankly think you’ve established that your reading of Mark 10, at least, is not to be trusted. Your interpretation is based heavily on assumptions that seem to have more to do with your biases and hang ups than with what is actually in the text.

    It really is tiresome that you continue to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you disagrees with Jesus or fails to take Jesus seriously.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    Jesus would really need to have chosen some other OT text to make his point, a text which was not so absolutely beginning to end about the male-with-female-ness of marriage.

    Except it isn't fucking about the male-with-femaleness of marriage. No matter how many times you claim that it is, the passage in Genesis is about CONNECTION, not gender.

    You and everybody else who starts quoting Genesis from "For this reason", and thus ignoring that the reason must have been antecedent to that statement, needs to read the bit that doesn't actually mention male and female because it provides the rationale for the male and female bit.

  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Frankly, it seems to me the reason that people insist on reading from Genesis 2:24 is that they don't want to have to explain how it's valid to describe a woman as "flesh of my flesh" but then say that a man can't possibly have the same kind of relationship with another man.

    Suddenly, if you actually bother reading Genesis 2:23 or even earlier, and you want to deny same-sex relationships, you have to simultaneously argue that difference is important while reading material that emphasises similarity.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    You've taken a passage that forbids divorce and says that humans have gender and interpreted as forbidding same-sex marriage, something not mentioned at all.

    The passage doesn't just mention in passing that "humans have gender", Croesos. Jesus centres the whole of his answer on the proposition that God created humans male and female and that that is what marriage is about. It is the joining of male and female - in a purpose-designed way literally impossible for a same-sex couple - which is given as the reason marriage shouldn't be dissolved.

    Or not dissolved except for "sexual immorality", depending on which verse you use. The interesting part of the Matthew version is that it hews to the Jewish tradition that although a woman can request a divorce, she cannot get one except with the assent of her husband. For moderns this is somewhat problematic since under most modern legal systems there is neither male nor female when it comes to divorce, though apparently such distinctions are still key under Christ Jesus. For example, if a husband is physically (but not sexually) abusive to his wife there is no recourse available to her (according to @Steve Langton) besides turning the other cheek under Christian morality. She's stuck with her abuser until one of them (probably her) dies.
    I look forward to watching Croesos arrive at the pearly gates and try to persuade Jesus that he "can't have meant" that marriage is a male-female thing.

    Oh great! Another person who says they're "look[ ing ] forward" to my death. I'm afraid you'll simply have to wait.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    You've taken a passage that forbids divorce and says that humans have gender and interpreted as forbidding same-sex marriage, something not mentioned at all.

    The passage doesn't just mention in passing that "humans have gender", Croesos. Jesus centres the whole of his answer on the proposition that God created humans male and female and that that is what marriage is about. It is the joining of male and female - in a purpose-designed way literally impossible for a same-sex couple - which is given as the reason marriage shouldn't be dissolved.

    Or not dissolved except for "sexual immorality", depending on which verse you use. The interesting part of the Matthew version is that it hews to the Jewish tradition that although a woman can request a divorce, she cannot get one except with the assent of her husband. For moderns this is somewhat problematic since under most modern legal systems there is neither male nor female when it comes to divorce, though apparently such distinctions are still key under Christ Jesus. For example, if a husband is physically (but not sexually) abusive to his wife there is no recourse available to her (according to @Steve Langton) besides turning the other cheek under Christian morality. She's stuck with her abuser until one of them (probably her) dies.
    I look forward to watching Croesos arrive at the pearly gates and try to persuade Jesus that he "can't have meant" that marriage is a male-female thing.

    Oh great! Another person who says they're "look[ ing ] forward" to my death. I'm afraid you'll simply have to wait.

    Not just your death, you notice, but your post-mortem condemnation.

    Lovely innit?
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    @Steve Langton you said:
    "The Christian view...."

    Put simply, if you think I've got it wrong, tell me what you think it should be and supply the reasoning/evidence on which your own view is based. I will listen and consider.

    <snip>

    I recall a previous occasion when Jesus' views in Mark 10 were being discussed on the Ship and a Shipmate - call them 'A' because it was a while back and I'm not sure they're still around on the 'new' Ship - came at me very aggressively with the statement "There are other interpretations".

    I said basically fine, tell me what your alternative is and what evidence proves I'm interpreting Jesus wrongly.... and I'm still waiting.

    <snip>
    I'm taking my understanding of Jesus as 'the Christian view' till somebody actually shows me I've got it wrong.

    So I posted a detailed and reasoned critique of your view, setting out why you might be misreading and misapplying the words of Jesus in Mark.

    You have made no response to that post. Now too are posting, as if no-one had criticised your interpretation of Jesus’ words in Mark, the same things again:
    The passage doesn't just mention in passing that "humans have gender", Croesos. Jesus centres the whole of his answer on the proposition that God created humans male and female and that that is what marriage is about. It is the joining of male and female - in a purpose-designed way literally impossible for a same-sex couple - which is given as the reason marriage shouldn't be dissolved. It's not merely that same-sex marriage is 'not mentioned' - more a case of marriage is so thoroughly and emphatically described as heterosexual that there is no room for the same-sex version.
    I have italicised the parts where you move from interpretation of the passage into eisegesis, adding into the text things that are not there.

    Clearly it’s your view, and your entitled to hold it, but it’s not the Christian view nor, as I have argued above, does it take scripture sufficiently seriously in its textual and historical context.
  • Jemima the 9thJemima the 9th Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    For purposes of this discussion my take on establishment is mostly pretty much the same as the rest of you - stuff like that because it's the established church it's getting noticed. And also misperceived. And it does show up the problems of being biblically loyal when the outside world is taking a different view.

    No. I disagree on so many levels.
    One, the outside world is often not taking a different view, which is why people are still bullied or sometimes beaten to death for being gay.
    Two, many people within with church support gay marriage (allowing for a sexual relationship) and consider themselves Biblically loyal. It would be really great if you’d stop with this “Biblically loyal / the Christian view” stuff. Loads of Biblically loyal Christians disagree with you. Are you suggesting they’re not Christians? BroJames posted a detailed, brilliantly argued piece about what the Mark 10 passage is about, and as he says, you’ve ignored it. Any chance you could engage with it?
    I look forward to watching Croesos arrive at the pearly gates and try to persuade Jesus that he "can't have meant" that marriage is a male-female thing.

    I’m not Croesos, obviously, but I share his view, and this is absolutely a risk I am willing to take.

    Btw, remind me where the pearly gates are mentioned in scripture? And how’s it going selling all you have and giving the money to the poor?
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Well, close on two thousand years of tradition seem pretty clear that Jesus was talking primarily about lifelong commitment. Also I seem to recall James Dunn arguing (in one of his books on the oral background to the synoptics) that Jesus was probably alluding to the effect of withdrawing protection from wives via divorce in a culture where women could be divorced (according to some Rabbis) for relatively trivial reasons (e.g. "she's not a good cook"). The gender dimension was social, not sexual. You wouldn't have wanted to be a divorced Jewish woman in 1st Century Judea. My historical reading suggests that Roman women (as citizens) had more legal rights than Jewish women.

    It's another argument about words within context, of course, but I think it has some applicability.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I look forward to watching Croesos arrive at the pearly gates and try to persuade Jesus that he "can't have meant" that marriage is a male-female thing.
    Wow.

    Consider the possibility that Jesus just might say to you, “Well you certainly missed the point.”

    Hmmm! Thing is, if someone is an atheist or of another religion, or of one of the unitarian or liberal forms of Christianity which don't really regard Jesus as authoritative anyway, well I guess they can make what they like of the text. But if one takes seriously the notion that the Mark/Matthew text records God Incarnate commenting on his own earlier OT words, it's a bit different, at least if one is thinking God/Jesus is competent enough to actually be trusted.

    Essentially, to leave room for even the idea of a same-sex marriage, Jesus would really need to have chosen some other OT text to make his point, a text which was not so absolutely beginning to end about the male-with-female-ness of marriage. I don't know what that alternative text would be, but definitely not the one he actually used.

    I, like other people on this thread, regard Jesus and the Bible as authoritative. So I treat them with respect. I try to read passages in context. I pinch the husband's commentaries if I get stuck or Google things. I ask wiser bothers and sisters. I do not present my interpretation of a passage as "the Christian view" or imply that if people disagree with it then when they arrive in Heaven they will be told their name is not on the list. IMO, what you are doing is incredibly disrespectful as you are twisting the Bible to suit AND deciding who is and isn't a Christian.

    The concept of same-sex marriage and relationships as we understand them didn't exist back then or throughout a fairly hefty portion of history. Because of the need to carry on the family line. Which is why the likes of James I got married and had children despite having male "favourites". Jesus never talked about these things because, back then they did not exist. In fact he went further, he never talked about homosexuality at all. Paul did. But there's a fairly sound historical argument that the kind of relationships he was talking about were exploitative rather than loving, equal ones.
  • "It is the joining of male and female - in a purpose-designed way literally impossible for a same-sex couple"

    Err, the passage talks about male and female becoming "one flesh". This is obviously a metaphor, as they remain two separate bodies. So you're making a leap by bringing sex in at all, let alone restricting it to the Missionary Position.
  • And the missionary position is designed by God. How many Christians believe that?
  • orfeo wrote: »
    Jesus would really need to have chosen some other OT text to make his point, a text which was not so absolutely beginning to end about the male-with-female-ness of marriage.

    Except it isn't fucking about the male-with-femaleness of marriage. No matter how many times you claim that it is, the passage in Genesis is about CONNECTION, not gender.

    You and everybody else who starts quoting Genesis from "For this reason", and thus ignoring that the reason must have been antecedent to that statement, needs to read the bit that doesn't actually mention male and female because it provides the rationale for the male and female bit.

    I'm not "start(ing) quoting Genesis from "For this reason"". For starters I'm actually quoting Jesus quoting Genesis, and I think reasonably assuming he knows what he's doing. What he does is one of two slightly different things, depending whether you take Matthew's or Mark's version (Matthew's is probably the nearest to eyewitness original).

    The 'antecedent' which provides the rationale of 'For this reason...' is the description of the creation of Eve - and it's rather hard not to see that as being about 'gender'.

    In both Matt and Mark Jesus omits that immediate predecessor, but effectively quotes the 'short version' from the previous chapter about God creating them male and female. Either way it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the gender bit is important. Either way, "For this reason...." is by Jesus directly connected to the creation as 'male and female'. Just, as I say, Jesus gives a 'short version', in Mark appearing to be a direct quote, in Matthew a longer statement but still indisputably about how God made them male and female.

    BroJames, I've not responded to your point directly because essentially I don't need to disagree with it. Only to disagree that yours and mine are an 'either/or' - to me it's 'both/and', the stuff you say but also that it is about the male-and-female creation. Yes, Barnabas62 of course Jesus is talking about 'lifelong commitment' - but very precisely in the context of the male-and-female and the special reasons for that difference.

    Out-of-time for now, no not suggesting Croesos' necessary damnation, just using the 'pearly gates' figure of speech to point up that he might have some issues to clear up.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Anyway, ‘one flesh’ is focussed on the new kinship relationship that is formed in marriage (hence the stuff about leaving father and mother)* rather than on sexual intercourse itself.

    (*That is the focus of Jesus’ usage also.)
  • Out-of-time for now, . . .
    Thus excuse for avoiding dealing with what others have said is beyond tiring.
    . . . no not suggesting Croesos' necessary damnation, just using the 'pearly gates' figure of speech to point up that he might have some issues to clear up.
    Which is a very arrogant, condescending, judgmental and self-righteous thing to do.

  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate
    edited February 2020

    Out-of-time for now, no not suggesting Croesos' necessary damnation, just using the 'pearly gates' figure of speech to point up that he might have some issues to clear up.

    I fully expect us all to have some issues to clear up. I doubt any of them are going to be about us being too supportive of the loving relationships of others. No risk of that for you, certainly.
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    edited February 2020

    Out-of-time for now, no not suggesting Croesos' necessary damnation, just using the 'pearly gates' figure of speech to point up that he might have some issues to clear up.

    I fully expect us all to have some issues to clear up. I doubt any of them are going to be about us being too supportive of the loving relationships of others. No risk of that for you, certainly.

    I'm not big on original languages in the Bible but the word in whatever language it was used for judgement in the instances where God is deciding whose name is in the book of life or similar specifically means Judgement of God / Divine Judgement. This judgement word is only used in that context. The other words used for judgement that are scattered through the Bible are more like the ones we use for things like common sense. (IIRC)

    Anyone stating what the Christian view is of x and that all those who disagree with it will be judged for it harshly is putting themselves in the place of God.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    edited February 2020
    orfeo wrote: »
    Jesus would really need to have chosen some other OT text to make his point, a text which was not so absolutely beginning to end about the male-with-female-ness of marriage.

    Except it isn't fucking about the male-with-femaleness of marriage. No matter how many times you claim that it is, the passage in Genesis is about CONNECTION, not gender.

    You and everybody else who starts quoting Genesis from "For this reason", and thus ignoring that the reason must have been antecedent to that statement, needs to read the bit that doesn't actually mention male and female because it provides the rationale for the male and female bit.

    I'm not "start(ing) quoting Genesis from "For this reason"". For starters I'm actually quoting Jesus quoting Genesis, and I think reasonably assuming he knows what he's doing. What he does is one of two slightly different things, depending whether you take Matthew's or Mark's version (Matthew's is probably the nearest to eyewitness original).

    The 'antecedent' which provides the rationale of 'For this reason...' is the description of the creation of Eve - and it's rather hard not to see that as being about 'gender'.
    No. The antecedent is the recognition by the man of the woman as ‘flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone’
    In both Matt and Mark Jesus omits that immediate predecessor, but effectively quotes the 'short version' from the previous chapter about God creating them male and female.
    No, again! Jesus is making a different point with that quotation. He is pointing out that both male and female are in the image of God, so the rabbinic debate out of which the question arises is challenged for its failure to recognise woman as being equally with man a God-created image-bearer.
    Either way it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the gender bit is important.
    The important gender point that Jesus is making is that both are made in the image of God
    Either way, "For this reason...." is by Jesus directly connected to the creation as 'male and female'.
    No. Jesus uses the two quotations to make two different points, and he doesn’t do violence to the second by bringing it into false relation with the first. Jesus doesn’t make the connection you suggest. “For this reason” refers to the importance of the marriage relationship (founded in the ‘flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone’ statement by the man - to which ‘for this reason’ refers) which is not just some random contract which can be set aside by a bit of legalese
    Just, as I say, Jesus gives a 'short version', in Mark appearing to be a direct quote, in Matthew a longer statement but still indisputably about how God made them male and female.
    The point he is making is that both are made by God, and the woman cannot simply be treated as a chattel-like adjunct to the man, but must be treated as a full person.
    BroJames, I've not responded to your point directly because essentially I don't need to disagree with it. Only to disagree that yours and mine are an 'either/or' - to me it's 'both/and', the stuff you say but also that it is about the male-and-female creation.
    For the reasons I’ve already given, the text isn’t about male-female complementarity in marriage, it’s about male-female equality before God. Making it do something it’s not intending to do is reading into it something that’s not there.
    Yes, Barnabas62 of course Jesus is talking about 'lifelong commitment' - but very precisely in the context of the male-and-female and the special reasons for that difference.
    I know you’ve directed this at Barnabas62, but no again. Jesus does not in this argument make a point of connecting the lifelong commitment to the male and female. He’s making two different points. He says nothing at all about, “the special reasons for that difference.“
    Out-of-time for now, no not suggesting Croesos' necessary damnation, just using the 'pearly gates' figure of speech to point up that he might have some issues to clear up.
    A very ill-judged use in the circumstances!
  • (I should like to be BroJames when I grow up, please.)
    And the missionary position is designed by God. How many Christians believe that?

    Presumably oral sex is off the menu too, then?
  • (I should like to be BroJames when I grow up, please.)
    And the missionary position is designed by God. How many Christians believe that?

    Presumably oral sex is off the menu too, then?

    How about as an amuse bouche?
  • The 'antecedent' which provides the rationale of 'For this reason...' is the description of the creation of Eve - and it's rather hard not to see that as being about 'gender'.

    In both Matt and Mark Jesus omits that immediate predecessor, but effectively quotes the 'short version' from the previous chapter about God creating them male and female.

    Luckily we have you around to correct Jesus' mistake and tell us what he really meant to say. By fortunate coincidence it just happens to match up with your prejudices. What are the odds? Correcting Jesus' unfortunate omissions is what's called being "biblically loyal", apparently.

    Another possibility is that Jesus said what he meant to say and left out the creation of Eve deliberately for a reason. But that would put Him at odds with @Steve Langton, His One True Prophet, and how likely is that?
    Out-of-time for now, no not suggesting Croesos' necessary damnation, just using the 'pearly gates' figure of speech to point up that he might have some issues to clear up.

    And that you "look forward" to my demise. Thank you for your honesty.
  • EliabEliab Shipmate, Purgatory Host
    Steve,

    Suppose that I'm a (male) Christian who believes that sex is only for "marriage" and I'm in a currently uncovenanted relationship with a (female) person who wants us to have a civil partnership to create and formalise our status as one household.

    Then suppose that I want to know if that civil partnership counts as "marriage" for the purpose of Christian sexual ethics. If it does, I'll defer to my future spouse's wish to be CP'd. If it doesn't, I'll have to tell her that I need us to marry if we are to have a full sexual relationship.

    Can you answer:

    a) Whether you think that's a legitimate question for a Christian pastor or teacher to give advice on; and

    b) What you think that advice should be;

    without mentioning establishment of the church or the propriety of same sex relationships?



  • (I should like to be BroJames when I grow up, please.)
    And the missionary position is designed by God. How many Christians believe that?

    Presumably oral sex is off the menu too, then?

    How about as an amuse bouche?

    Bwhahahahahahaha. I spat my tea out at that.
  • Eliab,
    From my perspective it is ' "marriage" for the purpose of Christian sexual ethics' if a couple on a desert island simply agree to have that kind of relationship and make the relevant commitment to one another. Of course in a wider society it at least helps with various complications if it's made more formal eg by a 'civil partnership'. In older understandings I believe a church wedding as such would not be necessary, but surely your fellow Christians should know and celebrate with you.

    One thing you don't mention is whether the woman in your example is herself a believer. That requires rather more care perhaps than the 'legal technicalities' of marriage. Just been listening to an interesting item about that on NT Wright's podcast; he would suggest that at least a marriage with an unbeliever is an added strain upon the marriage, as of course it can be if the marriage already exists and either partner is converted.

    (BTW, getting as near as I dare to certain topics, though brought up in circles where the 'being unequally yoked' passage was pretty much exclusively interpreted as about marriage, I tend nowadays to think it has wider application.)
  • (I should like to be BroJames when I grow up, please.)
    And the missionary position is designed by God. How many Christians believe that?

    Presumably oral sex is off the menu too, then?

    Clearly that's not what the mouth was designed for, so it's not allowed! (I presume you're a member of the established church @Jemima the 9th, or you wouldn't even dream of asking such a question.)
  • by Croesos
    Luckily we have you around to correct Jesus' mistake and tell us what he really meant to say

    Wasn't suggesting Jesus was mistaken - just pointing out what he actually did, namely omit a full quote of the immediate preceding passage about the creation of Eve, but effectively sums it up with words which are in fact from an earlier passage.

    Oh, and of course I'm not seriously '"looking forward" to your demise' in any sense of wanting it. That phrase was also part of the figure of speech involved.
  • BroJames
    For the reasons I’ve already given, the text isn’t about male-female complementarity in marriage, it’s about male-female equality before God.

    Like I said, not 'either/or' but decidedly 'both/and'.
  • BroJames
    For the reasons I’ve already given, the text isn’t about male-female complementarity in marriage, it’s about male-female equality before God.

    Like I said, not 'either/or' but decidedly 'both/and'.
    Like others have said, only “both/and” if you impose on the text what isn’t there.

  • I am increasingly reminded of the Black Knight scene in Monty Python & The Holy Grail.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    Wasn't suggesting Jesus was mistaken - just pointing out what he actually did, namely omit a full quote of the immediate preceding passage about the creation of Eve, but effectively sums it up with words which are in fact from an earlier passage.

    You're claiming that the omission was a mistake rather than a deliberate choice and that we need to add corrective words back in to get at Jesus' "true" meaning. Why not the simpler option that Jesus made a deliberate choice to portray both men and women as created in the image of God rather than claiming women are a secondary, derivative creation? Jesus had the choice of either and according to you He chose wrong.
    Oh, and of course I'm not seriously '"looking forward" to your demise' in any sense of wanting it. That phrase was also part of the figure of speech involved.

    Yes, I know. Since I'm still alive you can only "look forward" (not back) to my death in a strictly literal interpretation of the words. I took the figure of speech in its colloquial sense, that you eagerly anticipate my death. It's not the lack of clarity that's the problem but rather the sentiment expressed.
  • (I should like to be BroJames when I grow up, please.)
    And the missionary position is designed by God. How many Christians believe that?

    Presumably oral sex is off the menu too, then?

    Clearly that's not what the mouth was designed for, so it's not allowed! (I presume you're a member of the established church @Jemima the 9th, or you wouldn't even dream of asking such a question.)

    Indeed I am a member of the established church. Unequally yoked in marriage to an unbeliever though. (Tut).
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    @Steve Langton here’s the Biblical text we are considering
    for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,

    ‘This at last is bone of my bones
    and flesh of my flesh;
    this one shall be called Woman,
    for out of Man this one was taken.’
    Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.
    As you can see the broader context is a suitable partner for the man. None of the other creatures is right, so God creates the woman out of the man’s own flesh and bone.

    Seeing this creature, the man declares, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh‘ and follows it with wordplay on Hebrew terms for ‘man’ and ‘woman’.

    As you can see, it is the kinship statement ‘bone of my bones… flesh of my flesh…’ which is the immediate antecedent to ‘Therefore a man leaves…’ and it is the kinship statement to which the ‘therefore’ (or in other translations ‘this is the reason’) refers.
    BroJames
    For the reasons I’ve already given, the text isn’t about male-female complementarity in marriage, it’s about male-female equality before God.

    Like I said, not 'either/or' but decidedly 'both/and'.
    No, it is not both/and. Contrary to what you assert, ‘male and female he created them’ is not about male-female complementarity in marriage. Trying to make ‘male and female he created them’ into a statement about complementarity in marriage imports into the text something that is decidedly not there - neither in Genesis 1 nor in Jesus’ use of the passage. In both cases it is about male-female full human personhood in the sight of God.

    In the original setting in Genesis the contrast is with other Ancient Near Eastern stories about the creation of human beings - specifically of women. In the Gospel, in Jesus’ use, the contrast is with the de-personalising of women in the rabbinic debate.
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I look forward to watching Croesos arrive at the pearly gates and try to persuade Jesus that he "can't have meant" that marriage is a male-female thing.
    Wow.

    Consider the possibility that Jesus just might say to you, “Well you certainly missed the point.”

    Hmmm! Thing is, if someone is an atheist or of another religion, or of one of the unitarian or liberal forms of Christianity which don't really regard Jesus as authoritative anyway, well I guess they can make what they like of the text. But if one takes seriously the notion that the Mark/Matthew text records God Incarnate commenting on his own earlier OT words, it's a bit different, at least if one is thinking God/Jesus is competent enough to actually be trusted.

    Essentially, to leave room for even the idea of a same-sex marriage, Jesus would really need to have chosen some other OT text to make his point, a text which was not so absolutely beginning to end about the male-with-female-ness of marriage. I don't know what that alternative text would be, but definitely not the one he actually used.

    I, like other people on this thread, regard Jesus and the Bible as authoritative. So I treat them with respect. I try to read passages in context. I pinch the husband's commentaries if I get stuck or Google things. I ask wiser bothers and sisters. I do not present my interpretation of a passage as "the Christian view" or imply that if people disagree with it then when they arrive in Heaven they will be told their name is not on the list. IMO, what you are doing is incredibly disrespectful as you are twisting the Bible to suit AND deciding who is and isn't a Christian.

    The concept of same-sex marriage and relationships as we understand them didn't exist back then or throughout a fairly hefty portion of history. Because of the need to carry on the family line. Which is why the likes of James I got married and had children despite having male "favourites".

    1. Jesus never talked about these things because, back then they did not exist. In fact he went further, he never talked about homosexuality at all.

    2. Paul did. But there's a fairly sound historical argument that the kind of relationships he was talking about were exploitative rather than loving, equal ones.


    1. They did exist - at least that's what some supporters of SSM would claim.
    2. There's an argument that claims these relationships were exploitative. There's other arguments that lay claim to a prohibition of all relationships for all time.

    In one sense, knowing Paul's habit of naming people for their sins elsewhere in his letters, I am surprised that he didn't call out specific people living in exploitative same sex relationships. It seems strange and does tend to suggest to me that he meant all same sex relationships were to be considered inappropriate.
  • In one sense, knowing Paul's habit of naming people for their sins elsewhere in his letters, I am surprised that he didn't call out specific people living in exploitative same sex relationships.

    Is this a habit of Paul's? I don't think he calls out any specific individuals for lawsuits between believers or improper head covering during worship.
  • ExclamationMarkExclamationMark Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    Crœsos wrote: »
    In one sense, knowing Paul's habit of naming people for their sins elsewhere in his letters, I am surprised that he didn't call out specific people living in exploitative same sex relationships.

    Is this a habit of Paul's? I don't think he calls out any specific individuals for lawsuits between believers or improper head covering during worship.

    Too many of them perhaps? He does mention those who have done harm to the Ministry as well as those he wants to thank for specific support.

    It's easy to argue any pov from a position of silence I grant you that but that applies to all perspectives on this and on many other issues.
  • In one sense, knowing Paul's habit of naming people for their sins elsewhere in his letters, I am surprised that he didn't call out specific people living in exploitative same sex relationships. It seems strange and does tend to suggest to me that he meant all same sex relationships were to be considered inappropriate.
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Is this a habit of Paul's? I don't think he calls out any specific individuals for lawsuits between believers or improper head covering during worship.
    Too many of them perhaps? He does mention those who have done harm to the Ministry as well as those he wants to thank for specific support.

    It's easy to argue any pov from a position of silence I grant you that but that applies to all perspectives on this and on many other issues.

    Using your earlier reasoning, does this mean that doing harm to the ministry is not a universal prohibition but only forbidden in the specific cases Paul mentions? To put your argument in logical terms:
    • Paul did not name and shame specific people in same sex relationships, therefore his stance was against all same sex relationships
    • Paul did name and shame specific people "who have done harm to the Ministry", ergo harming the ministry is not something he universally opposes

    To me it seems like deriving a causality where not exists, but YMMV.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    In one sense, knowing Paul's habit of naming people for their sins elsewhere in his letters, I am surprised that he didn't call out specific people living in exploitative same sex relationships. It seems strange and does tend to suggest to me that he meant all same sex relationships were to be considered inappropriate.
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Is this a habit of Paul's? I don't think he calls out any specific individuals for lawsuits between believers or improper head covering during worship.
    Too many of them perhaps? He does mention those who have done harm to the Ministry as well as those he wants to thank for specific support.

    It's easy to argue any pov from a position of silence I grant you that but that applies to all perspectives on this and on many other issues.

    Using your earlier reasoning, does this mean that doing harm to the ministry is not a universal prohibition but only forbidden in the specific cases Paul mentions? To put your argument in logical terms:
    • Paul did not name and shame specific people in same sex relationships, therefore his stance was against all same sex relationships
    • Paul did name and shame specific people "who have done harm to the Ministry", ergo harming the ministry is not something he universally opposes

    To me it seems like deriving a causality where not exists, but YMMV.
    It does seem a bit like that when said in that way I agree. I hadn't thought about it in that way before until tonight and I suppose I'm testing it out.

    The issue I do find puzzling is the claim from some authorities supportive of SSM today that same sex relationships were common in Greco Roman times against other supporters of SSM who claim that Jesus was silent on the issue because it wasn't known at the time (Tubbs repeats the latter upthread). It has a logical and internal inconsistency to my eyes.

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    I suspect that same sex relationships were relatively well known in the Hellenistic (broadly the same as Greco-Roman) world with a variety of opinions on them, but rare and/or clandestine in C1 Palestine.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    My understanding is that while a lot of men had sex with male slaves and prostitutes (often under what is now the age of consent) there were few examples of mutual lifelong commitment between peers.
  • My guess is that St Paul knew very little about same-sex relationships but what he (thought he) knew he didn't like.
  • BroJames and Dafyd thanks for your reply. We may "suspect … relatively … broadly" (BJ) or "understand" (D) but we don't really know do we? It's a step up from an argument from silence in my book but not a huge one.

    If same sex relationships were relatively well known in the Hellenistic world then they would have been just as well known in Palestine. It was an occupied country after all.
  • ExclamationMarkExclamationMark Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    My guess is that St Paul knew very little about same-sex relationships but what he (thought he) knew he didn't like.

    I don't disagree as such but again it's guesswork to imply that Paul knew little. A multi cultural, multi lingual trader travelling across the Empire? I'd say it's pretty clear that he would be more likely to be aware than not.

    He may have been a Jew but as a Roman citizen he would have been aware of cultural issues in that community too. It's not as if he couldn't read Greek either …. it seems as if he knew enough to issue his prohibition in pretty strong terms.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    The issue I do find puzzling is the claim from some authorities supportive of SSM today that same sex relationships were common in Greco Roman times against other supporters of SSM who claim that Jesus was silent on the issue because it wasn't known at the time (Tubbs repeats the latter upthread). It has a logical and internal inconsistency to my eyes.

    Same-sex relationships ≠ same-sex marriage, especially in antiquity. Marriage was viewed as an hierarchical relationship with strictly defined gender roles. As such, there was no real desire by those in same-sex relationships to cast their partnership into this mold. ("Which one's the man/woman?" as some would put it in the present day.) Some ancient sources viewed same sex relationships as being more inherently loving than opposite-sex ones since they were loving partnerships of equals rather than a gender-based hierarchy like ancient marriage. Other ancient sources do indeed try to cram same-sex relationships into this framework.

    Modern ideas about marriage, at least in Western culture, tend to view it less in terms of gender hierarchy and more like a loving partnership of equals. As such the institution had much more appeal to same-sex couples than one that demanded a gender-based hierarchy. It could be argued that the legal equality of women was the turning point on same-sex marriage.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    Frankly, it seems to me the reason that people insist on reading from Genesis 2:24 is that they don't want to have to explain how it's valid to describe a woman as "flesh of my flesh" but then say that a man can't possibly have the same kind of relationship with another man.

    Suddenly, if you actually bother reading Genesis 2:23 or even earlier, and you want to deny same-sex relationships, you have to simultaneously argue that difference is important while reading material that emphasises similarity.

    So Jesus, who clearly "insist(ed) on reading from Genesis 2:24", was also getting it wrong according to orfeo???!!

    For a while I've been thinking that there was something going on here which really wasn't right, the kind of loose end which tickles the absent-minded-professory instincts of aspies like me. And for some reason I rather focussed on this passage, though I note of course that others are doing the same thing and indeed BroJames recently did it at great length.
    ...you have to simultaneously argue that difference is important while reading material that emphasises similarity.

    Well yes, in recognising Eve as "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" Adam is clearly seeing the similarity, when compared to the animals as candidates for that role!

    However, if difference is unimportant, and it's all about similarity, the logic would be - especially in this particular context - that "Adam and Steve" would indeed be just as valid as "Adam and Eve" (I suppose it might be if you're a Paul Temple fan...) That is, it would be just as good if Adam's helpmeet/flesh-of-my-flesh were a male.

    And seriously, I can see more than a few reasons why that wouldn't work, and why Steve (even me) would be monumentally unsatisfactory, and why it really really needs to be a female. And interestingly they are pretty much all the things you've all just spent millions of pixels on denying the relevance of - you know, gender, complementarity especially sexual, and oh yeah, that reproduction malarkey.....

    Some of you might want to do some rethinking....
  • Some of you might want to do some rethinking....
    But not you, of course?

Sign In or Register to comment.